US Features
Race stirs controversy in Clinton-Obama battle
Mar 13, 2008, 12:46 GMT
US Democratic Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton speaks to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce at the Ronald Reagan Center in Washington, DC, USA on 12 March 2008. EPA/MATTHEW CAVANAUGH
Washington - A top figure in the Democratic Party who has played a key role in raising money for Hillary Clinton Wednesday stepped down from the presidential campaign amidst a fracas over alleged racist remarks.
Geraldine Ferraro, the only woman to ever run for the vice presidency in 1984 and a former member of Congress, said she was stepping down to protect Senator Clinton from further attacks by Senator Barack Obama's campaign.
'The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen,' Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton published by CNN.
Race and gender are never far from the surface of the historic, hard-fought scramble for the Democratic US presidential nomination, and never more so than when Ferraro said Obama had an advantage because he was black.
Ferraro told the Daily Breeze newspaper of Torrance, California, that 'if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position' of leading in the tight race.
Obama, 46, grabbed another state primary prize Tuesday by winning Mississippi Democrats to his side. With only eight of the 50 states left to vote, the rivals are separated by only about 130 of the more than 3,000 delegates elected so far.
The nominee needs 2,025 delegates to win victory at the nominating convention in Denver, Colorado in August. Presidential elections are November 4.
Clinton said she does not agree with Ferraro's remarks, and called for both campaigns to 'stay focused on issues that matter to the American people.'
Obama dismissed the fundraiser's remarks as 'absurd' and 'ridiculous.'
'I think that if anybody was looking for the quickest path to the presidency, they would not say I want to be an African-American man named Barack Obama,' Obama told ABC news.
The fracas echoes furor in the Obama campaign after the South Carolina primary earlier this year, when Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, indicated it was only natural that Obama would win the heavily black state.
The historic Democratic presidential campaign finds Clinton and Obama trying to break sex and race barriers on their way to the White House - a watershed campaign that represents a century-long fight for sexual and racial equality in the US.
Along the way, as job barriers have fallen under the hammer of court judgements and new laws, women and ethnic minorities have often had to compete for the same liberalized job openings, at the same time fighting off charges that they got where they were because of tokenism and racial or sexual quotas.
Obama's campaign apparently interpreted Ferraro's remarks as implying the same.
In talk shows Wednesday morning, Ferraro defended her remarks, saying they had been misinterpreted by the Obama campaign.
'It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact,' she told CBS.
She noted that she was comparing Obama's campaign to her own historic campaign in 1984, when if her name had been 'Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president.'
She also defiantly told the California newspaper that any remarks criticizing Obama's campaign bring accusations 'of being racist, so you have to shut up.'
'Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?' she was quoted as saying.
In her resignation letter to Clinton, Ferraro said she was stepping down 'so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.'
Ferraro said she would not stop raising money for Clinton's presidential bid.
After a rush through 42 state campaigns since January, Obama and Clinton have a six-week lull before the next major battle for the delegate-rich state of Pennsylvania on April 22.
With so much at stake, the campaign has become increasingly sharp and personal.
Samantha Power, a Harvard University professor and top Obama advisor on foreign policy, was forced to resign from the campaign last week after calling Clinton 'a monster' in an interview with The Scotsman newspaper.
Clinton herself has suggested Obama is unfit to be commander in chief.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
It is interesting to note that Ferraro attacks Obama by bring up race and then says she is being attacked by Obama. It seems to me that Obama handled this matter very professionally. He even said that he did not think that Ferraro is prejudice.
However, anyone making the kind of statement she made shows an extreme lack of understanding about what prejudice is. Prejudice is shown exactly in statement she made. She is prejudice.
...is eating itself alive.
I really think these people are being too sensitive ,what she said was making a statement which if you think about it is true.What do these people want to be called?When I was a kid we referred to this race as Negro's then it was colored,then it was black now it is African American.I went to school with kids that were black and we all got along just great, then the change started when people like Jesse Jackcon ,Al Sharpton started to poison the young people .we have great sports stars and movie stars that are really admired.As far as I am concerned these are the people that has caused the problems we have with the race issue.It's not the race issue that bother's me about Mr. Obama.
black.......white. Those are not the issues. Our economy, illegals and the war are what they should be talking about instead of apologizing every day! This pc is crap and they are taking it too far! The previous post was a good one. What Ferraro said was true and the same goes for Hillary being there because she is female. But the truth and common sense don't matter anymore.
Want to see a real live racist? Take a look at Obamas preacher; Jeremiah Wright who has preached 'God Damn America' and that the USA deserved 9/11.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc
Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, 'The Audacity of Hope.'
Foo the next four years.
Take a look at a real racist pig:
therealrevo.com/blog/?p=594
This is Obamas spiritual adviser.
Even Sen. Obama voted against President Obama’s tax-and-spending package.
Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado made Democrats put their votes where their likely nominee’s rhetoric is.
Allard sponsored an amendment to the budget that included everyone of the $1.4 trillion in new spending — $1,400,000,000,000 — $1.4 million million — over five years that Obama has proposed on the campaign trail.
The Senate shot it down, 97-0.
Even Sen. Obama voted against President Obama.
It was just like his campaign staff assuring the Canadian government that Obama had absolutely no intention of doing what he told Ohio voters he would do on Nafta.
My Washington bureau chief noted: “The amendment offered $1.4 trillion in new spending over five years and the equivalent tax hikes required to pay for it, covering 111 proposals that cost estimates could be generated for. Obama has at least another 77 proposals that weren’t included in this amendment.”
Can we promise crap we have absolutely no intention of delivering?
YES WE CAN!
Can we fool the weak-minded?
YES WE CAN!
Can we replace the tired old Washington politics with Chicago-style politics?
YES WE CAN.
Senator Allard of Colorado engineered a clever stunt yesterday. He introduced an amendment onto a Senate bill. The amendment totaled together Obama campaign promises and asked Senators to vote on what Obama has been proposing from the campaign trail. Senator Obama was not happy about it.
Republicans yesterday forced Sen. Barack Obama to vote against what they labeled his own $1.4 trillion spending plan, cobbled together from his presidential campaign promises....[Snip]
Republicans' 'Obama spend-o-rama' amendment epitomized the day.
Sen. Wayne Allard, the Colorado Republican who is retiring after this year, offered the amendment, though as he explained on the floor to Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, 'It wasn't my idea.'
That came after Mr. Schumer, walking by his desk, was heard in the gallery telling Mr. Allard, 'You're such a...' as his voice trailed off and became unintelligible to those in the galleries surrounding the Senate floor.
Mrs. Clinton, eager to make sure her opposition was recorded, voted twice — once from the desks and, in case the clerk didn't notice, she strode into the well of the Senate to be certain.
Near the end of the allotted time, Mr. Obama, who had been in an office just off the Senate floor conferring with a group of senators who back his presidential bid, strode to the floor with those supporters and all of them voted no.
The Illinois senator looked over the chamber and demanded to know who orchestrated the stunt. Spotting Mr. Allard, he yelled to him, 'You working this hard?'
'Vote yes,' Mr. Allard shot back — though even he didn't vote for the amendment himself, drawing a rebuke from Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat: 'Did you vote against your own amendment?'
betsyspage.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-voting-against-obama.html
If you are capable of having any thoughts at all you should be by now.
Barack Obama: Crook.
It appears that Barack Obama, allegedly decent guy and agent of 'change' in Washington, requested an earmark in 2006 for $1 million taxpayer dollars for the hospital where his wife works. Said hospital, by the way, gave Michelle Obama a huge raise (nearly $200,000, more than doubling her salary) in 2005 after Barack got elected to the United States Senate. Now, I know that there are lots of ways to talk about transactions like this involving public officials - quid pro quo, etc., but I prefer to call a crook a crook and just say that we're dealing with good, old fashioned, public corruption here.
I am having an especially hard time distinguishing Obama's actions here from those of, say, Duke Cunningham, who is currently in prison. I suppose you might say that Obama injected some more efficiency into the process by eliminating the middle man, but while I'm a big fan of efficient markets, generally speaking, I happen to think that there should not be any sort of market at all for the votes of public officials.
Perhaps these silly notions of ethical propriety are what Obama intends to 'change' if he is elected President. If that's the case, I'll take the status quo, thanks. Without the quid...
redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/barack_obama_crook
AND THIS IS THE GUY YOU NOMINATED.... YOU IDIOTS.
Obama and the Minister
By RONALD KESSLER
March 14, 2008; Page A19
In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.
The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Mr. Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave the sermon at the school's Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006.
'We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,' he began. 'Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.'
Mr. Wright thundered on: 'America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.'
His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, 'We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . .'
Concluding, Mr. Wright said: 'We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . .'
Considering this view of America, it's not surprising that in December Mr. Wright's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. In the church magazine, Trumpet, Mr. Wright spoke glowingly of the Nation of Islam leader. 'His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening,' Mr. Wright said of Mr. Farrakhan. 'He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.'
After Newsmax broke the story of the award to Farrakhan on Jan. 14, Mr. Obama issued a statement. However, Mr. Obama ignored the main point: that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Mr. Farrakhan, and that Mr. Wright's church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader.
Instead, Mr. Obama said, 'I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.' Trumpet is owned and produced by Mr. Wright's church out of the church's offices, and Mr. Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor.
Meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama described Mr. Wright as being like 'an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with.' He rarely mentions the points of disagreement.
Mr. Obama went on to explain Mr. Wright's anti-Zionist statements as being rooted in his anger over the Jewish state's support for South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. As with his previous claim that his church gave the award to Mr. Farrakhan because of his work with ex-offenders, Mr. Obama appears to have made that up.
Neither the presentation of the award nor the Trumpet article about the award mentions ex-offenders, and Mr. Wright's statements denouncing Israel have not been qualified in any way. Mr. Obama nonetheless told the Jewish leaders that the award to Mr. Farrakhan 'showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community.' That is an understatement.
As for Mr. Wright's repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be 'provocative.'
Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.
Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his 'sounding board' during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.
The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller 'The Audacity of Hope' comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.
Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright's perspective, Michelle Obama's comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.
Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.
The media have largely ignored Mr. Obama's close association with Mr. Wright. This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country. Those questions deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far.
A week ago at this time, the Obama campaign was reeling from its toughest and most difficult week on the campaign trail. In the first week of March, the Goolsbee-Canada-NAFTAquiddick scandal broke; he lost Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island; one adviser said he wasn't ready for the 3 a.m. phone call; another adviser was forced to resign after calling Hillary a 'monster'; that same adviser said he might not keep his pledge on a fast withdrawal from Iraq; a third adviser said he was wrong on his FISA vote; foreign diplomats said the Democrats' NAFTA rhetoric was sending a signal that America was 'an unreliable ally'; the Rezko trial began, and Obama whined that he had already answered eight questions about his dealings with Rezko.
So this week had to be better, right?
Monday was actually something of a good day, as Eliot Spitzer managed to remind everyone of the Lewinsky scandal, and removed himself as a superdelegate for Hillary Clinton.
But also that day, the New Republic reminded us of Michelle Obama's 2004 statement that all men put themselves first, ahead of their families and God.
On Tuesday, Obama won the Democratic primary in Mississippi by 20 percentage points... and yet he was only able to add six delegates to his lead, because of the way the delegates are allocated by congressional district.
Coverage of the Tony Rezko trial continued, and the question at the heart of the complicated mess became simpler: Who is this man who helped ensure Obama could buy his Chicago mansion?
Wednesday, outrage from Obama supporters forced the resignation of Geraldine Ferraro. This may seem like a victory for Team Obama, but one wonders if Hillary's demographics - white working class voters, the elderly, and Hispanics will see the event as the dismissal of a woman for making a statement that they find pretty obvious. She may have worded it poorly, but it's hard to believe that a white politician with the same level of experience, charisma, etc., would be in the frontrunner position Obama is in, much less being touted as a symbol of racial healing.
Thursday, video of Jeremiah Wright's sermons ran on ABC News and all over the Internet; the phrase 'U.S. of KKK A' is usually one you don't want associated with a candidate's mentor.
Also Thursday, we learned that on Obama's list of earmark requests was $1 million for the hospital that employs his wife, that more than doubled her salary after he was elected to the Senate.
And today....
A prominent gay adviser to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama resigned Tuesday after reports surfaced that he wrote a blistering denunciation of rival presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton that brought up President Bill Clinton’s extra-marital affair with a White House intern.
Maxim Thorne, a member of the Obama campaign’s GLBT Leadership Council and former chief operating officer at the Human Rights Campaign, wrote that Hillary Clinton should disclose her whereabouts “when Monica was having sex with Bill.”
Well, next week has to be better, right?
I guess Obama has to hope that his fortunes will change.
posthumousluger.com/?p=27
Senator Obama:
Today, you released a statement on the Huffington Post regarding the Jeremiah Wright issue. I found the following to be the key passage:
”The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.”
However, on January 7th, 2008, journalist Ronald Kessler wrote the following, posted at Newsmax.com:
“Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate [Obama] disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
According to Wright, Obama then told him, “’You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’” But privately, Obama and his family prayed with Wright just before the presidential announcement.”
Senator Obama?
According to Wright, you did attend sermons containing his “rough content”, and you knew that Wright’s sermons might be considered objectionable to voters.
If Wright’s statement is true, than you need to explain what exactly the rough content was that you found to be objectionable enough to pull him from speaking prior to the beginning of your campaign.
I do not believe that you had never, over 20 years, heard Wright’s objectionable views in a sermon.
I think you lied today, and I don’t think it will be long before it comes to light.
None of this is about race or gender! This campaign is all about which one of these two will take this nation down into the depths of Socialism and destroy this Republic and our democratic principles. Clinton is a 'European Socialist' as she has admitted in the past and Barack Obama wants to climb in bed with our enemies for obvious reasons.
Obama wants 'change' and expresses 'hope' in his shallow rhetoric, but, his short political life has been nothing less than same old politics as usual. He does not have the experience to be commander-in-chief and in fact, he, like Clinton, dispises our military.
This is no time to gamble with the safety and security of our nation. This is no time to pander to our enemies, particularly the Islamic terrorists. This is no time to introduce America to the largest tax increase and huge federal bureucracy that will come with a universal health care program. This will be the most expensive program ever and if handled by the federal government, it will be an enormous disaster.
Anything Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama gets involved in can only result in a national disaster. No, this isn't about race and gender. It is all about the survival of this nation and America had better wake up to the realization that both Clinton and Obama are 'Empty Suits'!
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has complained that Hillary Clinton has never had to suffer from her own people saying that she is not 'white enough.'
I will here correct that oversight. The Clintons are not white enough. They are charcoal grey greasy-grinds with licentious hearts hiding behind a socialist agenda. Why a socialist agenda? Because it gives their powers, should they achieve power again, greater scope.
How's that, Reverend Wright? Do you feel better about the world now?
Now Hillary has to suffer? What about that person she's married to? That's enough suffering for anyone!
For nearly a hundred years, the democratic party has claimed to stand for equality, especially sexually and racially. That is the attribute which they claim has made them different from their opposition. And now, in one of the peculiar ironies of history, the 'annointed' candidates find themselves in a struggle against an upstart, and the first things to go are the core principles.
I think these people are all very bright, and they bring to the table skills which, in my opinion, are more designed to play with our heads than to ask us to seriously consider issues. Does anyone really think that the racial remarks emanating from the clintons or their mouthpieces are accidental?
I am witnessing a phenomemon which I have witnessed before. I am witnessing people who have learned how 'to not be prejudiced', to seemingly stand for the principles of equality as long as their own ambition is not threatened. And when their ambition is threatened, these people reveal the lack of depth of their own conviction by resorting to attacks on their opponents which have nothing to do with issues but instead focus on the color of their skin.
Had this been a one time circumstance, perhaps it could have been discounted, although I personally believe that only rarely does a genuinely honest word come out of the mouth of a professional politician. Their remarks are designed to portray themselves in the most favorable light while at the same time, casting aspersions upon their opponent. I suppose it's human nature. Some people enter politics to genuinely do some good, and others enter because of the power. Eventually, however, it seems the quest for power becomes an end in itself, overriding their convictions and especially their judgement. That's what I believe we are witnessing with the clintons. Whatever intellectual convictions they may have once held regarding the civil rights of others is the first element to be cast aside when their ambition is threatened.
How many examples of this behavior does it take before we realize that we are witnessing a particularly ugly and revealing pattern? The former president, the senator from Nebraska, the husband of the governor of New Hampshire, the governor of Pennsylvania, a former vice-presidential candidate, even the red phone ad itself, all reveal a particularly ugly and disturbing form of bigotry.
Even more disturbing is the apparent willingness of the clintons to invite the electorate to participate in the abandonment of the core principles of the democratic party, all in the name of furthering the ambition of the clintons.
As I write this I realize that some of it is personal to me. I was a fan. I was really a fan. However, gradually and over time some very unnerving questions came up for me. For a while, I tried to ignore them, or to say that 'it's just politics'. I can't ignore them any more. The clintons and their mouthpieces are asking me to violate principles which the democratic party and I have stood for my entire life. And there's no turning back. A sitting governor cannot, in 2008, offer his tacit approval and understanding for the bigotry of his electorate. He cannot give them license.
As I came to the realization that the clintons and their very talented staff of wordsmiths and image-makers were really behind what I thought was my choice, I began to explore exactly what had been said, and I began to ask myself what the candidates, the clintons, could possibly gain from those specific words. Only then did it begin to dawn on me that they were just playing with my head, that what they said was designed to evoke a response from me, a response they wanted me to get and to hold. If I held onto their calculated response, then loyalty to their candidacies were assured. I can't do it any more.
Victor Davis Hanson
Despite the serial profession of a new politics, there is something Nixonian about Obama's recent disclaimers over his racist pastor's diatribes. At first he tried to blame the messenger:
'Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor.”
The problem is not cherries, Senator, but an entire orchard. The most egregious slurs are not from two decades past, but post 9/11 and especially in 2006. And Obama should have learned from Nixon that when there is something there, it is best to get out in front of it in a manner that anticipates more disturbing revelations. Yet the modified hangout then followed;
'It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.'
This is a de facto defense of, not a distancing from, Wright, and begs the question of why? And the AIDs evocation is especially damning since the reverend has made it clear that HIV was our own creation, apparently part and parcel of some US government conspiracy. Is Obama now suggesting that Wright did important civic work with AIDS even though he promulgated a belief that the virus was fabricated by our own government? And then comes the modified modified hangout:
'But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.'
That makes it even worse, because now Obama hints that he might have been in fact aware of the Wright rhetoric, but gave him a pass because he was “on the verge of retirement,” as if the albatross were about to disappear anyway, and with it the cause of prior embarrassment. And the evocation of his marriage and his children’s baptisms in such an extremist landscape should not be cited as reasons to stay in it, but rather should have been evoked as causes why he should get out—and not have his family further tainted by it. And it goes on and on:
“And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.”
“Judgment” is the wrong word here, because the entire Wright liaison is proof positive of terrible judgment. And the problem is not judging Sen. Obama “on the basis of what someone else said”, but on the basis of his own generous subsidies to someone who spewed forth not mere speech, but hate speech.
And when Obama announces, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation,” he only will prompt investigative reporters to rush to substantiate whether the Senator was there when any of this calumny was preached, or has given a hint that he was aware of it in the past. No doubt every word he has written, interview he has given, and people he has talked with will be examined to see whether that astounding statement is in fact true. For some strange reason, Obama has now banked his entire campaign on his word and assurance that he did not hear on a single occasion any such screed.
I hope he is correct. But if one were to collate the reverend’s views on what his congregation should think of the United States, and, further, his writs against Americans as “selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant” with Michelle Obama’s own astounding statements that hitherto she had no pride in the United States, and considered America “just downright mean,' and Americans “guided by fear' and (in the words of the New Yorker profiler) who summed up her views as ‘we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents’ the echoes are eerie.
Without sounding dramatic, I think his campaign has seriously underestimated the effect of the Wright tapes on the average American voter (again, the problem is not just the transcript, but the delivery, most notably its fury and coarseness), and the senator’s own abject inability honestly and forthrightly to explain the close relationship of the Obamas to Reverend Wright, apologize for such a lapse of judgment, and move on. His advisors are culpable here, and apparently in their spin have no clue that they are making things worse rather than better.
Instead, we have heard first “cherry-picking” and then that the reverend does not represent his own views, but not a hint of contrition for an association with such a demagogue and hate-monger. I think this will not go away, and ultimately damage Obama beyond repair, for it strikes at the heart of his very candidacy—that he was a healer who has transcended racial divides, and was introducing a new credo of transparent and painfully forthright politics. The Wright scandal and his reaction thus far belie both. This was precisely why Hillary stayed in the race, and mirabile dictu, perhaps what she imagined would eventually transpire.
Whatever one’s views, this is both a travesty and a tragedy.
'For nearly a hundred years, the democratic party has claimed to stand for equality, especially sexually and racially. '
That is simply not true. The democrats were the ones who pushed segregation in the south and fought the federal government on the Jim Crow laws. It shows an alarming lack of knowledge of historical events combined with modern manipulation can be used to shape opinion. The Democrats were in the forefront of perpetuation slavery in both law and by intimidation after they lost the civil war.
'Does anyone really think that the racial remarks emanating from the clintons or their mouthpieces are accidental?'
It isn't racist to question Barack Obamas lack of qualifications. The fact that you would think that shows how seriously you have been screwed with.
' these people reveal the lack of depth of their own conviction by resorting to attacks on their opponents which have nothing to do with issues but instead focus on the color of their skin.'
It is not 'racist' to point out that Obama has been given a free ride by some precisely because of his race.
'How many examples of this behavior does it take before we realize that we are witnessing a particularly ugly and revealing pattern? '
Again, it is not racist to question Barack Obamas lack of qualifications. Indeed, it would be incredibly stupid not to. It is not racist to show his 'mentor' and 'spiritual adviser' as the bigot that he is. It is not 'racist' to bring up Obamas corrupt dealings and bribe kick-back scams with Tony Rezko or that Obamas many promises of huge entitlement programs will bankrupt the country. None of that is racist.
'even the red phone ad itself, all reveal a particularly ugly and disturbing form of bigotry.'
That is crazy.
'Even more disturbing is the apparent willingness of the clintons to invite the electorate to participate in the abandonment of the core principles of the democratic party,'
LOL, The core principals of the democratic party hinge on states rights versus the rights of the federal government. That is how they argued to continue slavery in the south. You are just out of touch.
' I was a fan'
Maybe you should use your head.
'I was really a fan.'
Maybe you should think your positions through instead of joining up ideological 'tribes' who label everyone who disagrees with them a 'racist'. Ya think?
The poor poster above grew up. He, or she, finally See's the Clintons for what they are.
Personally, I applaud the dems for saying what they said. True, it is insensitive, but that does not make the questions about Obama off limits.
Is he where he is because he's black?
Yes.
If not, why are you not voting for Edwards, a man with almost an identical track record?
You see, the dem party is divided. There are dems who truly want some of the things that they purport to want, and then there are those who are in love with the libnazi religion.
Senator Joe Lieberman is a good example. He cannot bring himself to ignore the threat in the middle east, like many in his old party.
Hillary Clinton and Obama represent the rest. They are, for all practical comparisons, identical. This is why they are neck-and-neck.
The Dem party is divided. Neither of these candidates are uniters.
Thanks of a Grateful Nation Go Out to Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright
Whether you tuned in to television, radio, or the internet in the last few days it was impossible to avoid the sight and sound of Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright.
Much has been said about Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, but what has not been fully voiced is the gratitude felt by many Americans freshly exposed to his oratory.
So, in my role as a voice for the voiceless, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright for his selfless service to the country.
Seldom in my memory has one man with one single, unwavering, and forceful train of thought done for America what Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright has done.
Almost alone in the 21st century Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright has brought back to life and given voice and face to something most of use believed was lost with the 20th century -- the stone cold stereotype of the angry, bitter, and crazy African-American.
So thank you, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright. Without your ceaseless efforts in the service of your hate, Americans of all colors and creeds might have gone to the polls this fall thinking that the change we all hoped for was at hand. It's comforting to know we can, if we wish, cast our vote to keep your sacred stereotype alive in this century.
Do not go gently into that good retirement Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright. The nation needs men of God such as yourself to keep the wounds of racism open, infected, and suppurating.
Given your new found celebrity via your disciple, Barack Obama, you'd be well advised to cash in rather than tending your garden. Please follow this plan that has worked flawlessly for dozens of America haters:
1. Call your agent. A book of your collected sermons, previously worthless, can now fetch an advance from any number of publishers of several million dollars.
2. Call top speaking bureaus. Your fee for speaking out just went from whatever donations Obama and the rest of your flock tossed in the plate to a minimum of $50,000 for an invocation at any number of conventions.
3. Be sure to set up a meeting with the heads of cable television for a prime Sunday slot or perhaps as a co-anchor with Keith Olberman.
4. Pull up some old and especially hateful sermon and email it off to the New York Times for a place on their Op-Ed page, along with a proposal that you replace that Jewish guy, Randy Cohen, their current Ethicist.
Remember that you are not selling out to the man, you are buying in.
Rant on, rant on Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright!
Be not the 'crazy uncle in the Obama attic.' Be instead the epicenter of hate!
Be the burning flame of the Obama base!
Let the writhing snakes of spite twine around your mighty arms!
Let flinty sparks of your prejudice fire the blast furnace of envy and grievance from sea to shining sea!
Be thou Obama's breastplate, his sword for the fight!
Be thou his armour and be thou his might!
Thou his soul shelter, and thou his high tower!
Know in your heart that you are doing the work of the Lord! Let your dark stereotype shine! In JESUS' name!
Can I get an Amen?
americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/thanks_of_a_gra.php
'Yees this is th President...oh, heloo senatah....Obama..right? Sum reel progress y' makin thire eh son? Gotta ad mit, yur opponents r' wettin thimselves a hole lot!'
'what?.....faith based givin?..oh yeah, ah saed that once r' twahce....well..y' knoow...people heppin one o nuthah...private char i tees an all....good PR as ol Karl would say!'
'...N' senatah...ah knooow thit crzy assed preacher o yurs has ya in a fix, but ah reeely think cumin t th whate hooouse t dee scuss faith based givin is kinda a stretch....ah meen y cin hardly look lahke a dee sciple o Jeesusah an tell folks th whate man is sum kinda demon...y knoow?' Hell, even ol Karl cin't mahke thit fly...well, he could, but he ain't gonna...Heck, we had one o thim crazy preachers in Texass once, but ol Buck Reno sent her storm troopahs down here an blew em away... a th kids too! Ah meen Jesus ceee rahst!....who knew?...kids an all...over one tiny charge...heck, ol Dick would be daed if'n they were in office now!'
'n' senatah, ah won't stand in ya way...ah din't meen we wanna bow thit preacher away eithah...well, ol Dick mabah...but he ain't prejudiced, he jes loves t cap a bitch noow an thin.......heck ya all are givin poor senatah Clinton th willies an that's jes gooood TV as far as I'm concerned, but a personal appearence with thit crahzy preacher is jes outa th question...best ree gards t yer wahfe...hope she's feelin bettah abooout America an all...an tell th Reverend Heloo whin ya see im fer me!'
why does obama continually say stupid stuff like Hillary didn't do this and she didn't do that? She didn't try to pass a bill to stop Bush because no one was voting to stop the war at that time, barrack. Why do you keep asking irrelavant questions? They didn't have the votes. Can someone explain to him how this stuff works? there is nothing he says that makes sense and frankly he reminds me of shrub - he never makes sense!
...that is one point he gets, perfectly.
Hillary greenlighted this war, when she could have opposed it. When you confront dems like her about this, she blames Bush for telling her it was those darned WMD's.
Curious that Bush can fool someone like Hilary, isn't it? After all, these same dems billed him as stupid....?
The only other possibility is that she knew he was wrong, but decided to let Bush get Saddam for them, and then use it to help them get elected in 2004.
How'd that work out?
No, this is one that Obama dodged. Now, he gets to pillory Hillary!
of disecting every little thing Obama says? Your racial colors are showing, do you think Hillary is any better than Obama? Absolutely not! She is even more corrupt, arrogant and overly aggresive. no no one cares what she did and has done, are we forgetting 'White Water?' Be fair to each candidate, Hillary plants false info and you people just run with it, can't you see she is running scared!
'Even more disturbing is the apparent willingness of the clintons to invite the electorate to participate in the abandonment of the core principles of the democratic party,'
Why is this such a surprise? The democratic party has no core principles. This is why they've never been able to be honest with the public about what they really want.
SP4 playing the partisan card again!! All polititians have a screw loose, whether they are Democrats OR Republicans!
...if this mess proves anything, it's that none of these democrats can run on what they really believe.
The Iraq war is a sterling example: First, they support the president, then, when the going gets tough, they slide out on the premise that they were fooled by, of all people, GW Bush. Never mind that they 'voted for it before they voted against it', and other such nonsense.
Pay-Go is another example: the dems decried the Bush spending for years, advocating responsibly for not passing spending without revenue sources to back it up.
All the while, they gorge themselves on earmarks and, once they get a majority in the house and senate...they pass $500 billion in unfunded farm and health insurance bills. There values lasted about 10 minutes into their so called leadership.
So, no, this is not bias, this is fact.
And the Republicans have halos of pure gold!!!! The war in Iraq was based on lies in case the memory is failing!
...the war was premised on the dems getting ol GW to get saddam for them.
Do you really think ol GW could pull the wool over that many politicians eyes?
Either ol GW managed to fool the dems, and that does not bode well for those who say they were fooled by the likes of GW Bush and are now wanting his job, or, they knew all along and had other reasons to go to war.
Pick one.
That means either Bush is smarter than the dems, or the dems got Bush to do their dirty work for them and then could blame him for it.
Pick one
The hard part is remembering ol GW probably saw this coming, and had no qualms about getting Saddam anyways, so that pretty much means that, no matter how dumb Bush is, no one can seem to tell me what he's so dumb about.
By the way, I'm not prejudiced. I have valid reasons for disliking liberalism.
When will people learn to think before they speak? A lot of those in the public eye have sure learned their lesson, but no one wants to listen.
page: 1
MartinMar 13th, 2008 - 13:02:10
When analyzing the Mississippi primary, the pundits and the media is obsessed with skin color and gender. Since Mississippi has an open primary, where republicans can vote for democrats and vice versa, I find it more interesting to look at party affiliation. Using the CNN election and exit poll data, and some simple mathematics, we then learn that Hillary Clinton received 24% of her votes from republicans, 19% from independents and a surprisingly low 57% of her votes from democrats. The same numbers for Barack Obama are 5%, 15% and 80% respectively. Among the republicans, 59% voted for McCain, 23% for Clinton, 8% for Huckabee, 8% for Obama and 2% for Paul. Among independents, 44% voted for Obama, 35% for Clinton, 14% for McCain, 4% for Huckabee and 3% for Paul. Among democrats, 69% voted for Obama, 30% for Clinton, 1% for McCain and less than 1% for Huckabee and Paul.
Maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong, and republicans like Clinton much better than Obama. Maybe republicans followed Rush Limbaugh’s recent advice to cross the isle and vote for Clinton. In either case, it was republican voters that saved Clinton from a complete disaster in the Mississippi primary
Report this comment