Thursday, May 01, 2008

If I Were Advising Obama...

Since in my fantasy Sen. Barack Obama reads this blog and heeds my advice when dispensed (see 4/29 piece), I have another suggestion for the Democratic frontrunner. As soon as he can, before next Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries in fact, Obama needs to refute the potentially damaging "elitist" charge with the same honesty and bravado as his denouncement this week of his controversial pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Here's the gist of what I'd have him say:

"Over the past couple of weeks, stemming from a speech I gave in San Francisco where I unfortunately chose some wrong words to describe the frustration I believed small town America has with the current administration, I've been accused of being an elitist. Let's get something straight: I am not an elitist, in no way shape or form. To the contrary, I embody the American dream. I am living proof that a poor, mixed race young man, raised in a broken home by a single mother, can harness his intelligence, determination and ambition to attend, on scholarship, the finest schools in the country. And after graduating, rather than grab the huge salary that was offered me by the most prestigious law firms in the nation, I instead chose a life of public service. And here I stand before you as a Democratic candidate for president of the Unites States of America. Yes, living proof that the American dream is alive and well. This is not something to be ashamed of, but instead proud. I have become what every mother and father across low-income America wishes for their child. I am a perfect example of how the system can and does work. But make no mistake: I am not an elitist. Don't let anyone, especially my opponents, who've come from wealthy or prominent military families, tell you that I am an elitist. I may have fancy degrees, but I come from where you come from. I've lived where you live. And I understand what you go through each and every day. And I have fought for you ever since I began public service, and I will continue to fight for you as president."

C'mon, Barack...get this message out there and you just might win big on Tuesday.


Anonymous said...

"Your old farts really do miss the point completely, don't they? These younger people were convinced that political involvement was useless because the the system was so broken. They came of age anywhere from the second Clinton term (Lewinsky) through the disaster of the Bush years. They have no reason to believe that politics can work, or that it is possible to effect any large scale change, so they work locally or just opt out.
This is what Obama has tapped into. The reason all those thousands of young Dems registered for the first time and voted in a primary was because he made them believe honorable politics was possible. And if someone like Obama gets chewed up by the system because the forces arrayed against him are too strong -- just look at the sworn enemies who are teaming up to bring him down, united by nothing more than a vested interest in the status quo -- then they will conclude that the system is as broken as they thought it was.
The mistake is reading this as an Obama personality cult, in which case "grow up" would be appropriate. But the Obamaniacs I meet are nothing like that...
they don't sing his praises, they sing their own. They are intoxicated by the idea of a politics where things they thought were not possible become possible, and people talk to each other like adults. They don't think he's going to fix things, they think they are.
What the old farts might want to consider is that these young people who have no particular vested interest in the current system might be seeing the rot much more clearly than the fogeys who have been entangled in it for decades. And the mature folk might want to accept that the burden of proof is on them to show why such a viscerally disgusting political game is worth playing.
Opting out of that is not immaturity, it's intelligence."

Anonymous said...


A nice, truncated version of Obama's 2004 keynote address with a bit of a dig against Clinton and McCain thrown in. Well done but I think he can pass on the dig and still get his point across.

For those who have never seen the keynote:

Anonymous said...

Aside from the fact, as Lou Dobbs pointed out, that elitism is an attitude not necessarily a position in life, Obama qualifies as an elistist on both counts: attitude and accuality.

It is a decided advantage to have a mother who has the wherewithal intellectually and financially to attain a Ph.D. Even if one only countsthe luxury of having the time it takes to get an advanced degree, it is not usually a condition open to most Americans.They need to spend time working. She did not have to work two jobs to support her family.

It is an advantage to attend and have your family pay for the best private high school in your area.

It is an advantage to attend two ivy league universities. Again, the time and the money.

It is an advantage that althouh your biological father deserted you, your mother found another man to marry and become your stepfather, take you abroad, guide you into become a Muslim, give you a Muslim name,. and send you to a private school.

It is an advantage to marry a woman who earns three hundred thousand dollars a year. You can then afford to pursue your political ambitions by doing low-paying, impressive work in the community.

Obama never had to deliver newsppaers as a child, take menial jobs to work his way through college, to fill out application after application for a job during hard economic times, -- and on and on -- you get the picture.

Not only that, all of his friends, that we know of, are elitists.

To say he chose the wrong words is meaningless. Words express ideas; they have no life alone. He didn't use the wrong words; he had the wrong ideas which he expressed openly in San Francicso. The only thing that puzzles me about the speech in S>F> is his use of the word "cling" Jeremiah used the word "cling" with exaggerated emphasis during his interview on PBS. Was Wright being sarcastic, or was he implying Obama stole/lifed/used one of his speeches in which he used the word "cling". If so, Obama would be guilty of repeating Wright's elitist ideas with which he agreed.

We don't know where Wright ends and Obama begins. But no matter; for Obama to claim to be what we know he is not, would not be helpful.

Anonymous said...

9:29 pm really misses the point as well. First in referring to others as old farts and secondly that others may and certainly have the right to other perceptions

He is right when he says they (Obama supporters) are intoxicated. More, they are in love, on a real dopamine high.

Change in this nation's politics won't come easily and it won't come by chanting, YES WE CAN. Since the supporters are going to "do it" I would pose the question, "How"?

The BO supporters need to let us know just how "they" are going to change the nation's politics. Obama is certainly off the hook, since he just has to get elected and then "they" are going to do all the work. If you want our vote, you must tell us "how"?

Anonymous said...

The odd thing is that Obama's very accomplishments and rise from humble origins are what makes him seem "elitist," to many Americans. What they really mean is "uppity," and it is basically a racist/cultural slur against him. There is a certain "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" prejudice at work in this country. People can accept the privilege of a Bush or a McCain, but when a man like Obama (or a woman like Hillary) makes good, there is resentment and yes bitterness against them. If it were just Hillary in the race, you can bet that she'd be getting all kinds of slurs as her man Bill did before her for not knowing her place. Remember, Bill was scorned and taken down by a Washington elite, salivating uber-press, and the "American public" that were so betrayed by Bill's "arrogance," and selfish sense "entitlement." How many times was he cited for the offense of having a "White Trash" taste for a heifer like Monica. If he had not grown up in a trailer park with a big haired Momma, Bill Clinton would also not have been impeached, he would have been allowed his executive dalliances and shady stock profiteering as all the fancier boys who held the office before him were. Barack is getting just what Bill (the "first Black President") got before him: The bitterness of the narrow minded mainstream of this country from poor to rich who don't like to see a people rise beyond their station. It is disgusting. I say so as an elitist who is proud of it.

Anonymous said...

12:10 You're confused. By your argument Kerry should have won because Bush "plays" at being a regular guy who appears to have gone "uppity." And since when is is humble to have a mother who has a Ph.D (that's called "elite" in our country) and be an anthropologist. Since when is it humble to attend an exlusive and very expensive high school. Since when is it humble to have the time and money as a h.s. grad to immeidately go to ivy league schools. And if Bill was considered too "uppity" how did he win the election and is adored by many now? You sound like you belong to Wright's church.By the way Wright's background is middle class too, yet now he has millions by preaching "they think we're uppity and hold us down."

And you misundrstand the Jesus' admonition to "Render unto Caesars that which ... " He meant do what you have to do like pay your taxes, and the like, but put your faith and attention to God and spiritual things. That is the very opposite of what Wright and the Black Liberation Church does. It gets involved in politics as does the Religious Right. Which indicates there is little faith in the goodness of God but only in hate and fear mongering.

Obama's origins were upper middle class. Hillary's were middle class. Bush's was elite as well as Kerry, McCain and Roosevelt. Roosevelt connected with the poor better than any president we have had.

None of that is important as far as origin is concerned. Elitism is primarily an ATTITUDE. Roosevelt was not an elitist in his heart. Obama is.

Anonymous said...

So -- Obama is called "uppity", it is said, and there's an outcry. Most Americans hate racism.

Yet, Chris Matthews said last night: If Hillary is the president, the Republicans will be like the Polish government and go into exile and hate the EVIL WOMAN in control. (Not a verbatim quote -- I didn't record his show)

This a.m. on Morning Joe he made the same Polish exile remark but left out the "evil woman" part. Evidently someone told him to, but no one has suspended him for his "evil" comments.

Mysogyny is acceptable and racism is not.

What if in this day and age, black people had been held in slavery in the Morman compound in TX as the women have been. There would have been a march on Washington. Now people just think it's "too bad." Even yesterday illegal immigrants had a demonstration for their "rights", but women continue to be mistreated without a huge outcry. That the compound is a religiion has no merit in the argument for women's rights. It is horrible to be in slavery no matter the underlying justification.

Anonymous said...

This election is basically coming down to Baby Boomers - the most destructive generation America has ever known - trying to get as much out of the Government as they possibly can before they take their celestial dirt nap.

Anonymous said...


It is quite clear that you are the one who is confused and are sadly misinformed about the facts.

1. Obama went to an "elite" high school on scholarship. This is usually applauded in our society.
2. Obama did not immediately go to "elite" Ivy League schools, his first college was Occidental - which he again attended by earning a scholarship. Again, achieving a scholarship to attend college is usually applauded in this society.
3. Obama is not and never has been a Muslim, nor was he "guided" into becoming one by his step-father.
4. Obama did not marry a woman making $300K a year so he could do community organizing. He was doing community organizing BEFORE he met Michelle. He chose to do work in community organizing despite the fact he could have taken a job with any law firm in the country or clerked with a Supreme Court justice. That's not elitist, it's admirable and usually applauded by our society.

If elitism is an attitude, why does Obama connect so well with the people of Southern Illinois who are primarily rural and white. Working class people who love and vote for him by overwhelming majorities?

If Obama was an elitist, how do you explain the Iowa farmer who on his way to the polls told me that he and his family had never met a black man before but were going to vote for Obama because they met him and believed in his message?

No, my friend, what's clear is that you are desperately hanging on to a meatless bone in order to justify your faith in a dying campaign - either that of Clinton or McCain.

The news of Mickey Kantor today is likely to explode and there will be consequences that will turn Obama's supposed "elitism" on its ear.

Anonymous said...

10:44 None of your responses are true as far as the media are concerned. He did not go to h.s. on ascholarship or to Harvard. He took out a loan as did Michelle. His step-father saw to it that he had a Muslim education. If not immediately to an "elite" school, he went to college when most poor/humble people have to work. How do we/you know what his motives are re: anything????? Rumor has it his motives have always been political. No one can know that for sure. He met Michelle at her law firm while he was a law student. It was a summer appointment for him.

We'll see how well he connects with the "clinging" poor. One admirer does not a concensus make.

I get from your remarks you work on Obama's campaign, or you live in Iowa. Maybe both. I have to say I don't know or have first-hand information. All my "facts" about him are from the national Media. I didn't make any of this up. Perhaps your campaign should print documents to prove what you say. I don't believe you at this time nor do many others. I was "for" Obama before I no longer support him.

Sidney Condorcet said...

11:14 am has no clue what he's talking about. His so-called "muslim schooling" has been debunked by your precious National Media.

For 11:14am, the national media is Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, et. al. Makes it hard to believe a word he says.

You say he went to college while poor people have to work? Is that something we should begrudge him? Going to college makes someone an elitist? Your implication that "humble" people don't go to college is absolutely apalling. There are plenty of humble Americans who are armed with associate, bachelor's and master's degrees. Your commentary absolutely stinks of outright jealosy and small-mindedness. Lord, you could certainly use some further education yourself. Go take out a loan and get back into school, buddy. Fast!!

Anonymous said...


What a crock response.

I flame your contentions with fact and your reply is the "media narrative"? What kind of defense of your remarks is that? It's the equivalent of "that's the neighborhood scuttlebutt so it must be true"! Find out the facts for yourself.

Yes, Obama did go to HS on a scholarship. Yes, he did go to college on scholarship and took out loans. His school was not paid for by his "upper middle class" grandparents.

It's clear you do not know or have first-hand information and your "facts" do not come from the National Media. No reputable media has reported that Obama's step-father trained him to be a Muslim nor have they reported that his grandparents were upper middle class or that he married Michelle who made $300K a year so he could be a community organizer.

I suggest you read his books, look at his work history, his legislative record, his website and listen to what the man himself has to say about what he wants for our country rather than some concocted bullshit story (or is Hillary to be defined by her repeated "misstatements" about being under sniper fire with her 18-year old daughter in Kosovo?). These are more likely to tell you who he is and what he's about than any other source of information.

Anonymous said...

11 14 I am so tired of reading about the hostility of the Obama supporters, (I saw Ferraro reveal the death threats she has gotten); their vulgar manners on this blog and now your attack on me, one truly trying to find out the truth in documented evidence. I am not stupid, nor gullible, nor anxious to join your flock. Thertfore I will not take your word that you are telling the truth, that your statrments are facts, that your intentions are pure. I don't accept you as necessarily credible or for that matter intelligent. You have twisted most of my remarks. Not that I could read your entire rant -- I skimmed.

What makes you think that people who read this blog believe "it" because "You" (whoever you are) say it's true. The only reliable commentator on this blog is Ostroy whom we know and can check out.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Obama had won all those scholarships. I am mighty impressed. Now I understand why he is an elitist (one who is superior). A poor, black, discriminated against , young man from a broken home won a scholarship to a superior private high school in his area, then won another scholarship to another college; won yet two more scholarships to two of the top universities in the country. And, he had a mother with an advanced degree and I think both his fathers were well-educated. The fact is HE IS SUPERIOR. He must rank in the upper one percent of high IQ's in this country. And, yet he goes out and helps the poor and oppressed at great financial sacrifice to himself. Yet another reason he is superior. Most of us are more self-centered. No wonder he feels sorry for those who want only to cling to their churches and their guns. Every aspect of his life illustrates his superiority. If he becomes president that will be a just reward for his abilities.

Tell you the truth, it seems like it will be a lot like how Abraham Lincoln who was poor and smart and had early hardships to face. Maybe Obama as president can finish the job Lincoln started and end the racial oppression. It all sounds good to me.

Anonymous said...


What a sorry, sorry perspective you have on life and achievement.

Anonymous said...

8:29 Thank you Rev. Wright for your continued message of hope, love, forgiveness and unity. You and your followers are surely "what the world needs now."

Anonymous said...

It was reported on Fox News (yes, Fox News) last night that a survey showed that 47% of black Americans think that the government spread AIDS in the black community; and, that the government has a cure but doesn't want to save the infected blacks.

Rev. Wright and I guess other preachers have this much influence and it is scary.

Anonymous said...

Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has (at least so far as this reporter and biographer has been able to determine) consistently rejected the ideological rigidity of the radical Left and -- especially -- the notion of revolutionary violence as a means of political change in contemporary America, despite claims to the contrary by the VRWC. Like Obama -- and John McCain for that matter -- she has valued her friendships with individuals who figured in the Left-wing and anti-war movements of the 60s and Vietnam era. And like Obama and McCain, she has never wavered from her belief and faith in establishment politics, within the two-party system.

But her past associations -- and her evasions about them -- may tell us much about the formation of Hillary Clinton, both as a product of her youthful time -- the sixties and seventies, when radical student movements and the anti-war movement were a hugely potent force on campus and in American politics generally -- and as a presidential candidate. The facts are fairly simple:

In the 60s, as an undergraduate at Wellesley, she exhibited an academic fascination with the Left and radicalism; rejected more extreme forms of political protest and violence as a student leader (there is no evidence I know that Obama has ever done anything but the same); wrote her senior thesis on the radical Chicago community-organizer Saul Alinsky (whose best-known philosophical mantra was, "Whatever works to get power to the people, use it."); and then, during the 1992 presidential campaign and White House years, insured that the thesis was locked up in the Wellesley archives and unavailable to reporters.

At Yale law school she embraced some leftist causes she perhaps wishes she hadn't today (the Black Panthers' claim that they couldn't get a fair trial, more about which later); worked in the most important radical law firm of the day -- Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, in Oakland, which represented the Communist Party and defended the Panthers in their murder trials; and became associate editor of an alternative law review at Yale which ran stories and pictures depicting policemen as pigs and murderers.


One of Hillary Clinton's most winning attributes -- and Bill Clinton's too -- has always been their understanding of the complexity of American politics, and the danger of ideological demagoguery (witness their fight against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and excesses). The resort by Hillary and her campaign to guilt-by-association--of which the Bill Ayers allegations are but one example: see Louis Farrakhan, or a comparatively-obscure African-American writer and perhaps -- communist party member named Frank Marshal Dixon, whom Obama knew in high school in Hawaii -- is, even for some of her most steadfast advocates, particularly dismaying. Like Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Christopher Dodd, among others who have abandoned the Clintons, many old Clinton hands had hoped, judging from Hillary's triumphant and collegial senate years, that she -- and Bill -- had left behind such tactics when the Clinton Presidency ended in 2001 and the Right-wing threat to the Clintons' tenure in the White House had abated.

"The sad irony," noted Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, "is that these are the same [guilt-by-association] attacks used against her husband in the elections of the 1990s. The GOP tried to destroy Bill Clinton for his relationships (much closer than Obama's tangential connections) with Arkansas crooks, sleazy fund-raisers and unsavory women. But 'The Man From Hope,' while seen as less honest than Bush or Bob Dole, bet that issues and uplift were more important to voters than his character. He won...."

Anonymous said...

Bill Moyers on Wright and how churches are safe places for well-founded African-American rage...

Really, y'all, ain't it a better outlet than the streets....

Anonymous said...

4:41 Most white people have no association with the Klan. Good people don't belong to groups that practice and preach hate. I'm surprised you made such racist remarks in this day and age. I pray there is no formation of a WWW - Wright's Wrath Workers.

We have all got to get along and work together. I'd hoped Obama was the person to do that.

Anonymous said...

Read the May 5th Krugman article in the NY Times. It is the economy. All the rest is "talk".

Anonymous said...


after tonite, and hillary's inability to close the gap in delegates, i suggest all you whiteys pack your bags and get out of the country, cuz come next february, be prepared for...PRESIDENT OBAMA....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....i hope el druggo's head explodes...oh and ostoy, i guess obama doesnt need your gawdawful advice....hillary has now cancelled all her apearances for tomorrow...its hard to appear in front of the cameras when you have to eat crow...the clinton and bush regime is now dead...long live the new politics...YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Party has been too stupid to win the presidency McCain is our next president. Yesterday the REPUBLICANS went to the polls in droves to vote for Obama. They know he simply will not win with the "targets on his back" they they will use in their attacks. They voted for Hillary in my state early on when she was the front runner. Now they want to run against Omaba and they succeeded yesterday.

Another argument they will use is that he won primarly because of ninety percdent of the black votes which makes the blacks the new racist element in our society. 9:47 even advised "whities" to leave the country.

It is a hollow and short-lived victory you Obama supporters have won.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the Nanny State. Below is a short list of the things that Democrats feel the federal government should help them do:

Pay for their medical care.
Pay to heat their homes.
Pay their children's day care
Educate their children
Buy them gasoline every month
Find then a job
Guard their mental health with government counselors

Anonymous said...


It's better to make a statement when the facts back you up. In all major exit polls from Indiana, Republicans favored Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama by about 5%.

Anonymous said...


Excuse me, make that 5-10%. If the final number is closer to 10%, it could very well end up that the Republican vote in Indiana made the difference in who won the popular vote total in that state.

Anonymous said...


Does the fact that Senator Clinton won an overwhelming majority of women mean that they are the new "sexist" element in society? They also are the ones who as a greater percentage say they are not likely to support the black man in the general election. Are they also racists?

Sidney Condorcet said...

This has been one of the longest, most closely fought contests in history. And that's partly because we have such a formidable opponent in Senator Hillary Clinton. Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided - that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her.

Well I'm here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it. Yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately, this race is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain. This election is about you - the American people - and whether we will have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future.

This primary season may not be over, but when it is, we will have to remember who we are as Democrats - that we are the party of Jefferson and Jackson; of Roosevelt and Kennedy; and that we are at our best when we lead with principle; when we lead with conviction; when we summon an entire nation around a common purpose - a higher purpose. This fall, we intend to march forward as one Democratic Party, united by a common vision for this country. Because we all agree that at this defining moment in history - a moment when we're facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril - we can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term. We need change in America.

---Senator Obama, May 6, 2008

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the reminder, Sidney, and well done, Senator Obama.

"Fundamentally, I believe that Americans need a champion in their corner, that for too long we’ve had a president who has stood up and spoke out for the wealthy and the well-connected.

But I don’t think that’s what Americans need or what they’re looking for now. And I think standing up for working people is about the American dream and the Democratic Party. And I think standing up for the middle class is about who we are and who we can be, if we stick together.

So it is important that, as we go forward in this campaign, that we recognize we are all on the same team. We are going to be standing up for you. We’re going to be looking for a way to turn this country around and bring it back to what it should stand for and be all about: better futures for you and your children, solving the problems that affect us here in America.

I know that people are watching this race, and they’re wondering, I win, he wins, I win, he wins. It’s so close. And I think that says a lot about how excited and passionate our supporters are and how intent so many Americans are to really taking their country back.

But I can assure you, as I have said on many occasions, that, no matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party, because we must win in November.

And I know — I know that Senator Obama feels the same way, because we have been on this campaign trail now for a long time. And we know how desperately people want to see a change, and it will not be a change if the Republicans keep the White House. It will be more of the same, something that no one, no matter what political party you may be, can afford.

It is time for all of us to recognize what is at stake in this election, not just for Democrats, as we decide who will be our nominee, but for all Americans."

Senator Hillary Clinton: May 6, 2008

Democrats United for Change, '08!!!

Anonymous said...

11:28 You are wrong about the Republican support. It went to Obama.

9:07 Under Bush and most Republican administrations the nannycare goes to the corporations and the very rich. It's our turn for a some loving care.

11:36 "MAJORITY" is not "TOTALITY" ALL of the blacks voted for Obama. That is called RACISM. MANY, many women, especially young women voted for Obama. THAT PRECLUDES THE FEMALE VOTE BEING SEXISM.

Obama can scream unity; the Dem leaders can scream unity, the super DNC can sream "Obama", it's all a waste of time. THe Republicans have already started their campaign aginst Obama and they will win. He has too much baggage.

Anonymous said...

Maureen Dowd has never met a successful women she liked. She spends today's column comparing Hillary to Scarlett O'Hara and Blanche DuBois. When all the time Maureen comes off like one of Cinderella's evil step-sisters.

It is obvious sexism (meaning exclusive support by women for the woman candidate), is not a part of this compaign because too many women are all over the TV and the press supporting Obama. Women haven't been "free" long enough to consider each other friends instead of rivals. The blacks have overcome that obstacle if it ever was one.

Anonymous said...

12:52,your RIGHT,this is one reagan democrate that was coming back home,and I do mean"WAS".After seeing the out-right use of racisizm by the obama camp.Them and their supporters made Bill clinton look like a racist to pull the wool over peoples eye's about the Rev.Wright problem.YEAH it worked,you got the 90 to 95% of the black VOTE,but you have set civil_right rights back 50 years,Go to bars and other place's where people gather and you can hear the N-word used more in a day than you used to in a year.the question you Obama fans need to answer is,WAS IT WORTH MAKING BILL CLINTON A RACIST?"????

Anonymous said...


I am not wrong. Go to any major news source that provides information about Republican and conservative voters in the Indiana primary and the results are conclusive.

GOP voters who voted in the Democratic primary in Indiana voted 53-47 in favor of Clinton and those who self-identified as "conservative" voted 2-1 in favor of Clinton.

90% is not totality, or all, and your argument is full of holes. BTW, more DNC superdelegates have pledged to Hillary than Barack.

I assume you are a Democrat. It seems a foregone conclusion at this point Obama will be the nominee. Will you vote for him?

Anonymous said...

The other night a spokesman for Oprah Winfrey was on TV explaining why Oprah left the Wright church and Obama did not.

The woman said that Oprah had been brought up in the black community so she knew what that "was all about." because she had heard it all her life in other churches and didn't need to attend Wright's church for enlightment. And, she realized that what was preached there would offend her huge audience. Not only that, Oprah became more interested in spirituality than organized religion.

Obama, on the other hand, had not had the advantage of a "black" upbringing and had never heard a message like this. He therefore needed to stay and learn. She also suspected he didn't understand how troubling the message he was hearing might be to others.

While listening to her try to defend both Oprah, the church, and Obama, I don't think she realized what a troubling defense that was. I only saw it once and only on one channel. Someone must have stopped its circulation.

I was surprised to hear that what Wright said was normal to hear in a black upbringing.

Anonymous said...

The Fat Lady is Singing:

McGovern, who had endorsed Clinton, told CNN he was switching his support to endorse Barack Obama.

“It certainly was not out of any less respect for Senator Clinton,” McGovern told CNN in a telephone interview early Wednesday afternoon about his decision to switch his support to Barack Obama. “I think she has waged a really courageous and valiant campaign. She will have my affection and admiration for all of my days.

“But I think mathematically the race is all but won by Barack Obama and the time has come for all of us to unite and get ready for the general election in the fall.”

Anonymous said...

The Fat Lady is Singing


The Walls Are Tumbling Down.

We Dems will have to wait at least four years to have a Democratic President; and, then, only if we wise up.

Anonymous said...

Hey 5:16

I agree totally but think it should be:

The Fat Lady is Singing


The Game Is Over -- the Dems Lost

Anonymous said...

here's the commercial from a republican 527 group to be aired in oct.2008 Barack Hussian Obama sat in a church of 20 years listening to hate being preached from the pew,his reasoning is,is this man lead him to the christian faith.The only question we have for Obama is,BEFORE YOU TURNED CHRISTIAN 20 YEARS AGO,DID YOU PRACTICE THE MUSLIM FAITH AT ANYTIME.........CHECK-MATE........ MCCAIN TAKES OFFICE jan.2009

Anonymous said...


The commercial has already run.

Despite the RNCC trying to tie him to Obama/Wright, Don Cazayoux took LA-6 - a House seat controlled by the Republicans for over 30 years.

Furthermore, in spite of 4 weeks of non-stop coverage of Reverend Wright by the MSM and no mudslinging directed toward him, John McCain's polling numbers still have never gone over 45% when matched up against Obama or Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Al Gore---FRAUD. Read this story:

Anonymous said...

notice how 6:04 didn't answer 5:49 real question in the commercial,was obama ever a practicing muslim,BECAUSE THEY CAN'T,it will put Mccain in the white house and that ad has not been run as 6:04 would like you to believe

Anonymous said...

No one is mentioning the fact that even if the DNC/Dean chooses not to count the vote in FL, Hillary is the candidate that huge number of people favor as the choice for president. She has the largest number of supporters whether "legal" or not. If one is voted the "most beautiful" in a beauty contest and is later disqualified because she's married, it does not change the fact that in that group she was considered the "most beautiful", rules notwithstanding. Rules don't change facts.

And, it's to be pointed out that Obama did camapaign in FL, against the rules, and Obama refuses a re-vote there because he knows he can't win.

He didn't win MI either. Those who were not for Hillary chose not to vote or voted "undecided."

Anonymous said...

The Democratic leaders are unbelievably stupid.The lastest suggestion about the FL/MI vote is to practically split it in half: giving a liitle over half to Hillary and a little less than half to Obama. That's their version of " giving those citizens a chance to be counted. "


They must either count the vote as it was or have a new vote.

Dean has contributed nothing to the Democratic Party but I bet all his former patients are glad he stopped praciticing medicine.

Anonymous said...


Are you dense? The Muslim meme has already run its course in email and in the MSM and it's over.

Read this carefully and clearly: Barack Obama is not a Muslim. As a child he occassionally went to the mosque with his step-father but the step-father's own family has stated that he was only an occasional attendee and not an ardent or devout believer.

Freedom's Watch (a Republican 527)has already had three misleading, libelous ads against Obama pulled from the air by local television in longstanding Republican-leaning television markets. The MSM has vetted the Muslim issue and it's not going to be a deciding factor in this race.


The Democratic Party is not dominated by racism. Prejudice is not the same as racism and it's not all that surprising for voters to vote for those with whom they most identify (aka prejudice).

The refusal to vote for someone SOLELY on the basis of race is racism. If this is what was happening, Barack Obama would have lost to Hillary Clinton a LONG TIME AGO as African-Americans do not come close to constituting a majority of voters in this country or in any state.

I am white. My wife is Mexican-American. We support Obama and don't think of ourselves as hating our own ethnicities. We simply support the candidate we most identify with and do so without regard to ethnicity or sex.

And we don't always agree, either.


What's stupid is arguing from a point of view that runs counter to fact.

Hillary Clinton herself stated that Michigan and Florida do not and should not count - until it became clear the only way she could be the nominee is if the rules changed midstream.

That's not leadership, that's gamesmanship. I can hear the hoots of derision from her camp if the situation were reversed and she were in the lead.

Anonymous said...

thank you 12:28 you finally answered the question,he was a muslim at on time

Anonymous said...


If a 1st, 2nd or 3rd grader is keen enough to make such choices I suppose you could say that he was an occasional Muslim. By this logic I suppose John McCain is anti-American since he provided the VietCong a confession of his war crimes.

Nevermind that both situations were under coercion...

Anonymous said...

If your using MSM as your fact that Obama's muslim relations before he turned christian 20 years ago won't hurt him in the general,I've got some ocean-front property in wyoming to sell you cheap,MSM(the right winged media)is playing you for the fools you are

Anonymous said...


Define hurt him.

The previous contention was that it would be the defining reason why McCain will win the White House. That's demonstrably false and evidenced by the races in LA-6, MS-1 and IL-14.

Anonymous said...

12:28 Hillary changed her mind as have most other Americans. It is clearly undemocratic to deny the vote to a huge part of the population in two states. A wise person can admit a mistake and change her mind. Would be nice if Dean had that kind of wisdom instead of insisting that the citizens of two states continue to be punished for disobeying (daddy?) We lucked out when he showed his true colors before he was elected president.

Obama has shown his but no one is taking the knowledge seriously. And, those in power are misunderstanding something very imporatnat. There are those of us in the Democractic Party who won't vote for him even if he chooses Hillary as his v.p. I won't vote for Hillary if she picks him as her v.p. I will not vote for Obama.

If he wasn't a Muslim until he became a Christian, what was he from elementary school to adulthood? Why did he change his American name "Barry" to"Obama"? Was he an atheist until he became a Christian? Or was he a Muslim in spirit like his stepfather and father and hence the name change? DId Michelle make him go to church?

We all know why this is important to know.

Anonymous said...

12:38 The black race is voting unanimously for Obama. They are not voting for a white person. They are voting for a black person exclusively. That, even by your definition, is racism. They are voting according to race.

That Obama has won is because white people are voting for him. They are not racists because they are voting for a candidate of another race.

PREJUDICE: A judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; 2)a judgment or opinion against something without adequate facts.

RACIALISM: A doctrine or feeling of racial differences or antagonisms; racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination.

RACIST: a person who believes in the doctrine of racialism or who advocates or practices racism. Webster's New World Dictionary

Black Americans are practicing racialism. White Americans are not, or not to the extent that 92 percent of them are or Obama would not be ahead.

Anonymous said...


If your view represented "most" Americans, your candidate would be in the lead. She's not.

It's not a matter of a candidate changing his or her mind, it's about playing by the rules. It stinks for the voters of Florida and Michigan but their party leaders flaunted the rules and knew there would be serious consequences for doing so. Get pissed at them, not the candidates. Hillary and all the others agreed to abide by the DNC decision - that is until it became not in the Clinton campaign's interest to play by the agreed upon set of rules. Again, that's not a mark of leadership. It's the behavior of a child who is losing and then wants to start the game over again.

If you will not vote for Obama, that's your right. But as someone who calls him or herself a Democrat who will not then support the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton does not agree with you while the author of this blog thinks you are a damn fool - and I agree with him. John McCain is far more dangerous for the future of this country than any Democrat.

Read Obama's books if you are really interested in the truth. I think you will find his story inspiring and that you have far more in common with him than you apparently suspect.

Anonymous said...


Prejudice and racism are not the same thing. EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this planet exhibits prejudical behavior but not every single person is racist and while many, many acts committed by all of us every day are based on our prejudices or biases that does not make them racial in intent.

Can you please tell me how the 20+% of African-Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton in Tennessee and South Carolina are racist? And, again, how is the party "dominated" (that's your terminology) by racism when your only charge of racism is toward African-Americans - an ethnicity that does not constitute anywhere near a majority of voters in the party. If the majority ethnicity in this country is voting at a 40+% clip for an African-American candidate, how in the world is the party dominated by racism?

Anonymous said...

The 80-member Michigan Democratic Party Executive Committee agreed to a delegate split that would allow the Michigan delegation to be seated at the convention in Denver and was prepared to submit their proposal to the DNC Rules Committee meeting 5/31.

Despite giving her a pledged delegate lead from the state and allowing Michigan superdelegates to vote their choice, Hillary Clinton has now rejected the proposal.

Anonymous said...

5:17 I am not 513 but I read the entry and I didn't see the use of the word "dominate." I'll re-read. Neither Hillary nor Obama can win without the black vote. That's a fair share of dominance. It's like the Religious Right dominating the Republican Party. Nobody offends them.

531 Ninety-two percent voted for Obama - 8 percent either voted for Hillary or didn't vote. Nine-two percent is a statistical anomaly for any one interest group. When all the the TV networks and talk show pundits (90 percent) except Joe Scarborough bash Hillary and support Obama it's called sexism.

You know of course that power can rest in the hands of a few or of one. Power does not need a majority to wield its power. Many factors contribute to power.

Anonymous said...


Historically, the Democratic Party can't win without a healthy percentage of Latino voters, African-American voters and women. None of those groups individually dominate the party. They are very important constituencies, but none individually dominates the Party or this race.

In November and December of last year, African-Americans were polling in the majority with Clinton. Before Super Tuesday, articles were written concluding no AA candidate could assume they have majority support of the AA community anymore. On Super Tuesday itself, 20+% of African-Americans in Tennessee and Arkansas voted for Clinton. In South Carolina, she also won support in the 20% range with AAs.

In a period of 6 months, Sen. Clinton's support within the AA community has steadily eroded. Is this because of racism? No. If AAs were racist, they would never have voted for her in the first place. The fact of the matter is that when it looked as though Obama had a real chance of winning the nomination, the AA community almost totally rallied behind him. And, no, 90% is not a statistical anomaly. There are plenty of other examples of widespread support for a candidate by an ethnicity or special interest group.

Lastly, the sexism charge is bogus. I'd really like anyone here to corroborate this specious charge that's bandied about too darn frequently. Frankly, it debases real charges of sexism. If anything, the 24/7 coverage of Reverend Wright the last 4-5 weeks and regular praise of Clinton's "finding her voice" during that same period negates the idea all the MSM were four-square behind Obama.

Both candidates are powerful advocates for Democratic Party ideals. I would have no problem voting for Clinton were she to have won the nomination and pray that she will accept her defeat gracefully and work with Obama to unite the party for its ultimate challenge - ending the long national nightmare that is the Administration of George the Lesser.

Anonymous said...

I want change all right. I'm a senior and with CDs paying less than one percent, gas in my state almost four dollars a gallon, eggs and milk double,and gas and lights up, I want CHANGE BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

Please no novice who won't even know who to appoint that can help him. Even the unprepared Bush had his daddy (admittedly for all the good it did) Who does Obama know and who has he worked with.

And McCain admits he doesn't know anything about finance.

I'm not asking for a handout. I'm asking for a working economy and government so I can go back to being self-sufficient and able to pay my way.

We need Bill.

My vote goes for Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary.

Anonymous said...

anonymous is proof positive why people are voting hillary...they think bill will be back in about sexism...well hillary aint bill...once hillary gets into the wh, bill is going on a caribean vacation and is gonna party like its me anon, this time, there aint no tech bubble to save bill or, that went with the nafta and other free trade agreements...whoever becomes prez is gonna get a huge wakeup call when they really see the mess that bush has left..and where is andy? too afraid to come out now that his girl has gone off the deep end?

Anonymous said...

McCain cain't win. statistically impossible actually.

Anonymous said...

Don't think for a minute that Bill would not participate in Hillary's presidency, evem as she did in his. He even said "Two for the price of one." That's what we'd get again. And, it will take at least two experienced, intelligent people to get us out of the mess we're in. Obama cannot pull it off.

I don't care about race, gender, education, party, elistism, popularlism, age or anything else -- I am "totally blind" to every consideration but the one who can get us out of this mess and make me and my family feel safe and secure again, as well as all the other families in the US.

I don't think any of the three can do it. That's why I want Bill back.

Even on MSNBC last evening one of the "pundits" said Hillary should have included Bill early on, publicly, as part of the package.
Shouldn't be necessary, because we all know he'd at least "be in charge" of the economy.

Anonymous said...


Do you seriously think Obama's campaign and administration would consist of, say, college kids and political neophytes? C'mon!

A number of former Clinton cabinet members and key Democratic Senators from that era support Obama and if elected President he will have some of the greatest talent in the world available to assist his Administration.

Including the Clintons.

Anonymous said...

9:04 I have several thoughts about his possible appointees.

One, if it's true Soros/MoveOn is his greatest source of financing, it could be one or more of them;

Two, if Sharpton swayed the black vote to go to Obama after it was first going to Hillary, it could be Sharpton and other strong black policy makers;

Third, who in the Democratic Party has shown a great deal of intelligence or strength (spine) in the past that we could trust as one of his advisors; and,

Fourth, who would be better than Bill Clinton as the economic advisor and who could lead us to prosperity and well-being again?

Sidney Condorcet said...

10:07am is a fucking moron....

How does one appoing to a cabinet or sub-cabinet position? Do you actually believe he'd appoint Soros or Sharpton?

Do you realize that the Clintons have had plenty of fundraisers and supporters who were kind of kooky (all politicians attract some slugs), but they didn't appoint them to positions of influence within the administration?

Your bullshit is just another red herring...

The Clintons lost...Obama won...Deal with it. And Obama will nominate Richardson, Rendell, Webb or Kathleen Sebelius and will use the Democrats 4-1 financial advantage and over 1 Million volunteers to crush the Republicans. Obama's going to win the typical Dem states (california, NY, etc..) but will pick up the pacific northwest, the upper midwest (minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa), etc...Rendell would automatically give him PA or Richardson would help him close the deal on Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and possibly even Texas & Florida. Obama puts Virginia into play as well.

We're going to win this thing. The entire narrative of this election cycle since January 2007 has been about Obama. History is propelling him forward in an almost mythical way. Even Rev. Wright hasn't knocked him completely off course (much as Clinton weather Gennifer Flowers as well).

President Barack Obama
Vice President Bill Richardson
Secretary of State Joseph Biden
Attorney General John Edwards
Secretary of Defense Wesley Clark
Two Supreme Court Justices: Cass Sunstein & Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

sidney's usual way of calling people fucking moron's are the main reason this great massiah Obama will lose to Mccain in the fall,Ever hear of winning gracefully sidney,the people(HILLARY'S) you Obama fans are going to need are the very people you ASS_HOLES are going to need in the FALL.Keep pissing them off your good at it

Anonymous said...

Geeeese,Sidney even found a way to sleeze bill with the gennifer flowers thing,any responce sidney gives in defence of OBAMA there's a sleezie clinton remark got to be in it

Sidney Condorcet said...

HAHAHA, my usual way of calling people fucking moron's is the reason Obama will lose??? God, there are nothing but moth balls and cobwebs in that vacant mind of yours.

Plenty of dumbass Bush supporters in 2000 and 2004 enjoyed calling people names, now did that stop Bush from beating Kerry? Not quite.

Your logic is as flawed as your genetic code.

Oh, and since you clearly cannot read, 2:26pm, my previous post had nothing to do with Clinton supporters, but rather the imbecile (who I presume is you, 2:26pm) who stated that Obama will appoint, George Soros, Al Sharpton, et al to positions of influence within his Administration.

Your comments, as per usual, have made us all dumber for having read them. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Anonymous said...

your last responce says it all sidney

Sidney Condorcet said...


I didn't slime Bill Clinton, as you suggest. First off, he slimed himself as per Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, etc. He's had an extensive history degrading and humiliating and taking advantage of women.

But that's beside the point. My point was that much like Bill Clinton was able to weather the storm of Gennifer Flowers, Barack Obama has weathered the storm (and will continue to do so) of Reverand Wright. So actually, in the context, I was paying respect to Bill's ability to survive his own personal screw-ups.

Geesh...You guys really do think that Bill was this messiah type don't you? No matter how he treated women or the Oval Office, didn't matter to you. You give him 100% credit for the 90's economy without acknowledging that he didn't have anything to do with the technology bubble and Bush the First tax increase that had much more of a causal relationship to the economic boom than anything Clinton did (save for the 1993 economic plan that restored faith in the bond markets).

Maybe Obama's my messiah-figure. But you've got your own in Clinton. The real difference is that we've had many years now to accurately judge Bill Clinton's legacy. Frankly, it's not that impressive. Especially when you consider how Democrats around the country suffered under his watch. (losing the House of Reps, dozens of state legislatures and governerships, etc...).

Enjoy living the remainder of your life believing that Bill Clinton is a wonderful human being and was the greatest President of the modern age.

Anonymous said...

Barack hasn't weathered shit,Hillary used kid gloves against him,And you really nieve if you think the rev.wright thing is over or his wife comment of finally having something to be proud of in america for,you people are living in the clouds,Your about to land.........HANG ON.............

Sidney Condorcet said...

McCain frankly won't have the money to compete with Obama. Obama's going to have over a MILLION avid volunteers. McCain isn't even particularly liked by a large swath of his own party.

McCain's surrogates may get nasty, but McCain won't be able to get that dirty himself.

All polling shows that among all voters (ind, dem, rep), Bush hurts McCain far far far more than Wright hurts Obama.

Just look at how Republicans tried to tie the Democratic candidate to Obama and Wright in special elections in Louisiana and Mississipi (in STRONG, LONG TIME REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS). In Lousiana, despite the negative Obama ads, Obama's candidate beat the Republican in a district that's been Republican for 30 Freakin' years!! In Mississippi, Childers has faced some pretty negative Obama-Wright ads and is it is still a competitive race. In Freaking Mississippi!!!

What this shows (as well as the Dems picking up former Speaker Hastert's long time republican district) is that the winds are blowing very very strong in the Democratic direction.

Something like Rev. Wright is not going to move this monumental sea change in the making. Democratic registration is far far up compared to Republican registratioin. Dems will have a 4-1 money advantage. McCain will be connected to the incredibly unpopular George Bush. No way in hell McCain can stand in the way of a coming Tidal Wave and scream Reverend Wright and make any difference.

Obama will be sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office come the end of January.

Anonymous said...

Mccain doesn't need to raise the money himself,the republican 527's have been stock piling their money just waiting for the democrates to make their pick.Mccain isn't going to need all that money Obama will be in need of,he's going to let the 527's do his dirty work hollering that they're wrong the whole time,but get the bennies without being hurt for running them,Clinton couldn't run the ads or her 527 s couldn't run them in fear of hurting the party,JOHN MCCAIN COULD GIVE A FUCK LESS

Sidney Condorcet said...

Oooooh, we're scared...

You're tilting at windmills, 3:36pm...

The Democrats have nearly every possible advantage this year, while the Republicans have Reverend Wright..

We Democrats quake in fear...

Obama will take advantage of the massive Democratic registration uptick and our superior financial muscle and his huge volunteer army to engage in the most sweeping and massive Get-out-the-vote effort this nation has ever seen.

We're going to make serious gains in the House, Senate, and the individual states..

All Repugs have is Rev. Wright...laughable...

Sidney Condorcet said...

From the New Republic:

Top 10 Reasons Obama should Not pick Clinton as his VP

1. It's wrong to say that Hillary has survived the worst the Republicans have thrown against her. In a national election, the sort of attacks which had little traction in New York senate races and the Ohio or Pennsylvania primaries could well drag her--and Obama--down. Should Obama have to spend part of his presidential campaign defending the Clintons, of all people, when Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the Lincoln Bedroom, Marc Rich, Norman Hsu, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica, and Bosnia all come oozing back up into our political life?

2. How can Obama possibly campaign as the incarnation of the future, and the repudiation of the Bad Old Politics of the Past, when he has Hillary standing next to him?

3. Dynasticism in a minor, vice-presidential key is still dynasticism, and the country is sick of it. Is John McCain going to pick Jeb Bush as his running mate? (and if it wasn't for the last name, he well might).

4. Bill. If Hillary, of all people, couldn't stop him from harming the campaign he was supposed to be helping, can Barack?

5. Hillary has simply gone too far claiming that Obama is unready to be president. Her lines will be flung back in her face--and his--endlessly by the Republicans, and in debates.

6. This seems to be one case that disproves the adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. In 2016, after a second Obama term, Hillary will be nearly 70. Does anyone think she is going to be content to put her own ambitions aside until then, and be nothing but a good team player?

7. Why should Obama give up a chance to put someone with real executive experience on the ticket? This is a weakness of his, and Hillary will not help to address it seriously, despite her vaunted "35 years."

8. A great deal of the political fence-mending that he would accomplish by choosing Hilary could be done just as well by choosing her strong supporter Evan Bayh.

9. Hillary is not Lyndon Johnson. She probably can't bring him anywhere near the number of electoral votes that Johnson brought to the Democratic ticket in 1960 (she certainly can't steal Texas for him!).

10. The obvious, unfortunate, Unevolved Nation reason, namely that some voters will be comforted by a white male on the ticket. Should Obama pay attention to this factor? No. Will he? Good question

Anonymous said...

Sidney - your reading skills are not at fifth grade level. (You simply cannot be a laywer, as you claim) The person in the post about Obama's appointees didn't say Soros or MoveOn would be appointed. He said "One of them" the clear implication to an intelligent person that "one of them" meant one in alignment with Soros and Move On.

I would also like to point out that there or those Democrats, and I am one of them, who would not vote for Obama even if FDR reincarnated as himself and ran as vp. I do not want as the American president anyone who doesn't like the majority of the population, whose wife says our country is mean and whose preacher tells thousands that they are the victims of the murderous intent of our government. We've had tremendous trouble with Bush and he only hates the less fortunate among us. What would it be like under Obama's reign?

And even if you agree with Obama, even you - well maybe not -- any thinking person would have to admit it was stupid to let all that become known.

By the way -- a fling with a woman does not affect the country and its people.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine a worse ticket than Obama as President and Richardson as vice president.

Aside from his character flaws, Richardson appeared slow-witted in the debates. That's why he didn't get very far. Then also to be considered is the time he showed blatant prefernece for an Hispanic in a legal case. I've forgotten the details but he showed bias. Wait until the Republicans bring that up. Look what they did with the innocent remarks of Kerry about being for it before he was against it.

Anonymous said...

In the small town where I live gas went up nine cents a gallon in the last several days.

My freinds in Sarasota who were living the good life say they can't buy a breaksfast meal under nine dollars.

CD's interest doesn't pay enough to help with expenses. Like the other senior who posted said -- we can't make ends meet whereas we were doing all right before this mess.

Rent in NYC averages $2000 a month for a 300sq fot stuio on the fifth floor.

We can't elect another f____up. Bring back Bill.

Anonymous said...

Sidney --Hillary will not accept the vp slot even if Obama begs. She'll run again and win in four years after McCain has turned American into a Third World Country and then she and Bill will bring up back to our glory days.

Anonymous said...

6:43 aka Sidney

You equate having sex with hating an entire race and one's own country. You sound like a Pope wannabe.

And I guess you're a wannabe judge. You've pardoned Obama for his shady real estate deal and connections.

And I can't think of a reason you would make Huckabee the arbiter of religious correctedness.

I'm sure you have a sampler over your bed that reads: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." .

Anonymous said...

Ed Koch said Obama can't win and said why. I heard one mention that "Koch said Obama can't win" and all the other programs ignored it. I went to Google and read his comments which are convincing. Obama can't win the general election against McCain.

Anonymous said...

(crickets chirping on Ostroy's blog...)

Anonymous said...

the answer is about to blow in from west virgina on weather the great obama is the uniter sidney claims he is,if obama can't take west virgina now that the elite in the party has crowned him their massiah,it will show he's not electable in the fall.When you can't win,when your already crowned means 4 more years of republican rule

Unknown said...

If I were Obama I would pound away at Cindy McCain right now.

You want government restrictions? How about Cindy McCain's beer distributorship? The ultimate in outmoded, archaic government rules limiting competition. That's what got her family and her rich, not hard work, a government rule.

And she won't follow the custom of releasing her tax returns. The reviled Clintons did. Why can't she? Wouldn't have anything to do with those off-shore trusts would it?

And to distribute those fine American products of Bud and Bud Lite. How proud America will be to have her as a First Lady.

Anonymous said...


My name is not Sidney. My name is Michael.

The Obamas do not hate an entire race nor do they hate their country. You can claim it all you want to but you might as well also claim that George Bush has been a success as a President. You'd be just as accurate.

I've not "pardoned" anyone. Hillary supporters are ripping Obama for his connections while being conveniently blinded to her own unsavory connections which are far greater in number. It's hypocritical in the extreme.

As for Huckabee, he's the only ordained Baptist preacher recently running for President and he knows a little something about the history of the Jim Crow South and the black church.

Anonymous said...


Ed Koch is a scandal-ridden disgrace, someone completely willing to throw fellow Dems under the bus and an all-around fucktard.

Let's all remember he openly supported George Bush in 2004 and still supports the war in Iraq.

Let's all also remember that when asked at the Pennsylvania debate whether Barack Obama could win the general election, Hillary Clinton's response was, "yes, yes, yes!"

Anonymous said...

If Hillary hadn't said "yes, yes, yes," she would have been stoned out of the race. And why would an Obama supporter bring that up when not one of them believes anything she says.

Ed Koch is just following a new Democractic policy of throwing other Dems under the bus. You know -- like Richardson, for example.

As for Huckabee being an ordained Baptist preacher, so were the two who said God was punishing us with 9/11 because of women's rights, gays and abortion -- so much for ordination and the words of Jesus "God is love." As for Hucakabee and Jim Crow.Jesus said "It was said and eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say forgive seventy times seven and love thy neighbor as thyself." All Christian churches are supposed to teach the words of Christ - not the Old testament as the final Word.

Just because Koch is flawed doesn't mean he's stupid.

Nobody ever knows for sure what's in another's heart. Especially the heart of a politician or one out to win something. Obama may truly not hate the white race and may not agree with Wright on the other absurdities he preaches. However, he stayed there twenty years, listened and knew what was being preached, let his children hear it, probably heard his wife agree and contributed huge sums of money That's the evidence. We can't read his mind.

Anonymous said...


No, you can't read Obama's mind. But you can read his words. Do so. They're far more instructive evidence as to who he is and what he's about than anything else you may hear or read. You can also listen to Hillary's words about Barack's ability to win the Presidency and her intent to unify the Party. I happen to believe her. That you think she's simply pandering speaks volumes.

Now, please don't put words in my mouth or pretend to know what I think. I worked for the Clintons and have met them both. Call me a traitor to them or accuse me of throwing them under the bus if you like - but that does not make it truth. I happen to like them and would support her if she is the nominee. However I believe Obama to be the better candidate to heal the wounds of this country and transform our politics.

Also, please cease and desist with the lecturing about what Christian churches are and are not supposed to do. Unless someone has recently named you high holy decider of all things Christian you might look around and note that there are several Christian denominations and not all of them agree with you. But if you are truly worried about Reverend Wright, I think you may want to do a little research about Doug Coe and The Family.

Finally, Ed Koch is not only flawed, he's a fucktard of epic proportions. And very wrong.

Anonymous said...

12:11 All you write is vacuous; nothing has intellectual merit.

Most of us learn as children that words can deceive. I first became aware of it when reading about the Big Bad Wolf posing as and speaking as if he were Little Red's grandmother.

I wouldn't presume to pretend to know what you think, or, for that matter, even presume that you do think. And of course I don't care. I do care about what Obama thinks and look for clues for that information. Words alone don't "do it."

There is no room to discuss Christianity. I don't presume anything in that regard. It is obvious that Jesus, the Christ, said he came to fullfill the law and clarify. If a church doesn't teach us to follow His words, it is not teaching the Christian lesson. That is truly a "yeah" or "nay" issue, not open to interpretation. It's all written to be read. His words are clear. I underwtqnd Wrights rage at the early Christians who saw no discrepancy between their Christian religion and owning other humans as slaves and considering them less than also "Made in the image and likeness of God." Wrigth condemns those churches and "Christians", but now he makes the same mistake by not teaching the lessons of Jesus. None of this is the failing of Christ's message but a failure of Christian churches to teach Christianity.

There would peace and love and forgiveness if chruches taught the Truth as Jesus explained it.

As for your opinion of Ed Koch - who knows. Could be a projection on your part. He was our mayor in NY and we had no major objections.

Anonymous said...

I have had it After listening all last night to TV people bashing Hillary for saying that she has the "working class white people's vote" and now reading Herbert's column in the NY TImes., who bashes her and Bill with merciless attacks.

Since South Carolina we talked about the "black vote" and there was the suggestion by Bill C. that perhaps the "black vote" would end in SC for him as it had for Jackson.

It did not and since then it was a foregone conclusion that Obama would have the "black vote". Every state's outcome was predicted on Obama getting the "black vote." Yet, now that Hillary correctly quoted the exit polls that she has the "white vote among working class Americans" she's bashed as a race baiter.

This racism has got to stop. Whites have to have the same freedom of expression that the blacks have.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Apparently it's ok with 9:43am that whites have historically preferred white candidates and that there have been very few black candidates to be acceptable to the white majority.

That 9:43am begrudes a class of Americans who were enslaved, then faced legal discrimination in every single facet of life for another century, and then have to face an vicious onslaught of manufactured outrage by parts of white america each time it dares come to light that there there is justifiable anger and bitterness in the black community at their government, says an awful lot about 9:43's sense of perspective...

He/she just doesn't get it. They've been pissed on for centuries and now they have a viable black candidate before them. But it's not as if blacks are voting for Obama solely because he's black. He's demonstrated a life time commitment to problems unique to those living in America's cities, particularly those most in need. He worked as a community organizer in Chicago for years, when he could have cashed in on his Columbia degree. He's worked as a civil rights lawyer. He has credibility. He's not just walking in late to the party and cashing in on his skin tone.

Don't begrudge blacks for voting for the first legit, viable black candidate. They've earned the right to be proud of the ascendence of a national black politican. He is really the first, after all.

Were you bitching about how Greek Americans were quite zealous in their support for Michael Dukakis? Of course not. But blacks best know their place, right?

Sidney Condorcet said...

I never quite understood why a large segment of white americans feel soo threatened by "others." There's a long, sad history of xenophobia in our country from The Know Nothings to Pat Buchanan-types. Whether it's the despised "French", and their ghastly values (which haters generally have a hard time articulating), Mexicans, Blacks, at one time the Irish, Jews, on and on...

9:43am, is just another race-baiting, fire-breathing, Know Nothing. Don't worry White America, your status in the heirarchy is not in danger.

Pat Buchanon, aka 9:43am, says "Whites have to have the same freedom of expression that the blacks have." I wonder if there were any more absurd suggestions in the history of the world than this. Whites have less freedom of expression than Blacks? Are you fucking kidding me? I loved you in "American History X", by the way.

Anonymous said...

I read Herbert's column after reading the entry above. He says the Clintons have no class. So elitism is an issue in this campaign and the "elite" candidate should get our vote.

I, myself, am really tired of all of this elite stuff and the comments that if you make the national average income of 40,000 you're the "lower class." It seems 98 percent of our population which is mostly the "working class" are now the "lower class" and deserve contempt. Enough already of this "mosaic". Get back to the "melting pot" where our interests blend. An after thought: when did the black population leave the "working class" and no longer share its interests?

Anonymous said...

Sidney. whites have historically preferred white candidates because there were no black candidates running. Today there is one and whites are voting for him. The Greeks did not vote as a block for Dukakis. They had assimilated into the main stream culture which I thought the blacks had done until the Black Liberation Theology burst upon the scene. I thought the success of so many blacks was indication that they had "arrived." They have traveled further than my personal family -- I have no one in my background who has ever been Sec. of State, a supreme court judge, etc. Oh, you're saying I have because I'm white. Paleeze. Blacks are holding so many high positions, probably in a larger proportion than their ten percent of the populations would suggest.

I begrudge Obama nothing. He had my vote until his background became evident. A white person would not get my vote had he/she participated in that kind of movement. I don't discriminate according to color of the skin, nor do most white people anymore.

Anonymous said...


Vacuous? Lacking intellectual merit? These charges coming from the person who wrote one can never know what is in another's heart, after claiming not one Obama supporter believes a word Hillary Clinton says. Uh, huh.

See the log in your own eye, brother. Those were your words. You DID presume to know what I think. Caught in a contradiction, you respond as a child ("I don't care... whaa, whaa, whaa!), not someone interested in understanding or discussion. Grow up.

You must have short-term memory loss if you think NYC had no major objections to Mayor Koch and I again suggest that you do some research into Doug Coe and The Family as well as read Senator Obama's books.

Anonymous said...

11:47 I did some research into Doug Coe and The Family and see that it's the white counterpart to the Black Liberation Theology and equally Un-Christian and reprehensible if it's true. I haven't heard one of their leaders spout the thinking as I've heard wright.If true, it proves my point about teaching only the words of Christ.

So what is your solution to these two "warring teligious factions"? Give the Black Liberation Thelogy
equal opportunity and access to power?

I sure don't know what the solution is.

Anonymous said...


A little history lesson. Black Liberation Theology dates to the mid-60s. It has not suddenly "burst onto the scene" andAfrican-Americans were hardly assimilated into the mainsteam culture in the mid-60s.

Secretary of State and Supreme Court Justice are appointed positions, not elected. Do you know how many African-American United States Senators there have been since Reconstruction (that'd be the late 1800s)?

Three. Hardly representative of their proportion of the population.

Regarding religious background: If John McCain now has your vote, you might be interested to know that he courted the endorsement of a person who calls the Catholic Church "the great whore" and allies himself with Israel and advocates division with Arab states so as to hasten the coming of Armageddon. He also allies himself with another pastor who claims the United States government is complicit in genocide of its African-American citizens and that our nation was formed in order to destroy Islam.

Furthermore, earlier in the campaign his own staff did not know what Christian denomination he was a member of, Episcopalian or Baptist. McCain now claims he is Baptist but has never been baptised in that faith (which to my understanding is pretty dang important to Baptists).

If your vote is for Hillary Clinton you may want to look into her association with Doug Coe and The Family and their dangerous theology. It's a whole shitload scarier than Black Liberation Theology.

Anonymous said...


You won't hear the "leaders" of The Family spout anything publicly as they are designed as a secretive, shadow organization that operates solely in the halls of power - not in any way, shape or form with the common folk.

My solution? Simple. We follow the intended path laid out by the leader of our party, Thomas Jefferson, and expressed so nobly by people like John Kennedy in his speech about his Catholicism and Barack Obama in his speech in Philadelphia: there is to be a metaphorical wall between church and state. Organized religion unites those of common faith but divides those who do not share a similar faith. The state should be a unifying entity, with people of all faiths or no faith working together for a common civic purpose.

IMO, candidates for President of the United States should recognize this as a first principle.

Anonymous said...

no matter what you wind bags are hollering about all the republican 527 groups have too run is one ad reminding people how black people in the primaries through hillary clinton under the bus after a lifetime of fighting for their cause's.TALK ABOUT RACIST.....And ask people if they can really trust Obama not to give them(blacks) more rights at their exspence(WHITES)And believe me that ad WILL BE RUN

Anonymous said...


Cling to your misguided, racist and demonstrably false idea if you like. Do it in the face of all evidence provided to you from recent months were white Democrats in Republican districts faced 527 ads tinged with racism and not only were the ads pulled from the local markets by local television, the Republican candidate LOST in Louisiana and there is a tight race in Mississippi to be decided on the 13th.

Anonymous said...

11:42 You are unbelievable. You point out that there is a "RELIGIOUS" group in the government now, despite Tom Jefferson; and, you suggest the solution is to "close our eyes" and elect a man who represents yet another "religious group" that might interfere with government. The Family (if it exsits) vs. The Black Theology Movement. Like two Mafia families vying for power.

Just because you and Obama say he has nothing to do with the Liberation movement, we have no proof.

I didn't vote for any of those listed in "The Family" and I can't vote for the other side either.

Jack Kennedy was not part of a revolutionary branch of the Catholic Church, and there are none to my knowledge. He could promise not to listen to the Pope, who was not his best friend, mentor or relgious advisor, and we could believe him. Not only that, the Catholic Church doesn't hate America and curse it.

And it has nothing, NOTHING, to do with race. It could be the red-headed-left-handed Liberation Movement and that curses America and hates brunettes. It's the intent not the source.

Anonymous said...

amazing how your called misguided or a racist when you point out the very FACT,and it is a FACT that blacks in this country have practiced racist bais in their voting,if the truth makes me a racist..... SO BE least I'm not living on the moon ,lala land or disneyworld.Anyone who tells the truth about the black vote is racist according to Obama fans,they don't like the truth

Anonymous said...

1:38 This is not a sarcastic question as are some on this blog. I really want to know why the 527ads were pulled in Louisiana and Mississippi? How did the Democratic Party make that happen this time and they didn't/couldn't when Kerry was smeared? Do they have some new power we don't know about. I thought if an ad was paid for it was a commerical transaction and no one could stop it unless ir broke decency laws.

Anonymous said...

3:57 BLKN It's been pointed out over and over and over on this blog how it is that the blacks are racists in this contest. I know you've read them because you contribute regularly.

It's that is 94 percent of the black population. The fact you point out about Bill's support from the blacks in 92 show that they dumped him to vote for "one of their own." in droves. If 92 percent of women, were voting for Hillary they would be sexists. It's the magnitude, stupid.

I find it curious that the black women are choosing race over gender, or maybe they're misguided enough to think women's rights and well being will be uppermost on Obama's agenda. Yeah, right.

In fact, I'm not sure what is upermost on his agenda. Is it pulling the troops out of Iraq? Is it healthcare for some? Is it jobs for the misguided non-elite, depite what his rep told the Canadian government? I really don't know what he plans to do beside bring us all together. Maybe he'll fix it so Sunday morning church time won't be the most segregated period of the week.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Unbelievable, perhaps, because you do not understand and no one asked you to close your eyes. Better yet would be if you would open them.

Since when did Barack Obama suggest in any way that he was the candidate of Black Liberation Theology? I'll go ahead and answer that one for you - he hasn't. It's been pinned on him by those who are interested in tearing his candidacy down via the smear of association.

The fact is, Obama has worked with many different faiths as a community organizer and has consistently made the point that the Democratic Party has done a poor job of reaching out to people of faith (all faiths) in building a coalition.

The very FACT that JFK was Catholic and running for the President was revolutionary and there were plenty of religious leaders/bigots at the time who basically demanded that he distance himself from the Pope.

Baptists curse America. Methodists curse America. Jews curse America. Catholics curse America. All faiths at one time or another have cursed America for its sins, just as the Biblical prophets cursed Israel for its transgressions.

Are we so childish that we cannot see our sins and curse the sin while still loving the sinner?

Anonymous said...

It's been pointed out over and over and over on this blog how it is that the blacks are racists in this contest. ~anon4:18pm

Sorry, but a bunch of hot air being blown around by people who willingly cite Rasmussen polls and talk about "McCain the moderate" does not qualify as "proof" that "blacks are racists in this contest". Anonymous bloggers in their pajamas quoting Drudge aren't what anyone should consider reliable sources.

There are white racists voting for Hillary.
There are black racists voting for Obama.
There are sexist Women voting for Hillary.
There are sexist Men voting Obama.

Get over it. No one is denying these things. But suggesting that EVERY black voting for Obama is a racist is just as monumentally ignorant as suggesting that every white voting for Hillary is a racist.