Monday, June 30, 2008

Why Obama Must Become President

The fact that Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, has come this far in American presidential politics is quite astounding. There are monumental obstacles that, by all logic, should've sunk his candidacy midstream, or kept it from getting off the ground in the first place. He's a 46-year young black man from a broken, racially-mixed family. He's got little experience on the national stage. He's a Senator. He's got some questionable, controversial relationships (Rev. Wright). He took on the the mighty Clintons. Despite being attacked on all sides, he fought in the primaries with dignity, grace and, for the most part, ran an unusually clean campaign that demonstrated character and integrity. He won his party's nomination and now faces an historic battle against the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain. And in 2008 America, Barack Obama must win.

To be sure, when it comes to race and race relations, the United States has an ugly past. This includes slavery, lynchings, murder/hate crimes, segregation, voter disenfranchisement, job discrimination, etc. But the truth is, 2008 America is a much better place. While racial prejudice still exists, and it's still quite ugly at times, blacks have made tremendous progress in becoming part of the national fabric in sports, entertainment, business, politics and more. Blacks have become leaders of industry, pop culture icons and powerful politicians....many of whom, like Obama, have quite successfully transcended color.

On the political landscape, people such as Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Obama have risen to enormous positions of power. Blacks are winning city, state and national elections more than ever, and that includes the deep South. The U.S. House of Representatives is 10% black. Two states, including New York, have black governors. This year, the Obama camp believes that it could see the South return to the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Yes, there is change indeed. Which is why Obama must win.

The U.S. presidency is the grand prize. Again, it is nothing short of remarkable that Obama has overcome so many obstacles and is within very short reach of the White House. But the simple truth is, this year's election is the Perfect Storm of politics. The country is mired in an unpopular war, the economy's teetering on recession, and the existing administration--racked by cronyism, scandal and corruption--has historically low approval ratings. Gas is inching towards $5.00/gallon, housing prices are down 15% year-over-year, and consumer confidence is at a 15-year low. It's the perfect opportunity for Americans to shatter racial divides and elect a black president, someone who, after eight miserable years of George W. Bush, speaks to their bread-and-butter issues. But that opportunity may not come around again for a long time. The table could not be better set than it is right now. Which is why Obama must win.

America needs to get over itself and finally break down these walls of racism. It's time that its citizens stop viewing each other through the prism of color, and focus instead on the person beneath the skin. If we as a nation are to ever get beyond centuries of ignorance and racial bigotry, Obama must win. Whites would finally be presented with a black president and be forced to confront their inherent fears, while hopefully accepting the cultural reality that success or failure in the Oval Office has nothing to do with race. And for some blacks, they would no longer be able to hide behind the contention that the "system" is keeping them down, and instead assume a greater responsibility for their own successes and/or failures....a point that both Obama and the comedian Bill Cosby have spoken out on recently. In short, Obama's candidacy would effectively disarm those with bias and those with excuses. More than ever in our 232 year history, people might finally be just, well, people.

But if Obama loses to McCain in November, that will be an even greater statement of where America is with regard to race. That a candidate from a severely weakened party, who votes in virtual lockstep with Bush, could beat Obama while voters voice that they so desperately want and need change, would signal that having a black president is, in 2008, perhaps too much change. In that case, the nation, not just Obama, loses.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: It's now time for us to pull together as Democrats and unite behind Obama and his historic candidacy. These are exciting times. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. In politics, money is key. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizeable war chest for campaigning, ground teams/staff, ads, mailings, Internet/email promotions, etc, he can win these states. I am commited to raising $25,000 for the campaign between now and November. Click here to make a contribution and help me reach this goal. Together we can change America.


Sparhawk70 said...

so, Let me get this straight. If Obama loses, it will be because he is Black and America is racist.

WE have to elect him to prove we aren't racist.

Couldn't be anything like his stance on issues, his associations and his empty rhetoric could it?

YOU are what is wrong with this country.

Anonymous said...

Obama talks of change. Receiving the stamp of approval from CFR, AIPAC and Bildergerg Group will equal lip service change. Same as it ever was. Money talks, BS walks!

Anonymous said...

Obama does not deserve the Presidency simply because he is not another neoconservative! So, I am racist if I don't vote for him? Fuck You! I'm not going to vote for him because his idea of "change" is far from adequate. I read this worthless dribble because I am still searching for the "change" Obama is proposing. I don't see it! What actual change is Obama proposing, besides the fact that his favorite color is blue, not red? Answer me this!

Anonymous said...

"a sizable war chest"

you americans militarize everything.

you're sick.

Francesca Thomas said...

What the heck does Rivero have to do with this post? He did NOT write it. The writers name is OSTROY not RIVERO. All Rivero did was to LINK to this post. Which is how I got here and why I am writing this comment.

So many anonymous right-wing and not-too-bright americans.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy has really blown it with this nonsense. I agree with every commentator preceding this one by me. They are all correct. And the topper is - can you believe anybody would say this - that if we don't elect Obama we are racists?

He shouldn't be elected for all the reasons listed in why it's such a wonder that he got this far. It will be a miracle if he gets elected, not because of white racists, but because he's inexperienced, young, a flip-flopper; a panderer and a liar; not to mention the way the black community has shown their racism despite the monumental progress they have made. The huge number of successful, powerful black people would never have made it if the white majority had been racist.

It would have been hard for Obama not to get this far, however, with all the money from Democratic fat cats, and the overwhelming support by the press.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I agree with most of the previous comments.Additionally,it's one of the problems with the caucus system i.e. If i voted for Clinton in the caucus,you would have called me a racist.
What surprises me is that you don't see this.It's why she won the states where there was voting.

Also,you fail to mention that Obama
and his wife are the products of affirmative action i.e. he went to Columbia and Harvard.she went to Princeton and Harvard.I would ilke to see their applications in that
my great nephew scored 2300 on the SAT and was in the 99 percentile of his class at 4.0 and couldn't get into Princeton.
Also,if you think that 1.3 million
voters gave him 500 mill,you better wake up.

Anonymous said...


The assumption on your part that the only way the Obamas could have attended elite Ivy League schools is via affirmative action betrays a belief that because they are black they could not achieve on their own, they must have had assistance in order to be as worthy as others.

Would you assume Hillary Clinton got into Yale Law simply because she is female?

Anonymous said...


I feel sorry for you this afternoon.

I feel certain it takes quite a bit of time and effort to put together blog entries and to be factually challenged on the opinions contained within the blog is one thing. It's quite another to have respondents suffer from mass reading comprehension failure and be attacked for something quite apart from the message you were clearly attempting to convey.

Good luck dealing with this mess.

Anonymous said...

The unfair and sad story of 4:19's nephew is the kind of story I've heard more than once. Acceptance based on race not entirely on merit. Things are not equal in this country and that's got to change. But I'm not sure that's on Obama's list for change. So, that's what to fear with a president who is supported by one hundred percent of the citizens of his race.

And, it is absurd for Ostroy to suggest that Americans vote for a black candidate so we'll look like a nice group of people and the rest of the world will like us. I'm not voting for the candidate for the most important job in the world so I'll look like a nice guy, or even be a nice guy. It's not a job for affirmative action to be a consideration.

Of course Bush got into Princeton because of his connections and that's not right either. We know he wasn't qualified for entry or for the presidency.

Anonymous said...

I of course meant GWB got into Yale. The point remains the same.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton got into Yale Law
school after she was the valedictorian of her class at Wellsley.Big difference.

Anonymous said...

5:37 Hillary wasn't given the honor of being the valedictorian through any kind of affirmative action or help. She earned it with her achievements, which would have assured her entry into Yale even if another had been the valedictorian. That's how it works and how it's supposed to work. Reward based on merit.

Anonymous said...

Any American who stands behind the AIPAC sign is a traitor to the U.S.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton was not valedictorian of her graduating class at Wellesley College.

Unknown said...

That Obama "has come this far is quite astounding" is silly. He's "come this far" because he's been chosen to run - just like all the professional politicos are chosen for us. It's a sham. Answer this question - do you think the American electorate has suddenly become enlightened? That suddenly our brain-dead citizens suddendly said, 'time to elect a black man'? Hardly.
His wife is on the board of CFR/Chicago. He sucks up to AIPAC - just like Clinton & InsaneMcCain.
One of the myths of this selection year is that Obama is a great orator. He is not. A great orator speaks facts and truths (e.g., Ron Paul). Obama is a professional politician spewing platitudes and the gullible exclaim, 'wow!'.
He is a weak man.
America is falling for this scam once again. At a time we Can No Longer Afford To Play These Games.

The Ostroy Report said...

If anyone doubts the degree to which ignorance and racism exists in our country today, just take a look at some of the comments posted on this message board. We don't have to look to far, or too hard, to find America's racist dumbasses. They're often right under our noses.

BTW, posts with racist and anti-Semetic overtones will continue to be quickly deleted by our zealous team of righteous interns.

Anonymous said...

If you don't elect Obama, your an anti-semite!!!

Anonymous said...



sexism: A doctrine or feeling of gender differences, especially with reference to supposed gender superiority, inferiority, or purity; gender prejudice, hatred or discrimination and domination.

When Obama is crictized
about anything it is called racism and everyone is to feel guilty and to stop immediately.

When Hillary was criticized or put down, or even humiliated, it was because she was Hillary, and a dreadful person whom no one in the country liked. It was her fault.

I am very very tired of the pass Obama has gotten from the beginning.

Where was Ostroy's article about the sexism and the mistreatment of Hillary. When did he say she's GOT to be elected; and, remember, he was a Hillary supporter. Maybe I missed that column.

Anonymous said...


Every criticism of Obama is met with charges of racism? Exaggerate much?

Yeah, I'm sure Obama considered it a "pass" when the MSM spent about a month running non-stop in the middle of the primaries a loop of the "best hits" of Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure he further considered it a "pass" when the MSM annointed Hillary the presumptive nominee in the fall of 2007. Hillary clearly gave him a "pass" when she declared that he was not a Muslim "as far as she knew". The final abomination of a debate on ABC was clearly a moment of "pass" on the part of the media toward Obama.

Shall I go on?

Andy Ostroy did plenty for Hillary Clinton. He's mature enough, though, to know how to deal with his disappointment and move on in a way that best serves the ideals of not only his prefered candidate but also, I presume, his own.

Anonymous said...

Wow Obama really suffered at the hands of the presss. Imagine the hardship and unfairness of being asked tough, relevant questions in a presidential debate. When they weren't running clips of the racist Wright, they were running clips of Hillary and her "gunfire" story. They sure picked on Obama, though. Hillary WAS the presumptive nominee in the fall of 2007 and it only ended when Obama and his team started playing the race card and the blacks saw he had a chance of winning with so many white supporters so they deserted Hillary and voted for him one hundred percent. Hillary's job was not to give him a "pass" -- the Press gave him the pass - nor did Obama give her a pass with his sexist putdowns. And, again, that ABC was only a watered down version of what Hillary had faced at every preceding debate. And, they were questions to Obama that we, the voters trying to choose wisely, wanted answered. No, don't go on, because what you say is foolish.

I know what Ostroy did for Hillary. What I said, was he never wrote a comparable article about sexism that he has written about racism.

I think it's interesting that dispite the negative remarks about Obama so far in this particualr blog, you, yourself, didn't come out to protest those remarks and defend Obama. You weren't interested until Hillary and sexism became a focus. NO doubt about it -- sexism and misogyny is a more serious problem that racism. Obama's problems are not because he's black, but because of his lack of character.

Anonymous said...

Commie Baby Killing, Gun Taking, Pudwhacker Nuff Said. He will make Bush look like Abe Lincoln. ALL THEIR HEADS ON PIKES and no more wars for Misrael.

Anonymous said...

Um, I hate to break this to you, old boy, but Obama also "votes in virtual lockstep with Bush."

I really wanted to like Obama. I wanted to vote for him, but I just can't. He is as reactionary as anyone we have had in the past 3 decades and he will say whatever his audience wants to hear, even when it is diametrically opposed to what his last audience wanted to (and did) hear from him.

Anonymous said...


The claim of the media giving Obama a pass is demonstrably false and smacks of whining about how poor Hillary (who had EVERY advantage going into the process) was a victim.

The only thing she was a victim of was her campaign's hubris. She was defeated for the nomination by a man quite a few here totally dismiss, which was the mistake also made by the Clinton campaign. Continuing to dismiss him, despite the fact he beat your candidate, cheapens her political image and legacy.

Anonymous said...

Reading these moronic posts leave me less than hopeful for the future of our nation. I didn't want Hillary to become the nominee because I felt she would be as polarizing as George W. Bush. But see....really see... Barack Obama is a candidate that is intelligent, has a 360 view of issues, is well spoken and inclusive. Is smart enough to surround himself with those who will give him the straight talk and all you can do is denigrate him in appalling fashion. Shame on you, really. And that goes for any of you who might be trashing John McCain in the same fashion. Let's talk issues, not stupidity.

Anonymous said...

"racial problems" still exist because libturds (aka verbal masturbators) such as yourself still purport that such a thing as race even exists in the first place!

question libTURD... why is the term/category "race" only utilized in human groupings?

really.... when are U lubTURDS gonna wake up and realize U R simply gate-keeping tools of the authoritarian fascist elements?!?!?

Anonymous said...

"a sizable war chest"

you americans militarize everything.

you're sick.

U R absolutely correct! thats why I always say they deserve EVERY bad thing that never happens to them (and this includes all my friends and family still in that fascist shit-hole of a society) as does the UK and israHELL!

Anonymous said...

Hello all: I agree with this blogger article. As bad as Obama is, a rejection of Obama literally means tyranny, the destruction of the USA, armageddon and global extinction. So in the coming elections we have 2 options: Obama or barbarism, there is no other practical alternative really. What other solutions do you guys on this blogger have? an armed revolution? hnmmm, you will only dishonor your father and mother that way, because you have to wait for objective conditions for an armed revolution to take place in the USA, but not yet, and the other option is a vote for Nader, and that option is not feasable either. So the only option we have is Obama, the lesser evil of the 2 capitalist evils we have in this country

Anonymous said...

The Ostroy Report: Hello i agree, and I would add to that, that USA is not only racist, but classist too, it is a society divided not only in class and race, but also in age groups. Haven't you noticed how young people in this country hate old. It is not a United States really but divided, very sectarian in every way possible.

Another thing i would like to add is that i don't understand how can USA have tourism, when the hospitality of most american people is so bad. Americans are not very openminded to welcome foreign tourists.

hmmmm, i think we need a dose of psychiatry in this country indeed, to fix all the mental disorders

Anonymous said...

Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve to have that vote and deserves to be enslaved by liars.

Anonymous said...

Andy, let me second the sentiments of the person who wished you luck dealing with the barrage of illiteracy and irrationality manifested in these comments. As an educator, I find it frightening that so many Americans don't know how to reason--and apparently, they don't know how to read and write, either.

Anonymous said...

In today's column even Huffington is questioning Obama's swing to the middle and worrying everybody about what he'll do if elected. She says it's a losing strategy and belies everything we thought he stood for.

Anonymous said...

7:32 Obviously you educators have done a very bad job of educating. I'd give you a failing grade. Your first terrible mistake is not to group elementary school children in classes according to their current ability and achievement level. If not, the heterogeneous classroom teacher devotes himself to trying to keep order.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:46,
You certainly have a point about our educators. Unfortunately the NEA is the most powerful union in America and they are only interested in protecting the jobs of teachers - even the pedafiles.

Al Qaeda can blow up a city but America's teacher's unions can destroy a generation. The NEA is a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda.

Democrats don't care because they want the dumbing down of America. Democrats want power and only power. They will get it by taking control of our health care. Once they have control of our health, they control us. The government indoctrination of our youth will continue and we will eventually all become liberal lemmings.

Anonymous said...

More "change" from Obama:

In just the past week Barack Obama has changed his mind on several key issues. We just thought you might want to keep score.

He was against granting immunity to telecom companies that aided our government in eavesdropping on telephone messages to and from known terrorist operatives overseas. Now he is for granting this immunity to the evil telecom corporations.

Some time ago Obama said that he wholeheartedly supported the ban on the private ownership of guns in Washington DC. Then, after the Supreme Court came down with their ruling last week, suddenly Obama is a supporter of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Earlier this year Obama said that he was going to accept public financing of his presidential campaign after the convention. Now that he has seen he could get more money from private contributions than he would from public financing, he changed his mind.

NAFTA? Barack was going to immediately re-negotiate all of the evil NAFTA treaty. Now ... well, let's just say "not so much."

"Change we can believe in" turns out to be "I believe I'm going to change my mind."

learn something:


Obama's for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males
By Fred Lucas Staff Writer
June 30, 2008

( - While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Anonymous said...

9:55 I have to disagree with you about the NEA. The members of the NEA are not the ones who develop the curricula or determinine the philosophy of educaion to be followed. We are put in classromm situations that are untenable. No one can teach anything when the levels of achievement range from pre-school to perhaps one or two grands beyond the expectation for the normal class at that level. Tben, in addition to that handicapped, emotionally distrubed children and special edcuation children are also placed in that class. Common sense demands that all must admit that nothing can be learned with such diversity. There are some children in these classes who can't speak English. Try and teach third grade reading to them while trying to keep the attention of forty other children who do speak English and are bored while waiting for their turn.

Everything adults learn in classes are usually based on achievement level. It should be acknowledged that the same learning requirement should apply to children in school.

When we fail to teach, which we almost always do, the only thing that saves our jobs and our family income is the NEA. We should not lose our jobs when we are not the source of the problem. At least we keep order usually and prevent real physical harm in the classroom. I would also point out that those who do develop school policy and educational procedures are usually not educators; and, certainly have had no experience trying to teach under the programs they have developed and implemented in the sshool system.

I'll point out that it's not "politically correct" to divide children into clased based on levels of achievement and ability.

I would also point out that it's very harmful to children in the heterogeneous class room who can't keep up with those who do manage some level of achivement. These children would develop much more self esteem if thay experienced real success in a class geared to their abilities.

Anonymous said...

10:26 A Queen would be nice.

Anonymous said...


Mr. Lewis does a fine job of misinterpreting averaging in his reporting.

Here's a scenario for you: I have a staff of 10. 2 are men, 8 are women. I have one male and one female executive who perform the same functions and receive the same pay ($100,000/year). The other 8 employees all make the same amount of money ($40,000/year).

Apparently I'm a nice guy because my female-to-male employment ratio is 4-1. But I'm an asshole because I pay the men on my staff an "average" salary of $75,000/year while the women make an "average" of $47,500.

It's a silly characterization of the reality. In Obama's case, the difference in pay is explained by the fact that Obama has 4 men on his senior staff and 1 woman. The additional 3 six-figure salaries paid to those men easily explains the $5000 difference in "average" salaries among a staff of 64 that is relatively even in terms of number of men and women.

If Lewis were honest, he'd have reported the pay for men and women who perform the same functions on each staff and if there were any pay discrepancies.

Anonymous said...

Of course that average salary for men would be $70K...

Anonymous said...

no vote for Obama=ignorant

no vote for Obama=reading comprehension challenged

no vote for Obama=racist

no vote for Obama=warmonger

no vote for Obama=IQ challenged

no vote for Obama=armegeddon

Boy, Obama sure instills unity in positive and cooperative dialogue in his supporters, doesn't he?

It's true. All Obama suck-ups have is empty rhetoric and name-calling in their sharp and, oh so witty, repartee.

Fact is: That's all Obots have. No experience, no track-record, no military or foreign policy experience, no business accumen, no solid time tested political experience...oh and no birth certificate. That's what Obama has left this blogger and his minions to creatively dialogue with.

And you all wonder why we refuse to vote for him...

Anonymous said...


If anyone clearly and effectively challenged every one of your objections to Obama, not to his supporters but to Obama himself, would you vote for him?

Anonymous said...

Since education and achievement in education are being discussed at this time, it's worth mentioning that John McCain graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at Annapolis.

Normal people don't get into Navy flight school having graduated at the bottom of the class. Being the son and grandson of admirals, though, apparently counted more than skill, competence or accomplishment.

Anonymous said...

An "in" frequently accounts more than skill,competence or accomplshment. Proof: George W. Bush and Barack Obama. There are two kinds of affirmative action in this country ; that of the well-connected very rich; and that for black people. Who knew -- right???

Anonymous said...

I am appalled at this whole mess.

One thing is undeniable. ANDY HAD IT RIGHT.

He said it and he was right - Obama is not qualified to be President. There were other people out there who were far far far more qualified than he is. Hillary for one. But beyond her, there was Bill Richardson and Joe Biden to name two others with deep backgrounds and experience.

He said it when there were other Democrats competing against him. BUT HE WON'T SAY IT NOW.

He wants us all to forget about it. He wants us all to overlook the shallow record and unwise associations that would have sunk someone else.

Because he is the only Democrat in the race.

I have been a life long Democrat. But I feel like a "fallen" Catholic who can't abide the Church's view on personal freedoms.

I am convinced that Democrats would vote for ANYONE other than a Republican no matter how unqualfied they are or intrinsically unfit they may be. A friend of mine took it a step to far when he said to me that a Democrat would vote for Stalin if he ran against Eisenhower.

And it does make some sense. Look for example at Hillary. There is no question that she is far and away more substantively qualfied to be President than Obama. By a wide margin. But there is the character issue that rubs people wrong. That's why with her "franchise" she still could never close the deal.

And so it goes - the "Clinton franchise" - it turns out that it was little more than the "any one but a Republican" franchise.

I never liked Hillary for president for the same reasons - I preferred Bill Richardson. But my jaw dropped to my feet as I heard Democrats flogging Bill Clinton and Hillary in much the same way - using almost the same words and arguments - that Republicans used for years.

Turns out that the defense of Clinton all along was a bunch of hooey - it was more a defense against his critics rather than a defense of HIM.

And now, the Democrats have an alternative, so out comes the LONG HIDDEN TRUTH.

And why Obama? Exactly what is it that he has that makes people think he is fit to be president? There are probably HUNDREDS of people in this country - currently in politics - who have a deeper background and more serious credentials.

The truth is that Obama's strongest credentials in the primary season is that his name was not Clinton and he was the only distinguishable person amongst all the other alternatives. And why was he distinguishable? Anyone who denies that his race has nothing to do with it is lying to themselves, let alone to the rest of us.

Indeed, the modern Democratic party fancies itself as trendsetting in social and societal issues. They LIKE to feel good about themselves - hey, let's nominate a black guy! He's not Clinton - we hated having to stick up for him and dread having to do it all over again. Who else is out there?

Voting against because he is black is dead wrong and anyone who does is really off the hook.

But the problem with today's Democratic party is that it doesn't see that the opposite is EQUALLY TRUE.

It is patroninzing and diminishing of the person and the race.

But then again, the modern Democratic party has been exploiting blacks for decades, taking their votes and delivering nothing. More progress has been made in the Black community as a result of economic development than any social program that the Democratic party has foisted on the Nation in general and blacks in particular.

Democratic social policies is directly responsible for some of the most persistent problems in the Black community - their attitudes on social issues and privacy rights is directly responsible for the destuction of the family unit in the black community. 50 years ago, a small fraction of black households were headed up by unmarried women. Today, the overwhelming majority is and it's really hard for these harried mothers to oversee their kids and help them get a proper education when they are fighting for their own survival and don't even have an education of their own.

But all this comes from foolish attitudes on transfer payments and the encouragement of promiscuity that is a core value of today's Democratic party.

You don't see Democrats trying to help Blacks overcome these wounds that they themselves inflicted. Nay, they are almost like the pusher who purposefully hooks his customer so he can continue to maintain his success on the backs and on the misery of his patrons.

Democrats and blacks. What a foolish combination - from the point of view of the blacks.

SO here we are with Obama as their candidate. There is only one good thing I can say about that. He is NOT Hillary Clinton.

That's all.

Beyond that, white, black, purple or blue, the man is not qualified to be President of this great nation.

And Democrats should wake up and come to their senses.

Anonymous said...

Obama is trying to make nice and win over the poor, bitter people who cling to their guns and religion. He totally approves of the Supreme Court's decision that allows all to carry guns; and, he totally approves of the federal money spent on Faith Based Initiatives. What can we expect him to support abortion? Or maybe, he'll only change on that hot issue if he's talking at a Rel. Right Rally. Or, maybe he's already sent them a representative assuring them that his anti abortion stance is just campaign talk and not to worry.

Or maybe the NY Times article printed on the front page about three years ago gave the correct explanation when it explained that his leadership style which is to get both sides to agree, is to get his side to cave and join the opposition.

Or, maybe we'll never know what he's really like unless we elect him. And even then, we might discover that he lies as does the current administraiton. It's good that gambling is not illegal or we couldn't hold these elections.

Anonymous said...


Affirmative action programs benefit all minority ethnic groups and women - not just African-Americans.

Through skill, competence and accomplishment Barack Obama earned the prestigous position of editor of Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, one of the finest law schools in the world.

John McCain partied his way through the taxpayer funded education he received at Annapolis and barely managed to graduate.

Anonymous said...


Obama had already stated he believed the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms prior to the Supreme Court's recent decision. What he also believes is that just as we have the right to own property, the government has the right to regulate its use, tax it and otherwise make sure community and national standards are upheld. Same applies to guns.

Obama did not say he "totally" approves of Bush's Faith Based Initiatives. In fact, here's what he said about them: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slammed President Bush's faith-based program as "a photo-op" and a failure on Tuesday, and said he will scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his administration. "Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Ask the Illinois police associations and prosecutor's offices if Obama caved on getting homicide interrogations videotaped. Ask Republican elected officials in Illinois if he caved on ethics and health care reform, low-income tax credits, payday loan and predatory mortgage loan regulations and death penalty reforms.

While you are at it, ask Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn if Obama isn't willing to work across the aisle on legislation and if he simply "caved" or abandoned his positions on weapons proliferation or government transparency.

Anonymous said...


Let's assume one agrees with everything you wrote. So Dems should wake up, come to their senses and do what? Vote for John McCain?

As for qualifications and experience, the most qualified and experienced person to run for the office of President in the last 40 years was - Richard M. Nixon.

That sure turned out wonderfully.

The most successful record for a President in terms of economic growth, federal budget sanity and peace with our fellow citizens of the planet was Bill Clinton. Prior to his becoming President, he had 13 years (11 as Governor, 2 as state Attorney General) of elected office experience in Arkansas. He had no federal government experience whatsoever.

Bill Clinton was also tagged with the label "not qualified".

Anonymous said...

4:53 I read the long piece in the NY Times about Obama, too. In fact, the earlier poster may be my friend, who reads this blog, who called me that a.m. and told me to read it. It definitely described Obama's style as going to the other side to have "unity." I, myself, have noticed that when he "caves" it's always because "it's broken", but he's going to "fix" it, therefore it will then be OK to have gone to that side. Example: public financing -- it was "broken" by the 527's so "What's a guy running for president going to do" until it's repaired? Same now with Faith Based Initiatives. It's been done all wrong by Bush, but Obama is going to make it "good" so it is worthy of his support. No true Democrat in the country approves of the Supreme Court Ruling on guns. They simply cannot stomach it. He's "caved" on that. His Canada rep. said he would cave on trade. No need to repeat all of this. He is just another spineless Democrat who somehow gets the power. As for Bill, he won a scholarhip to Oxford on the sole strength of his ability -- no connections there and no affirmative action -- and he had far more experience than Obama has and yes, far more integrity. Bill loved Kennedy and was a very young student of government.

As for Richardson -- he exerted influence he should not have to help another Latino in a jam. . Not only that, he has no sense of loyalty, except I guess to other Latinos.

I'm like the guy in the other post feeling like a "fallen" Catholic. I won't go Republican, I'll just stay home on election day.

Anonymous said...

I am in a state of shock. Tonight on TV one of Obama's reps, while defending his Faith Based Initiative promises, said that Obama is an Evangelical. Do they think voters are retarded? There is no remote connection between the theology of the Black Liberation Theology and that of Evangelicals. I cannot stand anymore of these lies. It's almost comical except nobofy is laughing. It was admitted by the same representative that he's trying to shake the story that he's a Muslim, but to tell the lie of being an Evangelical is beyond belief. The Repuboican rep. admitted he would probably get some of their votes now.

What happened to the strong Democratic Party's believe in the total separation of church and state. What won't Obama do to get elected?

Anonymous said...

9:59 I think I just figured it out. Obama is an Identity Theft.

During the debates Hillary answered the questions first and then Obama, when asked, would steal the essence of her idea and it became his, too. That's why their platforms were so alike.

Now he's stealing McCain's ID. More and more he's taking McCain's positions.

And, he even insists his wife take on a new persona, too.

Now I wonder if Wright's outrageous performance was staged so Obama could leave the church without too much criticism at dumpting his "uncle/mentor/friend". The "mentor" and Obama planned it. I don't trust anything at all about his campaign now.

Anonymous said...


If you chose not to vote, that's your prerogative. Personally I find it shameful for someone who can take the time to type responses on a political blog to intentionally refuse to exercise their most precious right in a democracy, but that's just me.

BTW, Hillary Clinton supports the individual's right to arms found in the Second Amendment: “I support the Second Amendment. Law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns,” Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, said in response to questions from The Des Moines Register. “But I also believe strongly in smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.”


Once again your blind rage against the boogeyman BLT has you tilting at windmills.

The United Church of Christ was formed by the union of the Congregationalist and the Evangelical and Reformed Church denominations in the late '50s.


It'd be hard not to agree at one time or another with John McCain as he's been on one side of the fence and the other side of it, too, on most major issues of the day.

Anonymous said...

Hillary was also accused of siding too many times and on important issues with the Republicans. In fact, that seems to be the trend with Democrats in power. They all cave to the Republicans and now Obama is leading the pack.

They're all alike.

Anonymous said...


What should Democrats do? Well that's a loaded question....

You posit the notion that the question starts and stops with this election. And that simply perpetuates the core problems that the party faces - a dishonest core that is based upon power more than principle, that seeks that power based upon social and economic programs that is antithetical to important notions of the family unit that is the foundation of our society and the disappearance of which can be directly tied to the most pervasive and pernicious problems we face.

For far too long our party has behaved with respect to social policy as a youngster behaves in a candy store. They want as much of the sweet stuff as possible regardless as to how unhealthful it is. People are ladled out a soup of nonsense about how they should do what they WANT regardless of consequence without any discussion about those consequences.

It's the reverse of the gun nuts who would put guns in everyone's hands WITHOUT caution or education as to their safe use.

Sure, go right ahead. Have as much sex as you like with whomever you like!!!! We'll make sure you can do that with free and unrestricted abortion and with groups like Planned Parenthood who counsel only about abortion and little about prevention or adoption. Oh, and shhh. Let's ignore how many kids get born to single mothers who's educations and training get disrupted.

Dammit DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't want to make people feel badly, nor do you want to undermine their self esteem, let alone their right to fornicate and raise kids in unstructured and unsafe environments.

Forget about the negative consequences upon the society. Hell, we'll erase as much of those negative consequences as possible by telling all these people what victims they are so they like us.

Even though our policies are the single largest reason why they are in that predicament in the first place.

And dammit, we'll make fun of every education initiative that anyone ELSE makes. But we will make love to the shcool unions so passionately so as to make sure that all these kids go to substandard schools and thus continue on the same destructive cycles. Which gives us even more of an opportunity to double down on the message that they are victims.

This party needs to wake up once and for all and start paying attention to THOSE issues. This election is evanascent. It will come and go. But this problem has been eating at the core of who we are as Democrats and what we stand for as a party to the point that there is little of value left.

As to Bill Clinton, I remember that people said he was unfit for President and truth be told, I think history has shown that the assessment was accurate.

The man was unfit from the standpoint of his core values. He used the Presidency as a trinket for his own ego. He stood for nothing important other than self preservation. And the economic conditions he presided over can be traced more to Bill Gates and Ronald Reagan than anything he did. You can't turn the SS America around in the wink of an eye. The biggest blessing he received was the enormous blast of efficiency that the digital age introduced. And if you look carefully at that - you will see that the investment policies and the research and development policies that trace their roots to the early 19080s were responsible for it.

As to Richard Nixon, the man as a person was flawed. Probably less than Bill Clinton. At least he had a sense of shame and appreciated that this thing of ours was bigger than any one man. He walked away rather than allow the country further pain. Clinton purposely paralyzed our forward political progress for two years by insisting on saving his sorry ass and spent the rest of his presidency trying for the home run that would remove his own self inflicted stain.

And what I just wrote about Bill Clinton seems to be the company line about him now among a huge number of Democrats who for the first time were faced with the opportunity to vote against a Clinton without having to vote FOR a Republican.

As if that would be some crime.

I will be voting for McCain. Not Obama. McCain CARES about this country. He has been more of a maverick than Obama ever was. No, he's far from my first choice.

But how in the world can anyone vote for a guy with no experience and such an awful history of outrageous relationships together with the most far left extreme voting record that is the essential disease afflicting our party?

Democrats need to grow up and realize that the candy store ain't the place to go when you need some thing of substance. They have to begin to appreciate that their constant demands in the social area have consequences and impose responsibilities.

Anonymous said...


A loaded statement merited a loaded question.

It's no wonder you feel as a boat lost in the Democratic Party's sea. You've bought wholesale standard GOP lines that distort our party's principles and you malign the work of groups like Planned Parenthood with outright falsehood.

It's also quite a nice bit of historical revisionism to state it was Bill Clinton's fault that the nation endured two years of nonsense and paralyzed political progress. If you will recall, the majority of the nation rejected the idea of impeachment. That was nowhere near the case during the Nixon years.

John McCain does not care any more about the United States of America than any other person who ran for President. It may be your opinion, based on what I don't know, that he does but it's not fact and I can easily counter your question why anyone would vote for Obama with the question why anyone would vote for a man with questionable moral fiber (prostitutes, adultery, no true affiliation with any Christian denomination), no firm policy position other that some nebulous notion of "winning" in Iraq and that eliminating "earmarks" will magically find $100 billion in savings - which is bullcorn, a volatile temper and tendency toward petulance, highly dubious personal and business associations, no appreciation for or understanding of economics or economic policy and no real record of accomplishment that he's willing to stand by after 25 years in Congress.

On social issues, the GOP talks a good game but they don't deliver squat. In fact, not only have they not delivered on their stated social agenda they mock it with repeated and voluminous scandals and rank hypocrisy... only the latest example being David Vitter and Larry Craig following in Bob Barr's footsteps in sponsoring Defense of Marriage legislation.

Anonymous said...

12:01 I suspect you are not a Democrat and never have been. I live in a red state which is in the Bible Belt. I have been cheated by every businessman and workman that I've had to employ. The children of these citizens get pregnant out of marriage and are hoisted off for an abortion. They poison their neighbors' pets if they annoy them. They collect cash for some jobs done and put the cash in a bank box and never pay taxes. Many claim disabilities, leave their jobs and work independent of IRS tracking. They have no sympathy for the poor yet give their money to their adult children so they, themselves, can go into nursing homes under Medicaid. I won't even get into the gossip and bad feelings among them. Most have no friends and assocaite socially only with their families, except for church functions. When people start putting their high-sounding, Republican and religious "principles" into action, our country can improve. It's not the ideas you express that are at fault; it's they are not practicedd by those who support and purport them in theory. I guess what I'm talking about is monumental hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention they have extreme contempt for lawyers but are the first to sue when they get a chance. They simply do not "walk the walk." You're right 12:01 our country is in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

See, that's what's become of the party. You don't toe the line, you're outta here!

Governor Bob Casey of PA, of blessed memory, was a Democrat in good standing for his entire life. Yet he was a devout Catholic and thus pro-life. So when we hold our convention IN HIS HOME STATE, he isn't even welcome to address his own party's convention.

Yet we are the party of tolerence, eh?

I have been a Democrat since I registered in time to vote for Jimmy Carter - oh, do I wish I could take THAT one back.... My parents were Democrats before me and theirs before them.

Yet if I don't swallow the activist line, hook line and sinker I'm outta here? Is there any doubt in your mind why there were Regan Democrats, but the term Rockefeller Republican died long before good old Nelson did himself?

It's because we have a stilted world view as a party. It's our view or no view and "our view" is the view of the most strident and leftist amongst us. Even good old Andy can't help himself to remain civil in his disagreement, labeling those he disagrees with by ad hominem such as Repugnicans.

How do you do that and keep your soul as a person of moral and intellectual integrity?

You tell people they are lousy human beings by being lousy to them? Who created those values? Where do they come from? Why do we tolerate it?

Why is it that people can't speak the truth about the social policies of today's modern Democratic party and stay a Democrat? Must we all be like Reagan who said that he didn't leave the party - it left him?

It's like Catholics like Mario Cuomo - they turn their backs on their own core values, or at least the core values they were raised on - so as to advance their political interests lest they not be well received by the hordes? Or are they supposed to go a step further - it seems you feel Democrats who can't support the core should become Republicans (or maybe always were in their hearts). Is Mario Cuomo Jewish? Or Protestant? Obviously he can't be Catholic according to your standard....

The long and short of all this is that the party needs to have a bigger tent with more diverse views if it hopes to achieve it's potential. Accept others without smearing them as Repugs or worse. Don't vote for a man just because he wears your uniform - part of the glory of being an American as Mark Twain (I believe) said was supporting your country ALL of the time and your government (substitute party here) when it deserves it.

Anonymous said...

Obama Supporters Pissed At Obama's Switch On Telecom Immunity

So much for change. Obama is going to make Hillary look like a girl scout.

Anonymous said...

4/52 Your point is well-taken except now we don't know what Obama's "core values" are, or, indeed, if he has any. He has switched points of view and dumped relatives, mentors, supporters, friends over and over again. I've been disgusted with the spineless Democrats but he is at the head of the line now. He's almost an echo of McCain. We wish he'd stick to the "core values" we thought we had when we voted in the primary.

As for Cuomo. Give him and everybody else the benefit of your point of view endorsing latitude.
Maybe Cuomo believes in most of the Cathoic theology but does not agree that abortion is a sin. Why can't people/Catholics have the freedom you suggest for politicians and political parties?

Anonymous said...


I have 4 words for you with regard to civil discourse:

"Barack the Magic Negro." - as sung by Rush Limbaugh to his audience of 14 million.

I'm not interested in telling you you are "outta here". In fact I'm happy to engage you in discussion about the degeneration of discourse and the right path for the Democratic Party to take back the moral mantle from a thoroughly cynical GOP.

Both of these are messages contained in Obama's books and reiterated by actions of late, witness Obama's rejection of General Clark's comment about McCain being untested and untried as well as MoveOn's General Betrays ad and the Matthew 25 PAC (made up of moderate Catholics and evangelicals) currently running radio ads in the hometown of James Dobson.

Anonymous said...

I don't listen to Limbaugh. In the past I did from time to time, but I find him extremely distasteful for one major reason - his constant overbearing position on abortion.

I'm for "reasonable access" to choice. I eschew the Court's "undue burden" test in that it once again creates a privacy right where no such right exists in the constitution and does so in a way that basically throws open the door with what amounts to a societal endorsement of a procedure that should and would be taken far more seriously and responsibly if there was more of a hand on the scale.

On the other hand, I am sickened by people who take the harsh views - on either side - regarding the topic. When I last listened to him, his stark views on abortion were ugly and disgusting. It was every bit as sickening to me as the people who want to give my little girl an unrestricted right without notice to me of abortion decisions and, more to the point, the wing nuts who think partial birth abortion is just dandy.

But I checked out the lyrics of the song you referenced on Google and as disrespectful as I have no doubt Limbaugh delivered them, I must say that there is much truth in the lampoon.

It has gotten to the point were no one can criticize this unfit and under experienced candidate. And there is no doubt that I believe any reasonable person should have that his race played a material fact in why he is here. Yet for some reason, mainstream Dems these days seem to think that discrimination that benefits the invidious distinction of race is just fine when it is beneficial. Of course, that ignores the essential basis for condemnation of detriments based on such distinctions. It is one thing for remediation in schools/employment. Even in that situation, I find it distasteful that people who played no role in the conduct that produced the detriment bear the strongest burden of its remediation. It's amazing to me that more people don't see the injustice, for example, in imposing on today's young college applicants who were raised in a tolerant enviornment to be burdened by the acts of their predecessors. I have witnessed dozens of young highly qualified Ivy applicants lose their seats to make up for the discrimination of their grandparents. More than one have felt their heart break when through no fault of their own, their seats are given to others. In one school I am personally aware of, a clearly lesser candidate of color (don't you love that phrase? I suppose you also love your jeans of blue then), was accepted to an Ivy when another student with clearly superior credentials was turned down. I guess they had enough white Jewish boys from the Northeast.....

It is one thing, in my opinion to remediate generally and to do so regarding the presidency. This man is clearly not a qualified candidate in my view. He has little experience and that which he has demonstrate an extreme left wing view. His voting record in the SHORT time he's been in the Senate is the most leftist in the Senate.

His kid glove treatment is extraordinary. Look for example as to how he came to be a Senator. He ran against a white guy initially who was drummed off the ballot for far less egregious "relationships" than Obama has been uncovered as having regarding Wright, Ayers and that nutty priest.

But that's okay, and let's not talk about the far different yardstick he is held to.

See to me that's the second most dangerous thing about Obama - he's held to a different, less restrictive standard than he would had he been of a different race. That ought to be insulting to a man of principle, although I certainly understand how rank politicians accept whatever edge they can, regardless of principle.

The most dangerous aspect, to round out the record, is how mainstream Dems will back him unswervingly regardless as to whether he's the right man for the job.

I will say this for Republicans - when one of theirs steps out of line, he loses his support. The first Bush lost to Clinton for just that reason after he broke a single pledge regarding taxes. Clinton broke at least four more significant pledges and actually INCREASED his support in his party. That doesn't say much about the party's core values yet there it is, the truest measure of what the modern Democratic party has become. You can dress up a tyrant in Democratic clothing and the overwhelming rank and file of mainstream Dems would vote for him even against the Deity himself (okay, I exaggerate a bit with the Deity, but you get my point).

As to Obama's recent race to the middle, don't grasp for straws. He's not talking to you or your political co-religionists. He's make a mad race for the middle in the hopes of fooling people that he's not the extreme left wing guy he is. Notice he hasn't rejected any of his votes. He still holds them true and it took a thermo nuclear experience to dump the ugliest new religious racist recently appearing him on the scene.

Sometimes, a party has to step back to go forward. As a baseball fan of the Mets, for example, I often joke that I wish the team would go 0-162 so that management could see once and for all the error of their strategic ways. Similarly, I believe this party needs to be stripped down to be build up. Think of how you scrape and prime before you repaint.

Anonymous said...

In the very expensive new ad showing in eighteen states, coording to reports on the news, Obama tells an outright lie and one that can be proved. He calls the Welfare Bill - the "welfare to work" his bill. He claims credit for that bill and its passing. When, in fact, he voted against it. He does not tell the truth.

Anonymous said...


It seems to me you shoot yourself in the foot if you decry a lack of civil discourse in political debate while at the same time claiming there is some "truth" in Limbaugh's inane ditty. There is also some "truth" in the MoveOn ad "General Betrayus", but it's still unseemly.

For someone who has written copious amounts of type regarding the Democratic Party fostering the goal of "sex with whomever and whenever you like" leading to moral decline, to say that Jack Ryan's forcing his wife to go to sex clubs where wife swapping was the purpose and pleading with her to have sex in public places, which was a prime cause of their divorce (while being parents to a small child), is "less" of an offense than an association with people you find controversial smacks of moral relativity. Either you believe the family is the foundation of society or you do not. The GOP certainly claims it as a bedrock principle yet the number of divorced GOP elected officials and GOP officials mired in sex scandals FAR exceeds that of Democratic elected officials.

The MSM may claim Obama is "racing to the middle" but that's because they are lazy. It seems almost a dead certainty that less than 10% of reporters and opinion columnists have read his books - which revealed to me that he is far different than the stereotypical latte liberal. I know for a fact that my local editorialists have not. They admitted it to me directly.

It would be interesting to find out what specific actions he has taken that you believe show a clear move on his part to move from the left (BTW, the National Journal report calling him the most liberal senator is easily debunked) to the political center. Also, if you insist that he is doing so and that this is somehow wrong... what make you of John McCain's serpentine moves from the middle to the right to the middle and back to the right, seemingly on a daily basis, with regard to this short list: tax cuts, torture, negotiations with rogue states, the DREAM act, offshore drilling, social security privatization, balanced budget pledge, defense spending, the estate tax, claiming support for investigations into Katrina response and the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton during the campaign?

The GOP punishes its own when they step out of line? Are you kidding me? No one was punished in the Plame incident by the GOP. No one of significance was punished in the DoJ scandals. David Vitter and Larry Craig continue to hold their Senate seats despite their "Defense of Marriage" acts... shall I go on?

Whining about how one seemingly cannot criticize Barack Obama is simply that - whining. Criticize him on specifics. Question his experience. But when others respond that they do not agree and can counter your assertions logically and with specifics, that's not out of bounds. It's debate.

Regarding invidious distinctions of race... when American society can actually practice race-neutrality or sex-neutrality there will clearly be no need for laws against discrimination and/or affirmative action. My first choice for study in college was strongly discouraged because my professors convinced me I would never find a position in the field as it was dominated by white men and the goal was to increase the number of women as well as ethnically diversify. It angered me but I understood I am not entitled to whatever career I want, just as I was not entitled to attend whatever university I chose.

Lastly, no, I do not get your point about Dems being the party of lock-step support (they'd vote for a D over God Him/Herself). It seems your assertion is slapped down quite directly by your own status as a Dem lost at sea and the volume of Hillary supporters on this blog alone who have sworn they will not vote for Obama.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Sidney's remark about crackers has forced me to send this.
Do you notice that any black person
who gets the affirmative edge sells out his people.
Three examples;
1- Barack Obama-gets the benefit of an Ivy league education and sells out his pastor of twenty years.I'm sure that the Rev Wright said things like this before.
Sells out his grandmother who raised him i.e. typical white person.
2- Clarence Thomas-gets the benefit
of Holy Cross(the Jesuits were sleeping)and Yale Law school and admits in his book that his grandfather was his model.His grandfather warned him not to even look into the eyes of a white woman.
he divorces his black wife and marries a white woman.he also threw
his sister under the bus who was on welfare.
3-Earnest Stanley O'Neill-the fired former CEO of Merrill.As part
of his opening statement before Congress stated that his grandfather was a slave.Of course he didn't bring up that when he was
fired for perfomance at Merrill he walked away with 150mill.Another example of a Harvard MBA that couldn't run anything(GWBush has a
Harvard MBA.)
I suppose that Ostroy will call me
a racist but I'll cancel Sidney out

Anonymous said...

10:02 Hogwash

Anonymous said...

The studies evauluating The Black Liberation Theology indicate that it's core is based on Marxist communism. However, even if there were not one in the world other than he, Obama could still be a communist. It is not an "organization"' it is a economic theory which anyone can adhere to. Followers of the BLT adhere to communism as the way things should be.

Anonymous said...

If Obama belongs to the Trinity Chirch is is a communist. He didn't leave the church because of its doctrine but because Wright dissed him.

Anonymous said...


Care to expound your your charge?


Cite the studies, please.

Anonymous said...


Now he's changing his mind on the Iraq withdrawal promises - just like the Democrats backed down from their promises to end the Iraq war when they won the House and Senate.

Obama will destroy the economy. He'll stay in Iraq, He'll increase taxes, Gas prices will continue to increase because he wont drill locally, the environmentalist loonies (former communists) will prevent him from implementing any alternative energy.

Obama is the worst decision anyone can make. He is not the uniter he claims to be. McCain has a proven record or reaching across the isle for progress, even when it pisses off conservatives. The only track record Obama has is change - changing his mind.

Anonymous said...

7:00 A good place to start is an article by Anthony B. Bradley, Professor Theology, Convenent Theological Seminary, St. Louis entitled: THE MARXIST ROOTS OF BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY.

That Professor Bradley is black should convince you that he has not written a racist article.

Anonymous said...

Ever since ince Obama, the one who promised to unite us, has come to national attention, the tension between blacks and whites has become far more devisive. Renee Marie, the jazz singer was asked to sing THe National Anthem at the Denver Mayor's annual speech, and instead she sang the "Black National Anthem" Who knew the black community had its own national anthem rather than the one most of us accept as the true and legal anthem? Not only did she sing the "The Black National Anthem" by doing so she broke her promise to sing "The Stars Spangled Banner". The Mayor and the audience were shocked and angry.

Do we have to fear, now, that every minority in the country will have its own anthem? And, what lanhuage will each be sung in?

Anonymous said...


The answer to your question about voting for Obama is NO!

But then, I've never been one to drink to kool-aid and I have voted Dem since 1980's, but not this time.

The Obots certainly do more harm than good in their brownshirt tactics when it comes to convincing voters to fall down to the ObieWan Ka Noway.

The problem of the DNC selecting Obama rather than letting the process completely work is more like a banana republic than democracy and therein lies the larger problem. The DNC simply chooses, with Donna Brazile's help, to run the weakest candidate.

It's never party before country. The dems seem to have finally pulled the pin on their own destruction with Mr. Empty Suit.

There is nothing unifying about Obama.

Anonymous said...

Read the NY Times editorial in today's paper - July 4th.

It's title is "New and Not Improved" and lists the promises Obama has broken to his supporters and the country.

1.public financing
2. "abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill it if includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned coverup of Mr. Bush's unlawful eavesdropping after 9/ll. ... Now he supports the unity clause."
3. "The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush's policy of funneling public money for special spending to religious-based organizations - a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation:
4. shifted position on the death penalty.
5. shifted position on gun control.

Anonymous said...


What do I care about the ethnicity of the author?

The prime matter for concern as I see it is that the article you reference is not scholarly, it's political and it's myopic in that it focuses almost entirely upon one book (as though there is a Bible of BLT, when there is not) and does nothing to address the leaders of BLT who disagree with James Cone or the changing views of Cone himself.

It's a swing and a miss.

Anonymous said...


You didn't answer the question, you went off on your own little diatribe and, frankly, it's a pretty tired argument.

Whine all you like, the DNC did not choose Obama and he will win the election.

Bank it.

Anonymous said...

12:05 After reading Ostroy regularly, lately, I've become interested in the Black Liberation Theology, so I read the article recommdned by 10:54.Now I would appreciate articles I can read that support your claims about THE MARXIST ROOTS OF BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY. It seemed scholarly to me and I think the point that the author is black is to indicate it was not written by a white racist.

I also thought, from reading this blog often, that Cone wrote the text and the "bible" for the "liberation movement". Could you give me an article to read that supports your point of view?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Scholarly works are not typically first published by the Glenn Beck newsletter...

I did not affirmatively state that BLT is a communist ideology. It is not my responsibility to defend this highly inflammatory accusation, nor is it my responsibility to refute the charge. It is properly the role of the person who made the claim, or of those who support the position, to defend it. The single attempt to do so to this point has been a laughable failure.