Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The Right Wing's Racist Attacks on Michelle Obama

The shameless right-wing attack machine has figured out that it may be more politically expedient to go over after Michelle Obama with subliminal racist attacks than the Democratic candidate himself. And the racist code word of the day is "angry." What they're trying to do is scare Americans into seeing Michelle Obama as nothing more than an angry black woman who they should fear getting into the White House. It's absolutely disgusting.

We've heard for months now how the wife of the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama, is unpatriotic and hates her country. That she is not "proud" to be an American. That she believes America to be a "mean" place.

And now she's "angry." Very, very angry. One of the more relentless perpetrators of this reprehensible attack is Sirius Radio's Andrew Wilkow. On his "The Wilkow Majority" show Monday the Sean Hannity wannabe went on a verbal rampage against the "mean-faced," "tough-looking" Obama, saying she was "harboring a whole lot of anger" and that she was "full of rage." So much rage that she has "quivering lips" and a "scowl" when she speaks. And as if that wasn't enough, he railed that "she looks like the kind of woman that would hit her husband with a shoe for talking back." Is this guy for real? If Wilkow would like us to believe that he's not trying very hard to conjure up the racist image of the angry black woman, he is either terribly dumb and naive or thinks we are. Just how does Wilkow know she's "full of rage?" What's he basing this prognosis on? Is he watching the same intelligent, happy family woman that I see plastered all over the TV? I've yet to see even one public display of even a bad mood let alone the sort of "rage" Wilkow refers to. Perhaps it's Wilkow who's the one "full of rage?" Maybe it's Wilkow who "harbors a lot of anger" at the thought of a a black First Family? What's even more outrageous than Wilkow's blatant stereotyping is his claim that his attacks on Michelle Obama "are not personal." What a croc of shit.

The right wing attack dogs have one goal, and that's to scare the crap of America. "Michelle and Barack Obama. The angry radical black man and his angry black wife. A couple of militants whom Whitey should be very, very afraid of." It's 2004 all over again. But instead of gay marriage it's angry black folk. Let's just hope this time Americans care more about the war, the recession, $4.50/gallon gas prices, unemployment, record debt, the housing slump, the mortgage crisis, universal health care and global warming.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: Are we gonna let the Right Wing bullies frame this election and define Barack Obama? John McCain and the GOP are going to spend tends of millions on vicious attack ads and aggressive ground teams. Obama will need millions more to effectively combat the Republicans' desperate, race-baiting onslaught. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizable war chest, Sen. Obama can win these states. We are committed to raising as much money as possible to help elect Barack Obama president. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.


Anonymous said...

Today's blog should be shouted from the rooftops! Have the right-wingers absolutely no shame in their all-out war against Sen. Obama and his wife? They're nothing more than racists, although they'd be the last to admit to it!

Anonymous said...

"The right wing attack dogs have one goal, and that's to scare the crap of America."

Because it's the only card they have to play, Andy. What else do they have to run on?

Anonymous said...


As a person who also resides in the South, you really need to come out of your insular world. Do a simple Google search for some research into the stereotype of angry and black.

If this issue has nothing to do with Michelle Obama's race, then why is it necessary for Cal Thomas or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or the fool on Sirius Andy mentioned to make the distinction that she's an angry black woman? Why not simply an angry person?

Anonymous said...

As a person who also resides in the South but lived 33 years in the North, I have to say that there is just as much racism in the North as there is in the South.

Democrats are using stereotypes and the race card to try to propel their racist candidate and his racist wife into the White House.

Obama and his wife were part of a racist church for over 20 years. That fact says a lot about their prejudices.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, 12:48, for providing further proof that the right and McCain have nothing to run on but fearmongering.

Prius said...

Just wait to see what happens to Obama's poll readings if he DOES NOT pick Hillary as VP. Look, I've said this until I'm blue in the face. The media wanted Obama and once he "locks up" the nomination you will see the slime machines working overtime. When late September rolls around there WILL be many stories come out about Obama, but there WILL be ONE that comes out that will make what Edwards did look like a child's prank. It will be a story that Obama will not be able to lie his way out of and McCain and the Bush Crime Family will be handed the White House again. Can we all say, "Hat Trick?"

Anonymous said...

Lets hope for a hat trick. The Messiah is an Obamanation that will destroy this country.

Anonymous said...


Apparently you'll keep repeating the mystery smoking gun story until you suffocate. Sadly for you it isn't making anyone change their mind about the candidates nor is it more likely to happen to Obama than some skeleton coming from McCain's or Clinton's closet.

BTW, did you ever figure out how Clinton on the ticket is going to help Obama if the media picks the winner and the media hates Clinton?

All signs point to Hillary not being on the ticket with Obama. Since the Dem nomination was wrapped up, female support of Obama has consistenly risen to the point where he is getting more support from women than did John Kerry.

Anonymous said...

By the way, constant references to Bush is the Democrats only card and scare tactic as well. I challenge Democrats to engage in political debates without saying "Bush". You do know that he is not running don't you ?

I love how Democrats always do exactly what they are complaining about.

Anonymous said...


The Messiah?

You sleep with a security blanket and pacifier, don't you?

Karl Rove made his bones pandering to the likes of your demographic.

Anonymous said...


Name a substantial policy difference between George W. Bush and John McCain.

Call it like it is, my friend. Since McCain wishes to carry on the policies of the current POTUS it is perfectly honorable and right to point this out. McCain himself has stated that there has been no bigger supporter of the President than himself. Acknowledging this is not fearmongering, it's a statement of fact.

Calling Michelle Obama an "angry black woman" or Barack Obama "the messiah" is purely pejorative and intended to conjure up fear. GOP operatives have acknowledged this and it is SOP for the Republicans.

Prius said...

2:12 PM

The media picks the candidates, whether you want to believe this or not. In 2000 they had it in for Gore calling him the ozone man and that election was rigged anyway. In 2004 Dean was made beat up about a so-called screech, even though he came in third in Iowa. The GOP had it all set on how they were going to swiftboat Kerry and that worked, plus the Ohio votes were tampered with. This year the GOP has been afraid of Hillary and since the media is GOP they made that Obama was the one that would be the person to beat. Knowing full well that Hillary was the one they did not want to face McCain. Also knowing that the American voter is very easy to persuade it was easy for Obama to be the made up super star.

If anyone out there thinks that just because Bush's term is over that the GOP's plan is finished is a fool. They have a master plan and it all revolves around war making money for the select few and keeping the money train rolling.

If I were in the Obama camp, I'd be plenty worried right now looking at the polls. McCain is an old washed up Senator, who doesn't speak well, can't read a teleprompter, and can't remember which country is which. Is this the best the GOP can do? No matter, they are masters at winning (stealing) elections and they will do the same this year as well.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the lengthy redux of statements you've already made. Unfortunately, you did not answer the question:

If the media picks the winners and the media does not like Hillary Clinton, how is it that she helps Obama's already doomed campaign (since the media is in bed with the GOP and will elect McCain)?

Again, your dogged support of Hillary is throughly admirable. I will repeat that I like her and would have voted for her if she had won the nomination.

While they did not do her many favors, or Senator Obama for that matter when he took the lead, the media did not do her in. She was doomed by an arrogant and incompetent campaign as well as by facing a formidable foe who out-organized her and simply ran a better race.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I think the attacks on Michelle are sexist more than racist (although I admit there are elements of racism). This is what happens whenever a woman steps outside what is considered "acceptable" feminine behavior. Michelle Obama is a smart, assertive and principled woman. Its sad that in 2008 her portrayal of these aspects of her personality are demonized. The same thing happened to Hilary back in '92. As a female associate in a New York law firm - I've witnessed this attitude far more times then I care to recall. I think Michelle rocks and have no idea why she is such a lightening rod for such venemous attacks.

That these attacks persist does demonstrate that the right has no real substance upon which to campaign. Hopefully, the electorate will finally wise up and reject this nonsense. The polls seem to indicate that there is movement in this direction. Sorry, Prius - but perhaps you need to look at some current electoral maps. Even Karl Rove has Sen. Obama at 260 EV and Sen. McCain at 183EV. If Obama picks up Colorado (9EV), which is likely, the all he needs is one more state. Take your pick: NV, NH, VA, OH, FL, ND, MT. Most other polls have similar spreads (with the bizarre exception of the Washington Post putting Mccain 6 EV ahead).
Let's all hope this holds until November.

Prius said...

2:44 Wrote: "If the media picks the winners and the media does not like Hillary Clinton, how is it that she helps Obama's already doomed campaign (since the media is in bed with the GOP and will elect McCain)?"

Obama's campaign is NOT already doomed. If he picks Hillary as VP she will bring a tremendous amount of support back to the ticket. Remember, there were 18 million votes cast for her, even with the media backing Obama. Believe me, there is a huge wave of Hillary fans that are still steaming about the way she was treated. If Obama dodges Hillary, these die-hard supports will either hold their noses and vote for Obama (not likely but may), do the same for McCain or just not vote. If anyone thinks that this is not true needs to put your head to the ground and hear the beat of the Clinton support, it is real and it is BIG.

The talk is that if Obama does not pick Hillary, then for sure she'll run again in 2012 and this time WIN!

Anonymous said...


Again and again you have stated that the media picks the winner of the general election. Do you deny making this statement? Further you have stated that the media is in the back pocket of the GOP. Do you now deny this? Lastly you have over and over made the claim that the media cannot stand Hillary Clinton and cost her the nomination. I hope you will not now claim I am misquoting you.

Taken together, the only logical conclusion one can make is that Prius' belief is Barack Obama is doomed in the general election and Hillary Clinton can be of no help as the media have already annointed McCain President of the United States.

Of course this is all nonsense, as is the purported wave of Clinton supporters who will stay at home and tilt the race in McCain's favor. Again, polling shows that Barack Obama has larger support of not only women in general but also specifically of white women than was received by John Kerry in 2004. Polling also tells us that selecting Hillary Clinton is a wash for Obama as the same number of undecideds indicate it will make them less inclined to vote for Obama as it would make others inclined to do so.

Anonymous said...

2:12 You say the Republicans are racists, mean, nasty,hateful people but the Democrats are misogynists who battered Hillary with their sexism. To a man they deserted her starting with Kennedy. Dean manipulated the DNC for Obama. And the list is endless of old friends, colleagues and party menbers who dumped her for the great unknown male. They would have dumped her if another male had been the candidate. The men and apparently some of the women in our party do not like women. Aille is also right - the attack on Michelle is sexism at work.

During the primary the only two men on this blog who were for Hillary were Ostroy and Prius.

And this article, a defense of Michelle, has turned into the old debate about how Hillary won't help Obama if she's the v.p. nominee.

Well, it's too late. Obama is not going to win and there's no one to blame but the Democrats themselves.

Anonymous said...


Are you forgetting the McCain chat where the Repub woman asked the Senator how "we" were going to beat "the bitch" and McCain's reaction (or lack of one)?

Lumping all Dem men in the category of misogynists is ridiculous. There were millions of men who voted for Hillary and several party heavyweights like Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Robert Menendez, Chuck Schumer, etc, who supported Hillary's nomination.

Obama is going to win and Hillary is helping him to do so. I did not say she would not or could not help if she were on the ticket, I merely pointed out to Prius the fallacy of his argument.

There's a fine case to be made that she would help Obama. There's also a fine case to be made that she will not. Only Obama can make this decision, though, and whatever decision he makes I hope Dems will not fracture but realize that the Republicans are still the Republicans and they mean to continue Bush policies. They mean to install a conservative SCOTUS for at least a generation. They don't care if your family is left desitute from medical bills. They don't care if the income/wage gap continues to increase and they don't care if the government debt will be passed to not only our children but our grandchildren.

How do we know this? By looking at the record and the rhetoric.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who voted for Hillary Clinton and meant it who then votes for John McCain is a traitor to everything Hillary Clinton has worked and fought for in her life. She may not be as blunt about it as I but it's what she means when she says, "(a)nyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Sen. Obama than Sen. McCain. Remember who we were fighting for in my campaign." - HRC, 8/8/08, Henderson, Nevada

Anonymous said...

I am a woman who voted for Hillary. I don't disagree that there may have been some sexism at play (as there was some racism at play against Barak) during the primaries. However, my overall belief is that it was Hillary and her campaign advisors that blew her chances at getting the nomination. Just look at all the internal information coming out demonstrating massive infighting. Obama ran a better, more organized campaign. Period.

I still admire Hillary and think she would have done a great job as President - but she lost fair and square. And given the mess of her primary campaign - who is to say she would have defeated McCain?

Anonymous said...

6:20 Obama has broken almost every promise he made during the primary. Ostory listed them in a recent blog. It cannot be disputed; he changes from one side to the direct opposite. He simply cannot be trusted. We have no idea what he would do as President. The country believed Bush's "Compassionate conservative" and you see what a butcher he turned out to be. There was no warning with him that he would be the opposite of "compassionate conversative." We've had our warning with Obama. I don't feel Americans should risk what Obama might do. McCain won't be in for a second term probably. Then maybe the Dems will have gotten their act together.

6:29 Even with the "mess of her campaign" Hillary earned more votes than did Obama. He got ahead before we knew about Wright; and she could never catch up on the delegate votes. Plus, Kennedy threw a great deak if weight Obama's way.

Anonymous said...

I remember when Richard Nixon was under fire for the Watergate incident. In that episode, Republicans were reluctant to vote impeachment because he was, after all, their man. But they did the right thing and voted what was best for the nation and the rule of law and voted to impeach. Nixon resigned. How much things have changed in the GOP!!!
Is there any doubt that nothing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, would cause the Republican party and the Fox viewers to vote to bring Bush to justice? They would just as soon see the entire country hit with a nuclear bomb than demand he be brought to account for his crimes. ( I am referring to V Plame incident)
And yes we do continually refer to Bush because McCain in Bush all over again. Old wine in new bottles!

Its what these disgusting anti democracy types do best... smear, lie and then when caught change the subject.
They don't care about the rule of law or accountability of the Chief Executive. They only care about POWER and MONEY and the Cultural War and preventing gays from getting married.. and they use any method they can including lying, theft, destruction of the Constitution, even war to get what they want. They really will tear down the house if that is what it takes to rule over the ruins!
Now they are going to do what they do best. Create fear and confusion about Obama even calling him the anti Christ hoping to take the minds of the voters off the disaster they have created!
Vietnam Era Vet.. I thought Vietnam and Watergate were bad.. nothing compared to the band of lying criminals that is in charge now. But we have only ourselves to blame because they are just poster children for the dumbing down of America..

Anonymous said...

...and Pelosi blocking a vote on drilling because the will of The People is not in line with the Democrat agenda is ... ?

Anonymous said...


So you are willing to accept someone as President who you know promises to carry on Bush's policies versus someone you *suspect* may not be supportive of Democratic Party principles? Respectfully, that's moronic.

The only way you can count Hillary as receiving more votes is by gaming the system. But it's a silly argument, anyway. You and I both know that total votes is not the barometer of who wins or loses the nomination.

The Clinton campaign's early hubris and a superior campaign effort by Obama are the primary reasons Hillary lost... not the media, not Kennedy, not sexism or any other reason you can dream up.

Anonymous said...


Quit buying the political theater.

GOP operatives have publicly stated that what Boehner and clan are doing is a stunt for political gain and not anything of real substance. Hell, even the White House refused their plea for a call to special session of Congress.

BTW, the GOP leadership of the House on more than a dozen occasions tried to force an early close to this Congress before dreaming up this stunt.

Damn but Dittoheads are little more than parrots...

Anonymous said...

I started watching videos of Michelle while she was campaigning for Obama early on.

I found her engaging, charming, funny, witty, intelligent and gracious. Her dry wit and strong character are balanced with her sense of kindness and empathy.

People who believe Michelle is an angry black woman are disconnected from reality; It is obvious they have never listened to her, watched her on video muchless met her because if they had they would not continue spreading this garbage.

The way media talking-heads and radio personalities portray Michelle is shameful.

I believe a large number of Americans have turned the corner -- although not all as evidenced in the comments here -- recognize the rovian tactics for what they are: ugly, mean-spirited lies that are meant to scare voters. The whisper campaign and innuendoes and hints are nasty and hit below the belt. Politics do not need to be like this.

Sure Obama is new to the scene, but he has the intellect and reasoned logic to set a new direction for the country.

He calls on us to take an active roll in securing our country's best and that scares the power-elite. People getting involved rather than watching TV portends change from doing business as usual. The last thing the powers that be want is a nation powered by the people.

And if those of you who are too blind and too narrow-minded to see that deserve the government we'll get with John McCain: wars, fewer civil rights, a tanking economy, tax breaks for the corporations, privatized Social Security, ideological Supreme Court Judges like Alito and Scalia who rule in favour of corporate power (against investors and consumers) and the expansion of police powers and increased (president's) "unitary" executive powers.

These are Americans' issues not partisan issues. With only 17% who approve the direction our country is going proves it.

We have some difficult and challenging, but manageable problems that are solvable. They won't be fixed over night. But if McCain gets (god forbid) into the WH, we can kiss America good-bye.

So those of you who want our country to "right" itself and change directions I suggest reassessing your opinions. Go to YouTube and watch Michelle in person. Do some independent research.

At the very least stop spreading false rumours to scare people. We've had more than enough fear generated by the Bush administration.

Think about what type of world you want for your children and their children....

The choices couldn't be more stark: vote your fears or vote your hopes and dreams and that of future generations.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton's former chief stategist said it best...

In a March 2007 memo, Mark Penn, Clinton's former chief strategist, wrote, "all of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050," according to Atlantic magazine writer Joshua Green.

"It also exposes a very strong weakness for him -- his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values," Penn wrote.

somehow I know the idiot liberals on this blog will blame that on Republicans.

Anonymous said...

THE OBAMA NATION by Jerome J. Corsi will appear as number one on the NYT Best Seller list tomorrow. The 191 reviews on AMAZON are mostly five-or=four star and the book is praised as being well-documented and, at last, as presenting some concrete information about Obama and his history. Corsi is a right-wing author who has written other books but it's said to be well-researched and documented. The general feeling is every voter should read it.

Anonymous said...

We don't know for sure what either candidate might do as president. Obama might continue to switch to the right-Repbulican position and McCain, who is even thinkinb about Joe Lieberman as his vice-president, might go left. Maybe McCain's Bush-like agreement was just to get elected as Obama's far-right stance was for the same reason. It's a gamble for the country no matter which one is president.

Anonymous said...

Of course Michelle is angry. Every member of the Trinity Church is angry as we saw when the huge congregation stood to applaud their Rev. Wright.

Since it was reported that Nancy Reagan influenced the President to consult astrology charts for guidance in governing the country, we really do have to consider the direction a president's wife's influence might take.

Anonymous said...

As "well-documented" as slime job Corsi performed in his book about Kerry?

I challange you to name one think either Barack or Michelle Obama has ever done that demonstrates that they are "angry" aside from being justifiably pissed-off at the Bushies or any of the lies and smears that have been circulated about them (and even then their responses have been calm and level-headed).

Anonymous said...

"thing" not "think" ugh. :)

Anonymous said...


No, only the moronic "conservatives" would pull out a discredited bit of advice that was rejected by every other campaign advisor in the Clinton camp.

Only the pathologically lying McCain campaign would then in less than a week or so claim they will not challenge the patriotism of Obama and then not only do so publically through a surrogate (Lieberman) but use the quote in fundraising.

The GOP, and John McCain specifically, has no honor, no ethics and no right to lead this country after what has been foisted on us in the last 8 years.

Anonymous said...

As a black woman, I find it downright insulting that Michelle has been labeled "angry black woman" because she is anything but that. She is a down to earth, decent, honest woman who views being a mother the most important role she plays. For those of us who have met her and/or know her, the descriptions by Sean Hannity and the other right wing nuts sounds downright stupid. I am sure they have no idea as to how ignorant they sound, espeially when compared to the well-educated, thoughtful lady they criticize. Why do they think she is allegedly angry? I think their problem is they feel threatend by this straightforward, honest woman because she exudes strength and intellect which seem to be in short supply among her critics. I found her to be very empathetic toward me and she offered to help me in any way she could. Limbaugh, Hannity and the other nuts would be lucky to have someone like Michelle in their corner.

Prius said...

4:44 wrote: "Again and again you have stated that the media picks the winner of the general election. Do you deny making this statement? Further you have stated that the media is in the back pocket of the GOP. Do you now deny this? Lastly you have over and over made the claim that the media cannot stand Hillary Clinton and cost her the nomination. I hope you will not now claim I am misquoting you."

Again and again this is what I have said, what can't you understand about what I've said? You can read it, this is what I've said and this is what is going on, open your eyes.

If you have been following what has been going on you would clearly see a pattern to the GOP's tricks. You have seen how they worked in 2000 and again in 2004, with their eyes focused on 2008.

I did NOT say Obama was doomed, where did I say this? I'm saying that without Hillary as VP the 18 million backers of hers will think long and hard about supporting Obama. If you'd read the papers you will see the polls are not to the liking of Obama.

Anonymous said...

Obama can never win, but for the sake of this conversation let's say he did.
None of you Obama worshippers see nothing wrong with their own words and associations?

Like I said, he can't win, but I almost wish he could so I could see the looks on all of you fools when you see what he does to this country...

Anonymous said...

1:05 Most of us do not have the advantage of knowing Michelle personally so are left to make our judgment by what we hear her say on TV. Although, you're right, she did not seem angry when she said that she had never until that moment been proud of her country; and, she said American was a mean country, it reminded us of the anger we had heard from the pulpit of her church. She has every right to say that; she has every right to criticize our country because that freedom to speak is one of the virtues we are all so proud of and cherish in America. And, you're right she didn't seem especially angry when she made those remarks. However, we who heard her know her backgroud as a member of the Trinity Church which is full of congregants who are very angry, who seemingly hate our country and white people. Knowing that is her background we assume it's her frame of reference and that when she makes her critical remarks they are a reflecion of her association with Black Liberation Theology and the anger it expresses.

Anonymous said...


Oh, I understand. What's clear is that you do not see the logical inconsistency in your statement which renders your claim of mystical Clintonian support making any difference bogus.

If the media is in the GOP's back pocket and the media picks the winner of the election, per your argument, neither Hillary Clinton nor any other living human should make a dime's worth of difference for the Obama campaign. Do you now see?

Also, 18 million Hillary supporters do not function as one. In fact, most of them already indicate to pollsters that they have joined the Obama camp and Hillary herself is now out on the campaign trail stumping for Obama and there's little doubt that she will continue to do so all the way up to election day - regardless of whether she is on the ticket.

Obama's current lead in the polls is larger than the national margin in the last two elections. In fact the average of the polls is twice the margin of the 2004 election. But what's more important is that Obama's leads in the states won by Kerry are larger than the final margins in 2004 and he currently leads in several states won by Bush.

He's in far better position to win than Mr. McCain. That he faces this deficit and has no favorable record of accomplishment to run on is the reason McCain has abandoned his promise to run a respectful campaign, abandoned his promise not to question the patriotism of Senator Obama and, effectively forever, abandoned his "Straight Talk" and "maverick" personas which prompted his own mother to characterize at least one of his national ads as "stupid" and the WSJ to question if McCain himself is "stupid".

Anonymous said...

I and many I speak to are among the 18 million "mystical Clintonian supporter"(s) who could make a difference by voting for Obama. However, many others among the 18 million choose to make a difference by voting for McCain; and, others who will stay home and make a difference that way.

Then there are those like Ferraro who haven't decided.

Anonymous said...


"However, we who heard her know her backgroud as a member of the Trinity Church which is full of congregants who are very angry, who seemingly hate our country and white people."

You know no such thing, you liar and slanderer.

There's about zero probability you know or have met a single person who attends Trinity United but you feel free to lambaste a community of faith which has done incredible works with pejorative comments based on little more than snippets, most of which are not entirely in context?

For shame.

Anonymous said...


Why did you vote for Clinton?

Anonymous said...

9:55 AM,

Please explain to me how you can be a Clinton support and then support McCain. McCain's positions are fundamentally different than Clinton's. Clinton supports universal health care, McCain doesn't, Clinton wants to overturn Ledbetter, McCain does not, Clinton wants to protect a woman's right to choose, McCain does not, Clinton believes in diplomacy, McCain believes in warmongering. Need I go further?

Anonymous said...

Wow. With all the complaining about Obama underperforming, a new survey from the Barna Group (a well-respected Christian pollster) shows that McCain still has not come close to sealing support among self-identified Christian voters.

Of likely Christian voters, McCain only garners 34% while Obama pulls in 43%.

That does leave a lot of undecideds, but in 2004 Bush got 56% of the Christian vote and the notion all of the undecideds will vote for McCain is totally unrealistic. For proof, if registered Christian voters are included in the sample Obama's lead over McCain rises from 9% of likely to 14% of registered Christian voters.

The post-primary meme that Obama cannot woo Christians or middle or lower economic white voters is falling apart as more and more new polls come out.

Anonymous said...

If it wasn't obvious hefore it should be obvious now after the Edwards revelation that it is not the issues so much as character. Edwards had the perfect platform for my interests but now I don't believe he would have been a good president with his character flaw. Same with OBama, he has shown a lack of consistency in telling the truth about where he stands. That's how Clinton supporters can decide John McCain is the safer choice. To paraphrase: It's the character, stupid.

Anonymous said...

10:01 I only know what I see on TV and read in the paper or magazines. I saw abd heard a large part of two of Wright's sermons on TV and saw the standing ovation from the huge congregation. I heard Michelle's comments. I read about the Black Liberation Theology. Do you think that blacks were deliberatly infected with aids?

Would you vote for someone in the "white supremacy" crowd? I think not. Nor would I. Hatred from any group is not to be tolerated or given power.

Anonymous said...


Character, eh?

If there's a race for flip-flopping, McCain wins hands down. If there's a race for wife-cheating, McCain wins hands down. If there's a race for foul-mouthed attacks on colleagues, McCain wins hands down. If there's a race for inappropriate jokes about children, McCain wins hands down. If there's a race for ties with lobbyists, McCain wins hands down. If there's a race for scandals which cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars, McCain wins hands down.

Boy, that's a lot of "character" wins for McCain!!

Anonymous said...

So McCain has a gutter mouth if those quotes are true. I haven't seen a tape or transcript quoting him. Even so, has anyone a record of McCain saying "God damn America." That's real trash talk.

Anonymous said...


In other words, you don't know nearly enough to pass judgment and you've casually slandered thousands of Christians.

If Trinity preaches hatred of white people, why are there white members, why are white preachers allowed to speak at the church and why in God's Name is it aligned with a primarily white denomination (United Church of Christ)?

Anonymous said...


Anyone have a tape of Obama saying "God Damn America"? I didn't think so and, of course, guilt by association isn't nearly as powerful as having the words come directly from the horse's mouth.

Do a simple Google search of the quotes I provided. Your ignorance of them does not make them untrue. You will find hundreds of articles from reputable sources confirming McCain's foul mouth and temper.

By the way, calling your wife a "cunt" in front of three reporters and your own staff is a little bit more problematic with me and with most females I know than simply a case of "gutter mouth".

Anonymous said...

11:49 By your thinking any member of the Ku Klux Klan who contributed money for twenty years but did not actually lynch someone or burn a house down is only guilty by association and should not be considered one who agreed with the Klan'a hatred of blacks.

Every Google hit I got for Mccain was "it was reported . . . "; "McCain was asked about saying . . . " No real source for verification of his actually saying it.

You and your female friends have never served in the military, let along been taken prisoner and tortured, so you are unfamilair with the gutter talk, including the word "cunt" that is normal in such a group sometimes. Just look at the gutter talk from contributors to this blog. Still, we're talking patriotism here, not good manners or even refinement.

Anonymous said...

12:18 Seeing Wright's sermon on tape is real evidence admissable in any court of law.

There are Christians and there are Christians. Obama's Christianity does not adhere to the teaching of "forgive seventy times seven." Calling attention to this difference in Christian worship is not slander. They teach their interprettion of the Bible, as do the Mormans, as to the Catholics as do the Baptiists. I happen to not agree with their interpretation that American should be damned and that white people living today are guility for the horrors of slavery and should be condemned. Disagreement does not mean slander.

And are you naive enough to believe that some white people don't hate America and talk against it? One of Obama's friends bombed buildings in NYC -- remember that?

Anonymous said...


False analogy. No one has come close to proving that Reverend Wright or the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ hates white people or that they have commited violent acts against whites akin to the KKK lynching people of color (not just blacks).

Deny all you want. Choose to remain blind. But the facts are the facts despite your childish refusal to accept them. The Arizona Republic, Senator Thad Cochran, Senator Charles Grassley, several Republican congressmen (current and retired) as well as Democratic members of the Senate and House are all on the record talking about McCain's volatile temper, his abusive language and their fears of his ascending to the presidency.

But if you really want examples, how about some video:




Oh, as for patriotism, how about this quote from July:

“We don’t want to talk about (Obama's) patriotism and character,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “We concede that he’s a patriot and person of good character. This is about big issues.” Is Charlie Black a liar, was he not authorized to speak for the campaign or have they just flip-flopped on another issue?

How could you possibly know if I have served in the military or if I know what it is like to be tortured? What presumptuousness! And if you believe that a husband calling his wife a "cunt" in front of reporters and staff is "normal", heaven help you.

Finally, the quotes from McCain I originally put up were in response to a quote from Obama about his grandmother. The initial quote and my response to it had nothing to do with patriotism.

Anonymous said...

11:49 AM:

"I never loved America until I was deprived of her" John McCain

What an ungrateful, unpatriotic person he must be.

Anonymous said...


You are no lawyer.

The conversation was not about "differences in Christian worship", it was about racism - specifically that Trinity United Church of Christ is a racist institution that hates white people.

Since no one has answered this question yet, I'll ask again in hopes one of you so willing to slander fellow Christians will take a stab at it: if TUCC hates white people, why are there white members, why are white preachers allowed to preach to the congregation and why is it a member of a predominantly white denomination?

William Ayers is not a friend of Obama's. They happened to coincidentally serve on an anti-poverty organization board along with about 20 other people and Ayers donated a few hundred bucks to an Obama campaign for office in Illinois. He did not bomb buildings in NYC (look it up and get your facts straight).

G. Gordon Liddy, however, is a long-time friend of John McCain's and has contributed thousands to his campaigns. Liddy participated in felonies on behalf of Dick Nixon, on the air advocated the murder of ATF agents, claimed he was inspired as a youth by Hitler, planned the killing of newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, plotted the firebombing of the Brookings Institution and other such wonderful atrocities.

BTW, say a prayer. Arkansas Democratic Party Chair Bill Gwatney was shot today at his office in Little Rock.

Anonymous said...

Who claimed McCain was not patriotic?

Anonymous said...


I think the person was making a dig at the previous anon with the McCain quote.

Neither major party candidate is unpatriotic. Such talk is merely distraction and gamesmanship.

Anonymous said...

When I came to this blog I thought, along with some of the others, tha tTrinity was a church that preached hatred for whites because I saw that tape on Fox News with my parents who thought the same thing. Now after reading all of this I'm sure I ws wrong, and Wright wasn't preaching hatred, but love and forgiveness and that congregation is full of people who love the white people like Obama does. I know how much good they've done in their community and it's not their fault mostly blacks live in the place they were helping. They would be very very glad to help all the white people they could. Wright's God damn Amemica was just part of his humor cause he was strutting around when he said it and he knows that people living today aren't responsible for the slaves of long ago. And, I told all of this to my teacher and she said I am very wise. I did ask her why Oprah didn't build a school to help children here in America instead of Africa but the bell rang and she didn't answer. I thought it over and it's because Oprah loves all the children in the world and so does Obama. And my parents don't mind the words some people say on this blog because that's the way the world is and young people need to learn that. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

What does Ms. Winfrey's school in Africa have to do with Senator Obama? Oh, yeah. Silly me. Oprah and Barack are both black.

(BTW, Oprah Winfrey is one of the top 50 philanthropists in the United States. She's given over $300 million to various causes.)

Anonymous said...

7:29 When I allowed my daughter to participate in an adult blog I expected her to be treated kindly Your sarcasm is cruel and uncalled for and you have hurt her feelings. Her writing skills including organization are not fully developed; and, the Oprah school was discussed in her civics class where that question was asked by another. She thought it pertinent, I guess, since she'd metnioned the Trinity Chruch charities. There are other forms of cruelty besides racism.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there are forms of cruelty other than racism. Included would be willingly subjecting a child to an adult forum you know to allow foul language, sarcasm and personal attacks then feigning surprise when your child is exposed to it.

Far greater cruelty, of course, is your subjecting your child to Fox News.

Anonymous said...

If Michelle is so great why has she been benched as far as stumping for Obama?

Could it be that picture of her with Louis Farrakhan's wife? Could it be that she screwed uninsured people out of their money by agreeing to charge them triple the going rate at the hospital she worked for. Could it be that most fashionistas would gag at her Wilma Flintstone pearls and black belt or her 600.00 earrings?

Could it be that she really isn't First Lady material just as much as Obama isn't fit to be the DEM nominee?

Could it be that she really is just plain nasty and really does hate whitey?

Points to ponder.

Anonymous said...


Michelle has not been benched. Prior to the vacation the Obama family took, she was regularly out on the stump and it was announced within the last day or so that she will give an address at the convention on the first day.

Could it be that you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

Point to ponder.

Anonymous said...

11:53 Obviously my method of mothering is superior to that you received since all of my children, including my adult children, are compassionate, kind and show respect for all living beings.

And, of course, I reminded her of the universal motherly advice "Consider the source."

Anonymous said...

We can all be sure we will never see the angry and militant Michelle again on the campaign trail, since she has been reined in. We will see a carefully written, rehearsed and non-provocative presentation from her from this time forward, until the time when she might be First Lady. Then she can be herself once more.

Anonymous said...


Do you also teach you children to be smug or are they just to learn by example?

Anonymous said...

Your evaluation of my child's superior intelligence as "smugness" is an obvious projection on your part.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't evaluating your child.

Look in the mirror, mama.

Anonymous said...

uh oh Hillary's name goes into nomination...angry Michelle lost that little battle.

Close your eyes and imagine Michelle being an all gracious First Lady and secondary to the scene. Yeah...it isn't going to happen...but have a nice delusion today.

Oh the 527s are going to have fun with her...

Anonymous said...

An all gracious and secondary to the scene First Lady... like, say, Hillary Clinton? D'oh!!!

When did Michelle Obama express any aversion to a roll call vote at the convention?

Attack Michelle and that means Cindy is then fair game, right? An adulterer, drug addict, charity thief and will make a million or so off sale of Anheuser-Busch while thousands face losing their jobs... yeah, that'll look good on a First Lady.

Anonymous said...

The gimme Democrats hate the rich. It's all right that Michelle is rich, however, because she got her money by being propelled into wealth by an Ivy League education that was financed fair and square by the US government.

Anonymous said...

Her house is for sale. Why? Is it to distance themselves from Rezko or are Barky and Buttface really so delusional that they think he's gonna win?

A small reminder: Michelle's ivy league education came on the back of Affirmative Action not because of her own hard earned work or intelligence.

She is the poster child for what quotas can do for the undeserving.

Anonymous said...

wow. She is one ugly woman. I hope we don't have to look at her for 4 years.

Anonymous said...

First of all "affirmative action" applies to public universities not private ones like Princeton. So if her race was considered it was only in conjunction with the school's policy to have a diverse class to foster better education for all of its students.

Second, "affirmative action" didn't help her graduate cum laude from Princeton. That was all on her own merit. I often find that those who argue that others have gotten ahead because of affirmative action are merely jealous because they themselves lacked either the intelligence, skill or tenacity to acheive similar goals.

As for the government funding her education. They only recently paid off their student loans. Trust me, that burden never gets anyone rich. I know from personal experience as I write a hefty check to pay off my school loans every month!

Anonymous said...

1. Her race was considered because her high school record was poor.
2. There is no "google" reference that indicates she graduated cum laude from Princeton; there are only references for Obama's honors upon graduating from Harvard.
3. We are told that Michelle came from a poor family which raises the question of how did she qualify for the huge tuition bill she would be faced with?
4. Isn't a salary of over three hundred thousand a year considered to be in the "wealthy" category in our country?

Anonymous said...

1. You really have no idea how the college admissions system works, do you? Her grades were not poor. She admits not being at the top of her class in HS but she was a strong student at a very competitive public high school. I never said they didn't consider her background and race. But believe you me, Princeton would not have given her admission if she were an illiterate rube. Again, jealousy is always at the root of these type of arguments.

2. Your google must be broken:


3. Um, ever hear of student loans and grants? How the hell do you think most people afford college tuition these days? I had to borrow all three years of my tuition and living expenses for law school. Ten years later and I'm still paying it off. And I was lucky because my undergraduate education was paid for by my family.

4. I'm sure she made a comfortable living but she, and Sen. Obama, were still paying off student loans (both undergraduate and law school - I suspect). If both of them funded their undergraduate and law school tuitions/living expenses with loans then they could easily have been paying several thousand dollars a month in loan payments. Throw in two children, a mortgage and Chicago-area living expenses and its not like they have been rolling in the benjamins. They have lived a solid upper middle class life. Unlike, um I don't know, a certain senator whose second wife is a beer distributor heiress.

One final point: Why do you even care? She is not running for President. Her education is largely irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Are you being sexist by saying her education is irrelevant?

This woman of little intellectual prowess, empathetic knowledge, and racist leanings would be whispering in the ear of a very powerful man.

God forbid that scenario should play out.

Obama supporters, will you always be small thinkers, bent on winning rather than understanding the total picture?

You are the downfall of humanity.

Anonymous said...

"Are you being sexist by saying her education is irrelevant?"

I've heard some dumb retorts in my day but this takes the cake.

Let's face it - your arguments are specious at best. I've put forth all the facts about Michelle Obama and all you can do is respond with lies, smears and ad hominen attacks. But this is what McCain supporters (and Republicans in general) do, isn't it? They are so afraid of debating actual issues and handling the real facts that they stoop to attacking the person.

Sen. Obama and his wife are both very bright individuals who understand the big picture. Lucky for you, you will be able to benefit from some wonderful policies once he is in office.

Anonymous said...

WIKIPEDIA is not a reliable source for information. Any viewer can amend it.

In fact "facts" on the Internet are not always accurate because there are few reliable references for confirmation.

The amount of money needed to pay the large tuition bill at Princeton and housing would have been beyond her ability to attain without help from another source. Her family was poor she has said.

Why do we care? We need to know all we can find out about her because her "Mama" role when she is around Obama is scary. "She allowed me to run for President if I gave up smoking."

Anonymous said...

Are the Chicago Sun-Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution reliable enough for you as references for Michelle Obama's cum laude status as an undergrad at Princeton?



Or perhaps you can rest assured that if she did not graduate cum laude from Princeton the right-wing media would be all over the padding of her resume.

Oh, and regarding "Mama" roles, do you recall how Ronnie's Mama would have to consult her astrologer to find out which days were good or bad and how they should influence his schedule?

Clearly Ronnie was a henpecked eunoch...

Anonymous said...

Her "mama role?" Like how the Republican god, Ronald Reagan called Nancy "mother?"

The google find did not only include "wikipedia." It listed multiple news sources that Michelle Obama was a cum laude graduate of Princeton. Its not a point that is worthy of debate. Give it up.

Have you not read anything I wrote? My three years at a private law school in NYC was entirely funded by student (government and private loans). All 200K of it. There was no additional support or funding other than the money I earned from part-time work while in school. What evidence do you have that she had some free-ride at school? Maybe her folks scraped together some spending money, maybe they took outloans as parents (they exist - look it up). But to assume that she had some near 200K to finance her 4 years at Princeton at her immediate disposal is beyond disengenous. Look at your own life. Did you go to college? Did you go to a private competitive college? How did you finance it?

I'm done responding to this nonsense You have yet to provide a fact-based, intelligent response to anything I have put forth. Thank goodness I work with and am friend with Republicans who are able to set forth cogent, fact-based rational arguments. It allows me and them to learn. Even if we disagree.

Anonymous said...

You sure "lose it" fast to be a lawyer. Nor have you offered proof or a reliable source to confirm your claims. Anyone can get on any blog and say anything. Is it that with your penchant for the dramatic and emotional you are an actress? (I thought your parents helped some and you were not "entirely funded." You didn't mention that in your latest rant.)

And, my testimony wasn't that she had a free ride, but there was no proof she did not.

Anonymous said...

I had no idea that a good defense for an offender is that someone else has committed the same "crime." I now have more respect for my nine year old when he says "But Gary did it too." Thank you 11:54.

Anonymous said...


Simply because you fail to look for the proof does not mean the facts are not there. If you close your eyes and deny that the wall exists you'll pay the price if you keep walking toward it.

If by "free ride" you mean Michelle did not have student loans, that little bit of mythology was debunked when the Obama's released their tax returns.

Anonymous said...

10:19 In intellectual circles the burden of proof is the responsibility of the one making the claim.

The question remains how she qualified for such a huge loan with her "poor" ecnomic background.

Anonymous said...

11:46 Golly gee. I'm sure glad you reminded us that Nancy influenced Ronnie to use astrology charts to make decisions. That makes me feel so much easier about the prospects of Mama Michelle and her influence on the President. Thank you so much.

Anonymous said...

Remember the Obama family interview on TV? Even then Michelle and the two daughters dissed Obama by saying something -- I forget exactly what it was - was better than listening to Daddy talk all the time. Then the younger one mocked him in a chant: "Yadi\a, yada, yada." At least he's stopped such interviews from happening again.

Anonymous said...

12:08 PM,

I think you need to talk to someone in a financial aid office at a university. What type of credit would your average 18 year old have? Have you applied for student loans?

Anonymous said...


I doubt you'd know much about intellectual circles as they rarely let you out of your padded square room.

If they do so again, investigate something called student loans. I put myself through college on them, as have hundreds of thousands of other people, despite a very modest income while in my teens and early 20s. It's an excellent investment by the government in the people.

The Obama's tax returns clearly show them paying back student loans they acquired while in school.

BTW, in 1998, Princeton instituted a policy where students of needy families no longer had to secure loans from Sallie Mae or banks. They are given grants to attend school. Currently students who can earn their way into Harvard and whose family income is $60k or less pay no tuition. Families with incomes up to $180k pay a reduced amount in tuition.

Similar programs are popping up all over the country.

Anonymous said...


My goodness a wife and children gently teasing their husband/dad? My goodness what kind of family is this? Certainly not every other loving family in the world?

No, let's elect the man who responds to his wife's good-natured teasing about his hairline by calling her a cunt. In front of other people, no less.

Anonymous said...

I remember early on even before the primary, Micelle made constant "nagging wife" comments about or to Obama which he seemed not to mind. Michelle's behavior was gently criticized on MSNBC and the campaign made her stop. It's obviously the way they relate. Totally their business unless he takes her orders to the Oval Office.

As for the family scene, I have to admit it was a personal reaction on my part. My sister and I adored our father and would never say or do anything that we thought might hurt his feelings. I once cried because I thought I might have done so. My mother and he never even bickered in our presence and the respect we gave him was returned to us. My evaulation was a projection; I felt sorry for Obama when the three people I presume he loves most in the world publicly ridiculed him. I was especially upset when the baby mocked him. It obviously didn't bother everybody who saw it. It's just silly, sentimental me.

As for McCain there is no argument since the issue is not his cursing but First Wives' influence on a President's decisions. There is no question or doubt that McCain's wife does not influence his decisions. She apprently can hold her own by demanding a pre-nup, but no doubt she keeps out of his business. Can you imagine him calling her "Mama."?

Anonymous said...

Tonight on CNN Obama and McCain were each asked who their three top advisors would be.

McCain said General Petraeus.

Obama said Michell because she is so wise and she can really keep him in line.

Anonymous said...

10:28 PM

The actual question was a two part question" 1) who are your three current advisors and 2) who would your advisors be in your administration. Sen. Obama's reference to his wife was in He then said he would not limit himself to three advisors in his administration and went on to mention individuals across the political spectrum.

He was paying homage to his wife and how he values her intelligence and ability to keep him grounded. Isn't that what anyone would want from a spouse? A true partner in life? Incidently, Rick Warren retorted: "Your wife does that too?"

Oh, and did you notice McCain's reference to Petraeus was he admired him because he has brought us victory in Iraq? Is McCain now claiming we have won in Iraq and the soldiers can come home now?

Anonymous said...

my comment was chopped off: I meant to say that his reference to his wife was in response to the first part of the question.

Anonymous said...

Oh God America needs you now if Michelle is going to be Obama's advisor.

That comment just scared more voters away than Barky and Co can even begin to imagine.

Anonymous said...

She is obviously unable to ground him enough to keep him from flip-flopping. If she didn't "ground" him, as he says she does, where we would he take off to?

No one "hiring" a professional wants to hear that his chief advisor, almost always an amateur, is his wife.

No former President I can remember ever had a wife as his chief advisor when he was President.

Anonymous said...

When asked the most important lesson he'd learned, Obamba responded that his Mother was most concerned that he learn never to be mean to anybody.

That reminded me of Michelle's objection to America's being mean.

If they're elected I guess outlawing "mean" will be a top priority.

That would really be good.

Anonymous said...


Either you have an incredibly short memory span or are a child with no background in history. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, the two biggest Presidential icons in recent history, both had wives who were incredibly influential within the White House.

Also, in professional circles it is routine for companies to insist on meeting (or "interviewing") the spouse of a key new hire. The strength of the relationship as well as the wisdom and personality of the spouse are often seen as key in cementing the deal.

Anonymous said...

Let's see, first Governor Mark Sanford (McCain VP prospect) cannot name a major economic policy in which Bush and McCain disagree. Then Mitt "I got the money and I want the job" Romney's synapses must have misfired when he could not recall a single McCain accomplishment on energy policy during a 26-year congressional career. Yesterday, Governor Bobby "What me worry?" Jindal completely flubbed on two occasions a response to the question of what new ideas does John McCain propose for America's future.

Andy, you were spot on. They've got nothing but fear.

Anonymous said...

8:21 Of course Nancy and Hillary were advisors. That's common knowledge. Nancy advised the use of astrology charts and with Bill and Hillary it was "two for the price of one." Name other such teams in the past. I guess we have a lot to thank Nancy and astrological influence for; as well as Hillary and her help with the economy. What can we expect from Michelle? Etiquette classes required by law to stop the meaness? Oh yes, we really need First Ladies involved in the elected President's decisions.

What we need is Hillary as President.

Anonymous said...

Did you not state you could not recall any presidential wives who were chief advisors? You could quibble about the word "chief" if you wish but I named two seriously powerful and internally influential First Ladies within the last 28 years - in which time we've only had 4 presidents.

Bill and Hillary sold themselves as "two for one" and Bill was elected President, twice. Therefore, your memory is seriously faulty as is your grasp of hiring practices.

Anonymous said...

12:20 You have to be the one who always has to have the last word and your last word is never to the point of the argument which you always seem to misunderstand.

Maybe you'd like to try to explain what it's really like being a jerk. Maybe an introspective exercize will help you learn to focus.

What I expect, however, is a vulgar response.

Anonymous said...


Calling someone else a "jerk" should disqualify you from the "Miss Manners" medal at Ostroy's blog. Congratulations, though, on being put in nomination for the "Big Hypocrite" and "Master of Hyperbole" awards.

Be proud!

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Mrs. Obama, on a wonderful speech telling your story and Barack's story of family, love, achievement through hard work and commitment to all who seek the American promise of a better life for their children.

The United States will be better off having your example, intelligence and work ethic in the role of First Lady of our country.