The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

THERE IS A CAN OF WORMS AND DIRTY MORSELS,, AND MUCH MORE,, AT PETER PAULS TRIAL,, ON GOOGLE,, PLEASE HAVE A LOOK

It doesn't matter how you slice it up, carve it, dice it, scattered, smothered, stirred, whipped, played back for 4 years or more, whatever, having Pastor Wright as your mentor and hero says you have a severe character flaw.

Barack Obama basically proved this himself after he threw Pastor Wright under the bus, backed-up, then ran him over thrice more the other day. And for what? Oh yeah, something about "same old politics" comes to mind. What a joke.

Why are we wasting our precious time with this inadequate candidate? Let's talk about having a Universal Healthcare program instead. Let's erase the health insurance industry(and make sure the working class insurance people get a different job of course). Let's erase the "pre-existing condition" limitation, and the cut-throat, profit-from-the-dying tactics of our broken Healthcare system.

Barack's promises may appeal to the ear, but where are the documented details of this great shaboozle of a firing-squad method he intends to use to erase our American government? Scary.

No thanks Obama

SO, let me get this straight.

Obama won't engage in a debate with Clinton under any circumstances because they tend to take focus off of the issues and only address non-essential topics like his prior associations.

But, Obama calling together the press for a second time to rehash this issue about Wright is not doing exactly what he claims Clinton is doing to him?

The only person not letting the Wright issue die is Obama. He can't explain it away - there are no words that can explain his staying a part of this anti-American clergy.

Be sure to tell us when he calls a press conference that hasn't got anything to do with Wright or is aimed at tearing McCain or Clinton a new butt.

Hopefully, the press will start trying to get him to actually say what he is going to do to make this such a wonderful country. So far, I've got:
a) optional healthcare coverage [already exists]
b) pulling the troops out of Iraq [if his military agrees]
c) raising social security taxes on the middleclass [to pay off unrelated government debt]
d) raising capital gains taxes on the investors [pay off more unrelated government debt]
e) creating new jobs [where? doing what? paid for by whom?]
f) willing to meet with and become the patsy of any terrorist group or country in order to promote peace
That about covers it or have I missed something? Sounds to me like more of the same old politics

Obama is a cunning and terrifyingly dangerous politician.

Barack says he won't throw his pastor under the bus like he did his grandmother, and then he did.

Barack says he's against the war but NEVER ACTUALLY VOTED AGAINST IT because he wasn't in office then. And then he VOTED YES TO FUND THE WAR.

Barack says he won't wear "that pin" on his clothing but then he is trying to say that he stands for it (when really he wants to switch it to something else).

Barack says he wants to be the #1 patriot in America and yet when the National Anthem is played, he doesn't put his hand on his heart(as if the song doesn't apply to him) - must be because it is the song of the "old ways" of America(which he wishes to destroy), the ways that hundreds of thousands have died for along the way.

Barack boils up some cursing and completely politically-reactive racial speech, tries to make us all feel deficient, says Don Imus should be burned at the stake and flushed in a toilet, and then turns around and says "Race is not a problem in America"(because that would trick people into thinking he doesn't hate).

Barack says he's a uniter but then devotes 20 years of his life to his "Mentor" and "Role Model" that has burned the very hate of America into his heart - see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs ( also see more great stuff at: thatsmeontheleft.blogspot.com )

Barack says all people should count and "yes we can" but then he purposely, and cold-bloodedly stone-walls any chance of allowing 2+ MILLION voters in Florida and Michigan have their vote count.

Barack says he's about "helping the working class live better lives" and then he turns around and slanders us not only by calling us "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion", but also forgoes offering a Universal Healthcare Plan(which is a core democratic value) - this is only so he can play both sides of the poor/rich fence, but in the end he leans more towards the former(with his ridiculous idea to raise capital gains taxes).

Barack says he has all these ideas for how he's going to throw our government out of their offices onto the street but there's no detailed information available for people to weigh his intentions with common sense.

Everything is about timing for Mr. Barack Obama, he plays "old style" politics better than a symphonic orchestra, he'll switch from one major idea and then to the reverse like a windsock in an open field.

How long will it be before Barack throws the "American People"(as if we're somebody else) under the bus, and then back up for another go.

Think long and hard, this man is playing the emotion card on America, and he intends to rip our heart out with it to pay back for his Pastor's pain of yesteryear.

If you vote for Barack Obama, you will experience change alright, and it will hurt, badly. If you vote for Barack Obama, you are voting for the Apocalypse of America.

The Rev Wright is entitled to his words- I don't care what his thoughts or beliefsare, I'M NOT VOTING FOR WRIGHT, I AM gonna vote for Obama.
I changed my party last Tuesday- I see where the GOP has gone- this IS NOT the party of Lincoln nor Eisenhower- IT IS THE PARTY OF NIXON AND GW BUSH, DICK CHENEY & CAP WEINBERGER. With RR's economics and Nixons character- this administration is absolute dog crap.And where did they take us? to the cleaners. I've had it with them, and I don't think HC would make a good President- she would be functional, but we have a chance to have a really outstanding, great President like we haven't had since Teddy Roosevelt.

This is typical of Washington Post. The paper has a habit posting false headlines with no relationship to the story...this is pre-meditate. Folks ought not to believe stuff published the Post.

What exactly are Wright's recent comments that Obama finds appalling?

You can see this in New Orleans before Katrina. The only city that I have been in where cars on blocks stayed on the Interstate for months, and were never moved. A third world city, where you want to visit once but can't wait to get out of.

Yep, in my opinion, we are the way down.

I think that too many parents said: "my kids will not have to go through what I did" to the detriment of the kids. They were indulged, till it got to the point where they not only expect to start at the top, you can't even discipline them anymore.

I'm sort of glad that I won't be around to see the USA as a third world country, but it is fast coming.

"We didn't know what pot was, everyone was patriotic" etc

and

"if teen-agers and young 20s had to go through what we did in the "great depression" and the war, they would be rioting in the streets!! "

Most people today haven't "had to hoe corn" as it were. I didn't have a cola drink until the age of 13. 50 years ago people worked hard, sacrificed, were patriotic, and pulled together, and were proud of doing a good job. These traits built a great country and better times for all, but unfortunately the ensuing indulgance has led to people being complacent and in way too many cases disrespectful. Today many brag about what they "got away with" on the job. I can't even be sure I get a good hamburger anymore. Sometimes they thank me when I purchase something.

What's the answer? Sorry, but in my opinion the standard of living will gradually go down until we are as "hungry" as the less fortunate nations. That's assuming the Chinese, Arabs, and others don't decide to cash in their dollar holdings all at once, in which case the process will not be gradual.

From today's news:

DNC chairman under Bill Clinton: Unite behind Obama

By NEDRA PICKLER - 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton switched his allegiance to Barack Obama on Thursday and urged fellow Democrats to end the bruising nomination fight.

"This has got to come to an end," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew told reporters in his hometown of Indianapolis just days before Tuesday's crucial state primary. He said he planned to call all the other superdelegates he knows and encourage them to back Obama.

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC in 1999, and he led the party through the disputed 2000 presidential race before stepping down in 2001. Andrew endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House."

Billw, I sound like the old: "we walked to school 5 miles in the snow"!" Nope, it hardly ever snowed here.

BUT, if teen-agers and young 20s had to go through what we did in the "great depression" and the war, they would be rioting in the streets!! I'm serious.

"America will never be the great country is was 50 or so years ago."

When I graduated from high school. The last of the innocents. We didn't know what pot was, everyone was patriotic, very few boys had cars, very little TV ( I didn't see on till I was 17), we were coming off the big war where everyone was used to rationing, and everyone pulled together.

Billw, you and I are closer than I thought.

I fully agree.

Personally, I think Thompson was the best candidate. But who knows??)

"A good third party canditate would be a shoo in. Just who would that be, though?"

Good question. Maybe Newt, Liberman. Maybe Thompson, had he stuck with it and been more forceful in his views. Problem is the country is in such a mess, a man in his "right senses" likely wouldn't want to inherit the problems. America will never be the great country is was 50 or so years ago. Too many politicians have sold it out for personal gain, and too many company leaders have done the same by going overseas to have their products made. Also
Abraham Lincoln's true statement "to win the election, impress the ignorant" has taken it's toll. Too bad.

Billw, you are so right there. I am not a fan of any of them. I just live close to the original Clinton hang-out and am close to some that know them, and I could not vote for him or her.

A good third party canditate would be a shoo in. Just who would that be, though?

"In your opinion only."

Birds of a feather stick together.

"Put Hillary's name where you have Obamas and Bill Clinton where you have Wright, and it works both ways. She stayed with Bill Cinton since 1975, a lot longer than the 20 years in the Wright church."

Doesn't matter anyway, McCain will be President. I'd just like to have seen a more level playing field between Clinton and Obama.

"His true intent is therefore very questionable."

In your opinion only. Do not attempt to speak for the rest of us.
You know what the Clintons are, so why anyone would support them is beyond me. Yep, the morals of the US went away about the 60s.

Obama showed his true alegiance to Wright for 20 years, which means he approved of Wrights views. He now "denounces" him when he is forced to. His true intent is therefore very questionable.

News from 1 hour ago:

"Obama endorsed by an Indiana super delegate Joe Andrew

Joe Andrew, who formerly had endorsed Hillary Clinton, switches to Obama, saying the Illinois senator has a willingness to do 'the right thing.'

And Obama was not married to Rev. Wright.
Hmmm??

"Had Obamas close relationship with shady characters and the hate-filled racist Wright been known at the outset, he would have been out of the race months ago."

Put Hillary's name where you have Obamas and Bill Clinton where you have Wright, and it works both ways. She stayed with Bill Cinton since 1975, a lot longer than the 20 years in the Wright church.

OBAMA AND HIS CAKE

Obama's figured that black democrats would support him out of racial loyalty, and a lot of whites would do the same in order to not be accused of being racial. This put him ahead, but has now backfired due to his close association to reverend Wright and Wright's character being exposed. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Regarding the media, they went with the "Obama phenomena" as it made sensational news, upped their viewer ratings, and made them money. This created bias toward Obama, got him free advertising of the best kind, and put him ahead. Now the hot news getting viewer attention is Wright, so the media has gone with him and has damaged Obama, likely beyond repair. Again you can't have your cake and eat it too. Had Obamas close relationship with shady characters and the hate-filled racist Wright been known at the outset, he would have been out of the race months ago.

JakeD, your rabid support of the Clintons, no matter what, is showing your personality.
Please get some help.

""RECORDS SET
The Clintons

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court""

"P.S. re: Clinton(s) trial -- World Net Daily is not a reliable source -- BILL Clinton's motion to dismiss was granted, so the trial is proceeding against her only."

So?? Your proof please, not according to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The proof against Hillary Clinton is there and the California Supreme Court upheld re-opening the case because of that. Sorry.

dems rule:

How many of those new registrations were people who are going to vote for McCain in November? Have you considered that Operation CHAOS is artificially inflating the numbers?

delegate math man:

Keep in mind those numbers go up if Florida and/or Michigan are counted. Also, nothing prevents the super delegates "announced" for Barack HUSSEIN Obama to retract tomorrow, if they wanted to, and all announce for Hillary DIANE Clinton.

P.S. re: Clinton(s) trial -- World Net Daily is not a reliable source -- BILL Clinton's motion to dismiss was granted, so the trial is proceeding against her only.

With Bush HITTING NEW PUPLIC OPINION LOWS

and DEMS at HIGHEST REGISTRATION NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE Since the ice age when John McCain was born

MARCH STATISTICS
43% Dem
32% GOP

and WE DON"T EVEN HAVE THE NEW VOTERS COUNTED

GO OBAMA GO DEMS

Reverse Countdown TO VICTORY
BiG Day for SUPerS

293 to 2024 Delegates to Victory OBAMA -2
429 to 2024 Delegates Clinton -3
________________________________
408 Elected Delegates left in ten contests
289 Supers Uncomitted Remaining
------------------------------------
697 Delegates Unpledged / Uncomitted Remaining

Go OBAMA

Look, Wright will not fight back, at least not materially.
This whole thing looks too much like a set up: Wright made bad comments. Obama originally tried to denounce only his comments but not him as a person. This proved to be not enough, and Obama must denounce the person. But without any new update, it would be strange or damaging for Obama to change his stance. Therefore, Wright cooperated by giving one more bad speech, an opportunity Obama can seize to change his stance.
As much as it sounds like a conspiracy theory, this type of game has been played thousands of years ago in China. Good players don't even need to plan for it - they could do it tacitly.
I would admit my suspicion is wrong if Wright fights back forcefully (not just verbally, which I won't be surprised if he does, but forcefully with potentially damaging information, as he should have plenty over so many years). Somehow, though, I don't believe this will happen. It's just a setup, old fashioned, plain and boring. Will people get fooled? I don't know. But certainly not me...

"Jimmy Carter Endorses Obama ( Sort of)

MAKE of this what you will:

Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter has hinted that he might cast his vote for Senator Barack Obama to aid his emergence as the candidate for the Democrats in America's bid to elect a new President.""

Hint, hint

"also, James EARL Carter did not endorse Barack HUSSEIN Obama -- he is, officially, uncommitted."

Officially, He praised Obama and practically downed Clinton with his remarks. What more do you want?? Give it up, Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee.

WND Exclusive ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons - Bill, Hillary and Chelsea - along with top Democratic Party leaders...

That should be case number BC304174

The facts are hard to ignore, aren't they.

"As someone already pointed out, William JEFFERSON Clinton is not on trial --

No, Bill and Hillary Clinton are on trial:

Go to www.lasuperiorcourt.org. Look under civil column, click on civil summaries, search under case number BC30417

Hmmm. Looks like it say William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton to me. Read it and weep:


Case Summary

Please make a note of the Case Number.

Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

05/13/2008 at 08:37 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC RE: CONTEMPT

08/08/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

KREEP GARY G. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn

LEVIN JAMES - Defendant/Respondent

MACHTINGER LEONARD A. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

NORMAN JAN B. - Associated Counsel

NORRIS STERLING E. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

PAUL PETER F. - Plaintiff/Petitioner

ROSEN DAVID - Defendant/Respondent

SMITH GARY - Defendant/Respondent

TONKEN AARON - Defendant/Respondent

WILLAMS & CONNOLLY - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

Google "clinton fraud trial" some old, some new. New evidence lead to trial being re-newed. Sorry.

show = shoe

James (I assume NOT Carter):

Just wait until the other show drops -- hopefully, Rev. Wright fires back and tells us something really juicy about "The One" he's counseled, in private, for lo' these many, many years.

As someone already pointed out, William JEFFERSON Clinton is not on trial -- also, James EARL Carter did not endorse Barack HUSSEIN Obama -- he is, officially, uncommitted.

Anonymous said: From the Houston Chronicle:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Hillary Supporter?

Well, could you blame him. He was thrown under the bus by Obama for the sake of Obama's political ambitions. Wright knows the nature of their relationship; he knows that Obama is quite familiar his preaching style and his opinions. He is probably very disappointed in Obama for not standing up and admitting that he knew what his church was about, and he stayed there because he agreed with Wright. Instead, Obama attacks his "uncle" in an attempt to fool the American public before the upcoming primaries. Heck, if someone did that to me, I'd cross over and support the more admirable opponent, too.

Hillary and Bill Clinton on trial for fraud in Los Angeles, civil court case #BC304174

Jimmy Carter endorses Obama.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Hillary Supporter?

In response to Sycamore, VA....it took Hillary 61 years to find her voice...what's the problem? 20 vs 61??????

In response to Sycamore, VA....it took Hillary 61 years to find her voice...what the problem?

Hmmmm. From the news:

Reverend Wright spoke at the National Press club recently in order to defend his record and apparently the African American church. Barack Obama has had a hard time since his pastor has come into the limelight due to the explosive nature of some of the preachers comments. Regardless as to the appropriateness of what Wright said and how he said it, Barack's bid for the presidency has been hampered by his statements. Strangely, the platform from which the pastor spoke on yesterday was made available to him by a CLINTON SUPPORTER."

If we have learned anything from Obama during the last year or so the guy has a reactive Personality at best.

We want a leader in the White House and not somebody who cannot make a decision of who to be associated for 20 years, and now that his poll numbers were lagging, reacted to it when it was convenient to do so.

Poor PASTOR WRIGHT...

IMHO, Obama should have left Wright's church before he started his campaign for the presidency.

Barring that, he should have left after the clips from Wright's sermons were revealed. What did he do? He made a very nice speech about race relations in the US, but he took no action.

"Now, following Wright's press conference, Obama claims that he's "outraged" and "saddened," but again has taken no positive action to distance himself from Wright and his church."

Look how much we have learned from listening to Jeremiah Wright in a few hours that we've seen him. If it takes 20 years for Barack to recognize what kind of individual and pastor he really is, then what is he doing running for President.

Also to assume that the American people is this dumb to believe him that he didn't know or hear all these remarks before he ran for the Presidency is beyond belief.

Does he go to Church just to sleep or what?

I think this is now a battle of EGO between him and his pastor. I heard mentioned of ME, ME, ME on his press conference.

America WAKE UP for it can take another 20 years before he recognize that we have REAL Problems in the Country.

What a FLAWED candidate this guy is.

Anonymous: Give it up. You called me a racist, and are now unable to quote any racist statement made by me. Let's move on.

Quote: "I didn't think you could come up with anything. Your apology is hereby accepted."

As the exit polls say, another under educated Clinton supporter.

Quoting the news on Jimmy Carter"

"His mother, whom he adored, would "be delighted I think at the prospect of a black man being elected president". In an aside that will give scant comfort to Mrs Clinton, he added: "And she would be pleased - I wouldn't say delighted - at the prospect of a woman being president."

I didn't think you could come up with anything. Your apology is hereby accepted.

James, speak for yourself. No apology is forthcoming or due. Read your own posts or someone else is posting using your ID.

Anonymous: Please post any of my comments which you consider to be racist. If you cannot, please consider your apology to be accepted in advance. Thank you.

"Anonymous: Many people may not go to church, but they do care if we have a racist President. That is going to cause severe problems for Obama.

LOL,this from the poster who has made the most racist statement on this thread. LOL

It sure got quiet around here. Hillary and Bill Clinton on trial for fraud in Los Angeles, civil court case #BC304174 and Jimmy Carter endorses Obama. Hmmmm?

Anonymous: Many people may not go to church, but they do care if we have a racist President. That is going to cause severe problems for Obama.

"A Nobel Peace Prize winner who abhors the policies of President George W. Bush, Mr Carter added: "A lot of them see Obama as kind of a diametrical opposite from George W. Bush and they think that he will bring to the presidency a brand new picture of what the White House and Washington and the United States ought to be."

I laugh at all the people with the conspiracy theory that Wright and Obama planned this whole thing! Can you tell me what the reason would be? Do you think he thought it would be good for his
campaign? Why not say that Hillary paid Wright

James, give it up. A large percentage of the population of the US does not go to "church" or believe in organized religion any longer. Look it up.

This is not about Wright. It is about the character and judgment of someone who would join a racist black liberation theology church; stay for 20 years; formulate a close relationship with the racist and anti-American pastor; try to conceal this from the public by continually saying that he is a "Christian;" and then expect us to forget about those 20 years, merely because he himself is finally "outraged." Wright preaches black liberation theology. Here are a few statements from James Cone, a founder of black liberation theology, about Obama's religion:

(1) To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people. (2) While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. (3) Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

'The former president, who travels the globe dealing with the conflict resolution and human rights issues promoted by his Carter Centre, told this newspaper that "overseas there is an intense infatuation with Obama, perhaps more than there ever has been in previous history with any candidate".

From today's news:

Jimmy Carter praises Obama

"Coming from the most distinguished of some 300 uncommitted "super-delegates" - the Democratic party leaders who will crown their party's nominee - Mr Carter's new public stance is a blow to Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the White House."

Obama can transform America's image, says Jimmy Carter

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 11:59AM BST 30/04/2008

"Former President Jimmy Carter has given Barack Obama a major boost by calling for the bitter Democratic nomination battle to end on June 3rd and speaking glowingly of his ability to "transform the image" of America."

Whatever you wish to believe. Nevertheless, he is not on trial for fraud. Hillary Clinton is.

THE DANGER OF COLLECTIVE WISHFUL THINKING: I believe many have a desire for that Knight in Shinning Armor to come forward and solve all of our political ills. Many Americans believe they have found that person in Barack Obama. Obama, who professes to be a "different" kind of politician who represents "change" and "unity," has been very effective in playing to this "collective wishful thinking." Obama, however, knows that he is not that Knight. He knows that he has been a conventional and ruthless politician from the start. He knows that he obtained his first elective office by stabbing his friend and mentor, Alice Palmer, in the back. He knows that despite his assertions, he has obtained over $62,000,000 from special interest groups during this campaign by a method developed by George Bush and Karl Rove. He knows that despite his glowing rhetoric about unity, he chose to belong to a racist black liberation theology church for 20 years, and considered its racist and anti-American pastor as his "mentor and spiritual adviser." He knows that it is he who has played the race card over and over, in order to destroy the legacy of Bill Clinton, and blunt his effectiveness as an advocate for Hillary Clinton. And, he knows that this most recent "denunciation" of Wright only occurred because Wright told the truth; that Obama is a "politician" and will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. Yes, he knows all of these things, and so do millions of Americans throughout this country. Yet, millions of his supporters have allowed their "wishful thinking" to cloud their ability to digest any information not consistent with their image of Obama; this image that has been so carefully constructed by Obama, himself. This will account for the intellectual agility which will be required of them to change from an apologist for Rev. Wright one day, to a supporter of Obama's denunciation of Wright, the next day. In the 1930's, another people believed that they had found their "Knight" who would save them from the effects of a humiliating defeat in World War I. They, too, believed that their leader was almost infallible. They, too, hung on every word he said, and refused to believe any warnings from "outsiders" about the true nature of their leader's beliefs and actions. And even after a devastating defeat in World War II, millions of them still would not - could not believe that their leader was anything other than what he himself said he was, because to believe this would somehow not only invalidate their leader, but it would invalidate themselves. Were these people unsophisticated, stupid people? Absolutely, not. They inhabited one of the most advanced countries of its time. No, their deficiency lied in their inability to process information inconsistent with their beliefs. Their weakness was placing their "wishes" over their objectivity. All along the way, there were signs that their leader was not who he professed to be. However, their belief that they had found their "Knight" resisted any and all such signs, and enable a charismatic and hateful man to lead their country into hell. Objectivity has been defined as "the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices." Objectivity will help assure that in this nomination process, each candidate is viewed as they really are; not as they have told us they are, or how we wish they were.

A person (as yet unnamed):

Hopefully you are the same "person" who I asked several questions of at 7:55 PM yesterday. If you are, I am glad you found the time to post (and, hopefully, you find the time to actually answer my questions too).

First, I agree with you that 99% of the American population does not know that Hussein means "handsome" in Arabic. They probably do think of the Butcher of Baghdad, which is why I am trying to educate the (voting) American population of such little-known facts. That is the only reason I capitalize it to emphasize it. I certainly cannot answer for other posters.

Second, I do know what the Tuskegee experiments were. There is NO SIMILAR EVIDENCE that the United States government was conducting another experiment as to HIV/AIDS. In fact, every scholarly account as to the origin and spread of that disease debunks such a "preposterous" theory.

Perhaps you missed Senator Barack HUSSEIN Obama (D-IL) specifically denouncing such "preposterous" theory? As you said: "Research next time you jump to conclusions."

Obama can transform America's image, says Jimmy Carter

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 11:59AM BST 30/04/2008

"Former President Jimmy Carter has given Barack Obama a major boost by calling for the bitter Democratic nomination battle to end on June 3rd and speaking glowingly of his ability to "transform the image" of America."

OBAMA: DIRTY POLITICIAN FROM THE START: Chicago Sun-Times--A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: Obama, who runs on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless, first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. Alice Palmer, friend and mentor to Obama, served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat. Obama not only refused to step aside for the woman who was his friend and had recommended him for the seat, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw. Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. "He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his "guru of petitions." Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest. All other candidates were disposed of by Obama's challenges. He then went on to win the election.

http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte

Hillary Clinton and "The Largest Election Law Fraud in History"

"Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be in possible legal jeopardy with the introduction of a "smoking gun" video in a court case that has somehow escaped the attention of the mainstream media.

Investor's Business Daily explains that the "scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000."

John Armor, Election Law Expert at Equal Justice Foundation, says Hillary is involved in the "largest election law fraud in US history."

LA Superior Court Civil Summary
Case Summary

Case Number: BC304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Filing Date: 10/14/2003
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

05/13/2008 at 08:37 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
OSC RE: CONTEMPT

08/08/2008 at 08:31 am in department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Further Status Conference

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

CLINTON HILLARY RODHAM - Defendant/Respondent

CLINTON WILLIAM JEFFERSON - Defendant/Respondent

D. COLETTE WILSON ATTORNEY AT LAW - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

DOYEN MICHAEL R. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S. SENATE - Defendant/Respondent

KREEP GARY G. - Former Attorney for Pltf/Petn

LEVIN JAMES - Defendant/Respondent

MACHTINGER LEONARD A. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

NORMAN JAN B. - Associated Counsel

NORRIS STERLING E. ESQ. - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

PAUL PETER F. - Plaintiff/Petitioner

ROSEN DAVID - Defendant/Respondent

SMITH GARY - Defendant/Respondent

TONKEN AARON - Defendant/Respondent

WILLAMS & CONNOLLY - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

www.lasuperiorcourt.org

Click on case summaries in civil column,

Search for case number BC304174.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Hillary is a proven habitual liar and now they are on trial for fraud in Los Angeles. Case number BC304174.

WHAT A SAD SPECTACLE. For weeks now, Obama supporters, political pundits, talk show hosts, and even "The View" panel members have been defending Rev. Wright; defending the statements of Rev. Wright; saying that they were taken out of context; even saying that they were true; all in order to defend their candidate, Barack Obama. And now, with one fell swoop, Obama himself has taken the rug out from underneath all of these supporters and de-legitimized their arguments by saying that he himself, is "outraged" by the statements of Rev. Wright, and that he no longer wishes to have any relationship with him. Interestingly, the things said by Rev. Wright in his recent public appearances and interviews were pretty much what we all know he has said before. The only thing materially different was when Rev. Wright twice stated that Obama says what he has to say, because he is a politician. So, what is the lesson of this sad spectacle? Three things. Firstly, it is that Rev. Wright can say anything he wants about "white people" and America, no matter how disgusting or untrue, but if he dares "diss" Obama personally, then Obama is finally "OUTRAGED." Secondly, it has shown the extent to which some Obama supporters and apologists will go to justify and rationalize any action on the part of Obama or one of his advisers, even to the extent of sanctioning racist and anti-American hate speech, in order to defend Obama and promote his campaign. Finally, it has shown once again that Obama will do anything, and jettison anyone, in his quest for power and the Presidency. The "denunciation" of Wright by Obama is self-serving damage control, and nothing more. The actions by some of his supporters in trying to defend the indefensible, represent a shameful combination of political expediency, lack of objectivity, and hypocrisy.

Well done. Even your President would be proud of you. After all, he screwed that line, Big Time, on Prime Time TV.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Hey, all you white kids still drinking Obama's koolaid:

did you see Al Sharpton also denounced Obama for grandstanding for white folks?

lol! Looks like the real black leaders are not fooled by the fraud.

I had a friend who worked for Nightline and got to meet and hang around with tons of leading political figures. She told me never to vote based on who I 'liked' or 'disliked' because candidates' personas are so carefully managed, handled, etc. Every single look, word, facial tic, gesture has been planned out by somebody else and designed to manipulate your emotions. If you 'like' a candidate, it's because the handlers got it right. If you don't 'like' them, you're probably not in the demographic being wooed.

She said she never saw an exception to this, and that *all* policiticans--those who seem smart and those who don't, those who seem "wonky" and those who seem "folksy"--*all* politicians are products developed by teams of people out to win over certain audiences. You can't say whether you 'like' them or 'hate' them. You don't know them.

So, you can't vote on your emotions, because they're being manipulated and aren't reliable. You have to go on what the candidates have actually done in office. Not what they say they will do or would have done, but what they actually have done. This is tough for Democrats because we've put forward two candidates with very little experience in that sense. Obama is young and inexperienced and Hillary's experience is mostly in a private, unofficial capacity. Almost her entire "experience" has been filtered through Bill, and despite her saying she was deeply involved in governing, there's no evidence of that.

I personally voted for Obama because Hillary voted for the War. With that vote, Congress abrogated their Constitutional authority and wrote President Bush a blank check, and look what he did with it. That vote was a disaster for our country, and I felt that way at the time. I looked up the names of everyone who voted for it, so that I would be able to hold them accountable in the future. It is true that Obama's stated opposition to the War wasn't tested through a vote. If his opponent had been a sitting senator who voted *against* the War, I'd likely be voting for them. But Hillary was tested, and she failed.

There are other reasons to vote for her or for him, I'm sure. But come on, people, read and reason. Don't go with your emotions. They aren't reliable in this kind of situation.

Shame on you, Barack Obama! Pandering to white nationalist, imperialist mythology and betraying this prophetic truth-teller Rev. Wright. For thirty pieces of silver! "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

With the way politics and the media are today, what with every little aspect of each candidate being scrutinized day after day for several months, I'm actually impressed that this is the worst they can dig up on Senator Obama. The worst scandal to hit his campaign isn't even about things the candidate has said or done, but things somebody he knows has said or done. And John McCain has the same potential problem with Hagee. If this is the best they can hit Obama with, I think he'll be fine.

Talk about chickens coming home to roost!

Obama has been playing the race card since b/f South Carolina.

Obama is getting just a bit more than he wanted.

It's that simple.

4.30. 2008 NEW YORK
Fareed Zakaria
Editor of Newsweek International, columnist
PostGlobal co-moderator Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International, overseeing all Newsweek's editions abroad. He writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and often The Washington Post. He is a member of the roundtable of ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanapoulos" as well as an analyst for ABC News. And he is the host of a new weekly PBS show, "Foreign Exchange" which focuses on international affairs. His most recent book, "The Future of Freedom," was published in the spring of 2003 and was a New York Times bestseller and is being translated into eighteen languages. He is also the author of "From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role" (Princeton University Press), and co-editor of "The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World" (Basic Books). Close. Fareed Zakaria
Editor of Newsweek International, columnist
PostGlobal co-moderator Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International, overseeing all Newsweek's editions abroad. He writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and often The Washington Post. more »
Main Page | Fareed Zakaria Archives | PostGlobal Archives

McCain's Radical Foreign Policy
Amid the din of the dueling Democrats, people seem to have forgotten about that other guy in the presidential race-you know, John McCain. McCain is said to be benefiting from this politically because his rivals are tearing each other apart. In fact, few people are paying much attention to what the Republican nominee is saying, or subjecting it to any serious scrutiny.

On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.

In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil-but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.

We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous-that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

I write this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. I also agree with much of what else he said in that speech in Los Angeles. But in recent years, McCain has turned into a foreign-policy schizophrenic, alternating between neoconservative posturing and realist common sense. His speech reads like it was written by two very different people, each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic.

The neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology. Not only does it declare war on Russia and China, it places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework. What would be the gain from so alienating two great powers? How would the League of Democracies fight terrorism while excluding countries like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt and Singapore? What would be the gain to the average American to lessen our influence with Saudi Arabia, the central banker of oil, in a world in which we are still crucially dependent on that energy source?

The single most important security problem that the United States faces is securing loose nuclear materials. A terrorist group can pose an existential threat to the global order only by getting hold of such material. We also have an interest in stopping proliferation, particularly by rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea. To achieve both of these core objectives-which would make American safe and the world more secure-we need Russian cooperation. How fulsome is that likely to be if we gratuitously initiate hostilities with Moscow? Dissing dictators might make for a stirring speech, but ordinary Americans will have to live with the complications after the applause dies down.

To reorder the G8 without China would be particularly bizarre. The G8 was created to help coordinate problems of the emerging global economy. Every day these problems multiply-involving trade, pollution, currencies-and are in greater need of coordination. To have a body that attempts to do this but excludes the world's second largest economy is to condemn it to failure and irrelevance. International groups are not cheerleading bodies but exist to help solve pressing global crises. Excluding countries won't make the problems go away.

McCain appears to think that he can magically unite the two main strands in the Republican foreign-policy establishment. But he can't. This is not about personalities but about two philosophically divergent views of international affairs. Put together, they will produce infighting and incoherence. We have seen this movie before. We have watched an American president unable to choose between his ideologically driven vice president and his pragmatic secretary of State-and the result was the catastrophe of George W. Bush's first term. Twenty-five years earlier, we watched another president who believed that he could encompass the entire spectrum of foreign policy. He, too, gave speeches that were drafted by advisers with divergent world views: in that case, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It led to the paralyzing internal battles of the Carter years. Does John McCain want to try this experiment one more time?

Posted by Fareed Zakaria on April 28, 2008 7:13 AM

Comments (50)
doctor t:
Hi-
The reason nobody payed this proposal any attention is that it is so nuts. A simple sop to the anti-UN group, he appears that he would like to substitute the world with a fantasy world (like fantasy baseball) of "people like us". In the general election, I hope the other major and a bunch of the minor ones will put this back on the main burner to characterize McKie as the Lyndon Larouche of the present election.

Posted April 29, 2008 3:23 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 15:23

HUSSEIN ELSHIBINI :
There is no doubt that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan against the will of its people led to the demotivation of the military , exhaustion of the economy and ultimately collapse of the Soviet Empire.
This should be compared with the present American occupation ( officially called "liberation") of Iraq. After five years the actual results are as follows : a divided pro-American government whose authority does not extend beyond the so-called "Green Zone" , several thousands of American troops have lost their life , tens of thousands are disabled for life , and hundreds of thousands are presently suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. The cost of this war is having a clear impact on the American economy. I hope that the next American Administration would be responsible enough to admit that there is no country, whatever its might, with inexhaustible resources. Such a policy would be of great benefit to the US and the world as well.

Posted April 29, 2008 1:53 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 13:53

SA:
This presidential campaign cycle has led me to lose all respect for the so-called mainstream media. It's shocking that such a proposal from McCain is ignored by the MSM. Their priorities are so skewed, it's beyond comprehension. Thank you very much for pointing out McCain's statement to us.

What happened to the McCain of 2000? This 2008 version bears no likeness I can detect.

Posted April 29, 2008 1:38 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 13:38

Bob:
If McCain's point is that the world's democracies need a forum, any forum, to meet, discuss, and air their views, where their expression of views will not be distorted by the participation of dictatorships like Russian and China, then I strongly agree.

Perhaps NATO could be reenvisioned to become a global organization and fill this role.

Russian and China did not invite the US to participate in their Shanghai Council, or whatever it's called.

Fareed, you're grasping at straws.

Posted April 29, 2008 1:35 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 13:35

Neocon Empire:
Why can't these politicians understand that the best way to promote democracy is to live well rather than going around invading other countries while burying our country under mountains of debts? The Soviet empire collapsed because we showed the Russians that we were far wealthier and happier under a capitalistic democracy than they could ever be under a Communist dictatorship. Now, after 8 years of neocon rule, we are broke trying to impose our values on the world. The Chinese are laughing at us.

Posted April 29, 2008 1:34 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 13:34

counfounded by our leaders:
DAE,You left out John F (got us into Vietnam, and shagged everyone but his wife) Kennedy, Jimmy (blundering through foriegn policy, and attacked Iran and failed) Carter, and William Jefferson (bombing childrens pharmaceutical plants, shagged his secretary, and several of his aides all committed "suicide") Clinton.
You're right. When you look at these Presidents, it just makes you shudder at the depths of ineptitude, unfaithfulness, and criminal behavior.

Posted April 29, 2008 12:36 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 12:36

MGLoraine:
One can only conclude that main-stream media is still doing the bidding of the Cheney White House. McCain goes around spouting absurd, bombastic nonsense like this every day, but it gets buried because the corporate sponsors know he sounds like a half-wit. Meanwhile, we are regaled with hour after hour of sound-bites and repetitive superficial analyses (i.e., speculation & prognostication by the usual pundits) regarding Rev. Wright and portions of comments he has made or is rumored to have made.

Rev. Wright is a man with opinions and a right to state them publicly. But he's not running for President, and he doesn't speak for or represent the candidate he is associated with. So who keeps trying to publicize Rev. Wright's every move while manipulating the coverage to conjure up some phony controversy? Who decides to plaster Rev. Wright's picture alongside dire predictions for Obama on the front page, while hiding items illustrating McCain's dementia / senility well in the back pages?

Cheney and Rove (or their wretched minions) are merely doing what they've been doing since 2000 - manipulating the media with influence peddling and intimidation in order to secure a third term for BushCo. And the media houses play right along, anything for a quick buck, a 'scoop', or an 'exclusive' interview.

Posted April 29, 2008 12:29 PM

Posted on April 29, 2008 12:29

Zathras:
A full defense of Sen. McCain's approach to foreign and national security affairs will have to come from someone other than me.

McCain has a long record in this area, one that reflects better than average judgment overall, but at the moment he appears to be a candidate in the general election who is still unsure that he really has the GOP nomination. This is reflected in a mix of positions intended to appeal to most voters (and that are generally consistent with those McCain held before the campaign began) and positions clearly adopted to appeal to the hard core of the Republican Party, the people who still admire President Bush. In an actual McCain administration, these two orientations could not coexist peacefully.

Having said that, I would point out that what we now call the G8 originated as a periodic gathering of the leaders of the major democracies. The Nixon administration thought it wise for the heads of governments sharing similar values to meet without being encumbered by hordes of staff and the restrictions of institutional protocol -- or by the participation of Communist dictatorships. This was not a radical approach, or one motivated by some new hostility to non-Western countries, but was instead an initiative to enable the democracies to increase their options to respond to challenges outside the security field in a timely way.

The G8 has grown beyond that vision; in many ways it has grown into precisely the kind of institution that Nixon's administration sought to bypass. In McCain's place I would be calling for expanding the G8 but convening it less frequently, say, every other year. In the years it did not meet I would attempt to resurrect the kind of informal council Nixon sought to create; its purpose would be less expansive than what McCain proposes, but its membership would be similar.

The fact is that China remains a country in which power is monopolized by the state, and Russia persists in seeking to undermine the independence of neighboring countries freed from the oppression of the old Soviet empire. No amount of American goodwill can paper over the serious differences between the governments of these countries and ours. Because once admitted to a large forum like the G8 their withdrawal for any reason would be regarded as a major diplomatic failure, the temptation to gloss over objectionable policy moves by either Russia or China -- whether Russian efforts to dismember Georgia or Chinese manipulation of the yuan -- would be considerable. It is therefore undesirable for an expanded G8, whether one thinks of this as "the councils of power" or not, to be the only forum in which the major powers interact with one another.

Periodic meetings among heads of government, representing major countries sharing democratic values, are a necessary and valuable thing, provided both the purposes and the limitations of such a forum are clearly understood beforehand. McCain's "League of Democracies," as he has described it, is grandiose and impractical, but contains at its core the important recognition that the free countries of the world can and should rest common action on their common values, as they have so often in the past.

Posted April 29, 2008 11:31 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 11:31

Amir:
Just wanted to say, keep up the good work, Fareed. One of the few major media people out there who actually concentrate on important things.

Posted April 29, 2008 11:31 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 11:31

lila:

Anyone who saw Bush's morning press conference

and who stil considers McCain, his foreign

policy clone , a realistic candidate---

Speak up. Show yourself to be an idiot.

The news conference was a horrid mix blundering

and outright lies. It was freaky.

Posted April 29, 2008 11:11 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 11:11

Jim Hickland:
McCain's foreign policy approach cements a completely overlooked facet of his campaign for President. What people and our vaunted press fail to think about is that we're not really going to vote for a man, we are really voting thousands of bureaucrats who will rush in to fill the policy and administrative posts. If enough people vote for McCain, then he'll appoint/nominate the same corrupt incompetant crowd that's destroyed this nation over the past 8 years. Fortunately, McCain is a senile old coot that can barely string enough sentences together to form an intelligent paragraph. Eventually people will turn on him

Jim Hickland

Posted April 29, 2008 10:34 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 10:34

Speranza:
Here's the thing. Statements like McCain's - and the absence of reaction to its absurdity - prove one thing for sure: America is now frightened of the world. If these were the words of a school boy about someone in the playground we'd have to ask, "What is he frightened of?" The answer is clear in this case. America is frightened that it has run out of juice and that it no longer has the character or wit to be able to pull itself out of the mire. It's going to be a long fall.

Posted April 29, 2008 10:32 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 10:32

Robert Myers:
US politicians, indeed US citizens need to embrace a foreign policy that isn't based on the presumption of always having foreign enemies. And, we need to significantly cut the military budget as part of this.

Posted April 29, 2008 8:27 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 08:27

DAE:
As regards foreign policy, I'm of the age where I thought that no president could be worse than LB "how many kids have you killed today" J, then came Richard "Cambodian Incursion" Nixon, who could be worse than that? How about Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan, and the worst of the lot now reigning. Well it seems they all may be trumped by John 'know-nothing" McCain.

Posted April 29, 2008 8:27 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 08:27

_kt_:
Could someone explain what the G8 does that is unique? We've got the WTO for trade and the UN for diplomacy. Is it just a rich guys club where we talk about how to arrange things for the benefit of the rich guys? If so, isn't that kind of obnoxious? I don't think I know enough about the G8 to evaluate McCain's proposal.

Posted April 29, 2008 6:33 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 06:33

Ali:
Some one should tell Mr. McCain that the Cold War is over and there were no winners....just two losers, one lost early and went bankrupt, the second one is following the same path.... with about a 15 year delayed, slow-motion structure.

However, polls tell us that the same majority that re-elected George Bush now support Mr. McCain and the difference with the Democrats is very small.....

Pretty bad, or down-right dangerous?

Posted April 29, 2008 3:19 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 03:19

Robert F. Zimmerman:
I suggest that Fareed come to Ukraine and Georgia to experience the first stirrings of Putin's efforts to keep these countries weak even if he cannot bring them back into his emerging Czarist Russia.

Posted April 29, 2008 1:53 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 01:53

Robert F. Zimmerman:
I suggest that Fareed come to Ukraine and Georgia to experience the first stirrings of Putin's efforts to keep these countries weak even if he cannot bring them back into his emerging Czarist Russia.

Posted April 29, 2008 1:53 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 01:53

Mark W.:
It's not radical to me, Nixon bombed Cambodia, so why would not Senator McCain suggest, "Bomb bomb Iran", talking about insensitivity to the effects of rhetoric on oil prices.

At a Highschool, McCain was challenged by a young person. His first impulse was to threaten that young person with "The Draft". May have been funny to him but people are watching.

Henry K. is a Consultant now. I wonder if he will become a revisionist historian as a paid Consultant ? Not too long about Henry hoped Arabs would be willing to form a cohesiveness relieving western boots on arab soils I would imagine. McCain said, "I won't go it alone", who knows what he would do.

Interesting thing is that Vietnam can be compared to regional limited incursions if one accepts the fact that North Vietnamese, Chinese, Laotians and Cambodians became active partners against our treaty obligations and strategic objectives, cough-cough.

Apparent to most of us looking at the planning stages of current and future detente' that everything is on hold until Elvis leaves the building for good.

Posted April 29, 2008 12:30 AM

Posted on April 29, 2008 00:30

Neocon Empire:
John McCain has always been a hawk on foreign policies. Many of his prior records demonstrated it over and over again. I agree with the main point of the article, but have to disagree on the assertion that neocons are ideologically motivated. They are not. Democracy is not what neoconservatism is about. Neocons are hostile to the democratically elected government of Palestine. They are more than happy to protect autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

What neocons are trying to do is not spreading democracy, even though that may be what they say as a cover. I am going to be the kid that yell "the emperor has no clothes" since nobody else wants to say it. What the neocons aim to do is to cement a permanant world order in which the US is the center, with western Europe and its Anglo-Saxon civilization as the core of a vast empire that stretches all over the globe. Each country in the world has its predestined role.

Nations like the UK and Germany are the most trusted allies because they are afterall Anglo-Saxon. The French and Italians are part of the traditional western Judaic-Christian civilization and therefore still part of the core neocon empire. Then you have countries like Japan, which represent the less trustworthy members that play the role of agents around the world.

All great empires must have outsiders and opponents. Russia and China are naturally targets of the neocon empire. Like Japan, they are from completely different civilizations. Unlike Japan, they are not willing to submit to the "natural" order of the world of neoconservatism. What makes these two countries stand out from the rest is that they are powerful enough to threaten this order.

You can certainly explain a lot about the neocons by this vision of theirs.

Posted April 28, 2008 9:52 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 21:52

Martin Edwin Andersen:
There is so much that is admirable about Sen. McCain, but setting up an advisors' food fight while what would be an increasingly out-of-touch president presides does not seem a wise bet to me.

The neo-cons are master apparatchiks and would, once the food starts flying, likely come out on top.

The combination of Wilsonian rhetoric and gunboat tactics may sound good, but the world is too complex a place, and we will likely end up being even more isolated.

Posted April 28, 2008 8:42 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 20:42

Martin Edwin Andersen:
There is so much that is admirable about Sen. McCain, but setting up an advisors' food fight while what would be an increasingly out-of-touch president presides does not seem a wise bet to me.

The neo-cons are master apparatchiks and would, once the food starts flying, likely come out on top.

The combination of Wilsonian rhetoric and gunboat tactics may sound good, but the world is too complex a place, and we will likely end up being even more isolated.

Posted April 28, 2008 8:39 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 20:39

A sad citizen:
Once again, an extremely well written & insightful article from Fareed Zakaria. Co-existence & economic interdependence is the key to world peace & unity. Nothing would ever be achieved by excluding 2 major powers: Russia & China from G8.& Americans think that McCain is electable!! & is the US a REAL democracy??? Wake up to reality, people! We are a nation that loves to preach democratic ideals to the world when our own house is in disorder: look at Katrina, our support of dictatorial regimes ALL OVER the world, & gross disparity of wealth in this nation!

Posted April 28, 2008 7:58 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 19:58

Betty Hamilton:
This is a fabulous article, as always. Thanks for important insights and news.
I agree, McCain is confused or out to lunch. And I agree that the press is chasing pigs in a poke. Can you see the glee with which a Democrat will challenge McCain's embrace of preemptive war? No wonder the Democrats are fighting so hard for the nomination!!!

If the current world institutions do not function effectively, it is a problem with the attitudes and behaviors of the member states. Changing the sturctures will not change these attitudes. We need to get it right with the existing, though perhaps modified, structures already in place.

After all is said and done, McCain will not be able to construct new world institutions, because he is not a great coalition builder. Just like W.

If we want change, it begins with getting the external money out of governance.

Posted April 28, 2008 6:39 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 18:39

Ken:
Yes, McCain's comments were alarming, if not scary! Instead of ignoring or irritating Russia with stupid missile defense shields at a cost of millions, we need to establish a positive relationship. Include India and Brazil, OK; ignore China, McCain you must be kidding! What I really fear, which appears to be increasngly possible, is that the Democrats are going to seize "Defeat" from the jaws of "Victory" in 2008 and McCain when President will try to resolve the strategic tragedy of Iraq by attacking Iran! Then, stand by!

Posted April 28, 2008 5:48 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 17:48

Rich:
Sorry, members of the press are all busy checking lapel flags and don't have time for this...

Posted April 28, 2008 4:32 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 16:32

bala srini:
is it a sign of the future, that american senatorial candidates in the upcoming presidential election exhibit lack of vision and mission, therby confirming to the world atlarge the apathy and beginnings of decay in the senate in particular and the american politics in general.we are getting so immersed in the murky quagmirish quicksands of middle-east that we are in a self induced and self imposed and self destructive path to second-class status.we are fast approaching the third-world status in major parameters of HEALTH,&EDUCATION & HUMAN VALUES.unless there is a grass route development in promoting awareness in these important matters of fundamentals i am afraid all these talks of foreign policy might be like spitting in the wind.the apathy and general malaise got to go and the country needs to be awakened;the question is who will;i know one who won't;HILLARY FOR SURE.

Posted April 28, 2008 3:44 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 15:44

nidhu geronimo , the rev dr:
Your Open QuestionShow me another »
Kamal karna roy , script of new testaments of living by human_animals of current time:?
for comment pl visit web ' kamal karna roy "

Posted April 28, 2008 3:25 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 15:25

nidhu geronimo , the rev dr:
Your Open QuestionShow me another »
Kamal karna roy , script of new testaments of living by human_animals of current time:?
for comment pl visit web ' kamal karna roy "

Posted April 28, 2008 3:25 PM

Posted on April 28, 2008 15:25

nidhu geronimo , the rev dr:
Your Open QuestionShow me another »
Kamal karna roy , script of new testaments of living by human_animals of current time:?
for comment pl visit web ' kamal karna roy "

Posted April 28, 2008 3:25 PM

4.30. 2008 NEW YORK RELEASE : THE REVEREND DR KAMAL KARNA K ROY CAMPAIGN FOR GOP NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF A CLEAN GOP NOMINEE AS U S PRESIDENT 2008 AGAINST JON MCCAIN US SENATOR AS A TARGET NOMINEE OF GOP, BUT ALLEGED TO BE INVOLVED IN INFLUENCE PEDDLING IN PAXSON BUSINESS OF ARIZONA ET AL_FEMALE LOBBYIST OF 40 + YRS BEAUTY (OF COURSE ALL WOMEN ARE PRESUMABLY BEAUTIFUL TO ALL MEN WHO WISH FREE COMPANY WITH FEMALE AS GRATIS WITH FREE USES OF AIRCRAFT OF PAXSON OWNERS_MCCAIN SCANAL AS REPORTED BY VATERAN NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST WITH EVIDENCES OF MISCONDUCTS OF MCCAIN.......dR ROY WENT TO MANY US D COURTS TO PETITION COURT ORDERED INVESTIGATION OF MISCONDUCTS OF JOHN MCCAIN AS U S SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, USA

I don't believe obama never knew wright's views until yesterday. Come on. They knew each other for 20 years. People don't change overnight.

OBAMA'S STAND ON NAFTA IS POLITICAL POSTURING SAYS HIS TOP ECONOMIC ADVISER. HIS STAND ON IRAQ IS POLITICAL POSTURING SAYS HIS TOP POLITICAL ADVISER. AND NOW, HIS MESSAGE OF CHANGE IS POLITICAL POSTURING SAYS HIS PASTOR. WHAT KIND OF PERSON IS OBAMA? YET OBAMA'S FOLLOWERS FOLLOW HIM BLINDLY AND ARE READY TO DIE FOR HIM. IS NOT THIS WHAT THEY CALL A CULT. THIS IS REAL SCARY.

Response to 2:15

In the vast Muslim controlled and Arab lands, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, N. Africa, up through Persia, the number of Jews was only in the low tens of thousands. And they were all 2nd class citizens under the yoke of Muslim governments.

The population of the controlling Arab and Muslim nations, however, was about 200 million. So the ratio was about one Jew for every 10,000 Arabs or Muslims. I don't think it's logical to simply put Muslims, Jews, and Christians in the same basket, with equal weight. The same ratio of Jews to Christians was true in America also. Most Jews were living in Europe.

"Remarks in recent days by Wright have riven the nation's black community into opposing camps"

...not from any Blacks I know; they all think he's acting like a jerk

.

.

NEOCONS 4 HILLARY

.

.

YESTERDAY'S SCRIPT:
.

Incite racial hatred against Muslims!

.

TODAY'S SCRIPT:
.

Incite racial hatred against Black Americans!

.
.

TOMORROW'S SCRIPT.

(to be announced on Fox News)

.

"Blacks might be wiser allying with the "People of the Book" instead of the "People of the Sword," their former oppressors. History does not lie."

no, History doesn't lie

Slavery was done by both "People of the Book" and the "People of the Sword" , i.e. Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

So, I don't see why Blacks (or anyone else) re: slavery should be more against one religion than the other. If you are to hate Muslims for Slaver, then you might as well hate Christians and you might as well hate Jews as well. All Guilty!

do you?

Wright said today: "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery..."

No, but his Muslim spiritual guides and mentors did (see earlier post at 12:19)

some more quotes:

"Moreover, the ability of the Arabs to pay depended on their success as slave-hunters. When there had been a good catch, the revenue profited. The Egyptian Government had joined the International League against the slave trade. They combined, however, indirectly but deliberately, to make money out of it.

"The slave dealers had committed every variety of atrocity for which the most odious traffic in the world afforded occasion; for [Egyptian] Zubehr Rahamna, if they refused to pay their annual tribute, it was felt in Cairo that their crimes had cried aloud for chastisement. Zubehr is sufficiently described when it has been said that he was the most notorious slave dealer Africa has ever produced.

"The whole country was subdued. The whole population available after the battles became slaves. Zubehr thus wielded a formidable power."

Winston Churchill, "The River War"

If you'd like to understand why blacks so quickly become pseudo-Muslims and readily take Muslim names, read it - it's free online.

From "Africa Unchained" (2005)
"...the Arabs managed the East African slave trade. Over 20 million black slaves were shipped from East Africa to Arabia. Enslaving and slave trading in East Africa were peculiarly savage in a traffic notable for its barbarity. Villages were razed, the unfit villagers massacred. The enslaved were yoked together, several hundred in a caravan, on their long journey to the coast.

"Historians believe the slave trade was more catastrophic in East Africa than in West Africa. Diseases...were introduced by marauding Arab caravans penetrating the interior in search of slaves, decimated entire local populations.

"For the trans-Saharan slave trade, an estimated 9 million captives were shipped to slave markets in Fez, Marrakesh (Morocco), Algeria, Tunis, Libya, and Egypt"

Blacks might be wiser allying with the "People of the Book" instead of the "People of the Sword," their former oppressors. History does not lie.

Just out of curiosity, how does the Black Community feel about this?

A statement is being made here. Obama either agrees with Wright (his first response), or is against him (second), or are we going to see some real political slicing and dicing and let maybe Wright be declared crazy but he makes some good points?
-----------------------

Seems that many in the black community are supporting the wacky pastor:

Hill District ministers defend remarks
By Mike Cronin
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor speaks the truth, speaks for the black church and speaks for some black Pittsburgh ministers, said the Rev. Thomas E. Smith, pastor of Monumental Baptist Church in the Hill District.

Smith cited one of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's most-publicized pronouncements, his description of the Sept. 11 terror attacks as "America's chickens coming home to roost" due to U.S. foreign policies, as an example of one of those truths.

"Wright didn't slam our country in any way," said Smith, who has known Wright for about 20 years and considers him a friend. "He spoke about policies that put our country in jeopardy and human beings around the world in jeopardy."

Remarks in recent days by Wright have riven the nation's black community into opposing camps.

story continues below

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_564997.html

republicans

will polarize defame and piss on obama and he will become the

flash in the pan he really is.

Republicans want him to run, he's the lone Indian

who will stop the whiteman....uh huh, sure he will...

John Riggins was something that happens once in awhile...

he certainly has more in common with "The Clintons,"

than obama

obama would be the towel boy

Andrew Young said that, Andrew Young knows the difference between hopes and dreams and "what is possible,"

Bill Clinton has demonstrated his strength of character and heart....relentlessly pounded by the Miami Dolphins / Washington INSIDERs

Cheney, Libby, the bush families, Paul Wolfowitz, the Kagans, Rumsfeld

he punched through their line, time after time...

he cut through the line, the hype, the spin , the BS storm...

how did they defeat him finally? they didn't , they couldn't so

they cheated....

they opted for electoral fraud, Diebold, voter culling, Ken Blackwell in Ohio...now working for a NEOCON think tank on K street , they intimidated the vote counters in Dade County FL, put Jeb Bushes girlfriends in charge of verifying the vote count...

talked trash relentlessly

and stained the reputation of a man that would go on to become a Nobel Prize winner...

Al Gore,

and instead of being celebrated as a great AMERICAN

we have to put up with these scheiss talking schiess stormers crap

as_if _that_ were okay,

it's not, in the real world it's called fraud

and CIA agents spinning schiess against the citizens would be called TREASON

because

that is what it is....and the punishment proscribed would death according to judicial studies that I'm familiar with, as and

because that is what it those treasonous acts are causing.

be forewarned, fair trial first, the rest is unscripted.

.your reponsibility is to the people first.

not the president by fraud.

get over itschiess stormers, you deserve jail time.

.

"Oval Office, "Race card, race card, race card, race card, race card," coming out of Obama's mouth"

BS it's people like yourself and the media that keep bringing it up. Obama has never once accused anyone of using race in this nomination. Not once.

You anti-Obama neocons for Hillary are a disgrace. You don't mind tearing apart this country in order to try and achieve your ends.

Just as you put us into this war with Iraq, with your non-stop campaign.

Now, it's against Obama

You don't care about this country. And your objectives are wrong:

The wars that you want will ultimately destroy this earth...there will be no winners...only losers (even including the country that you love so much).

War, is not the answer. You should be working for peace

but you're not

.

.

want to help AMERICA come out of it's economic slump...

stop the "war" FRAUD machine...

make the US ECONOMY a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY....

put all contractors in IRAQ, AFGHANISTANT, and the US directly affiliated with the "war" FRAUD effect under GAO GSA aegis...

and examine their books.

an OCCUPATION is _ILLEGAL_

however, seperating the EMBEZZLERS aka

bushCO and CRONYs from the MONEY...

makes the United States a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the world...

especially if treasonists, like Robert M. Gates...who used the CIA as a tool to defeat Jimmy Carter in his reelection bid,

or George W. Bush who committed SEC FRAUD with Harken OIL

are arrested and prosecuted for those charges...

you could arrest Cheney for involvement in commiting perjury to Congress regarding WMD et al..it's in John W. Deans' BOOK, "Worse Than Watergate," the exact charges and the way to make them stick...

and put Pelosi as President...

then the IRAQIs might see us as a responsible and capable nation, rather than as a lawless regime "on the take."

.and we could deal for oil as an option.

.

let's be honest here...

we live in a set of ecosystems...

there is no mystery, no surprise, unless you count the stupidity of leaders who think with their metaphorical crotches and not with their eyes and minds...

for example: we could have made a deal for the OIL in IRAQ...

but then there wouldn't have been any big money for

Carlyle Group, Bechtel, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, DynCorp, and others...

and certainly no NON COMPETE CONTRACTS AWARDED eh ???

so bushCO and CRONYs and COMPLICIT CONGRESS, creates a situation which will drain the nations economy at the very moment when the worlds populations are reaching points that will tip entire regions into famine....

these rich kids, who trash talk anything standing in their way...

could get away with it 100 years ago...the land could withstand their lies.

it's not possible any more.

We need leaders that do not pander to families or the corportocracy.

The US Economy is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.

The Global Economy could use a good example of how to treat leaders who are ruthless in pursuit of personal gain at the expense of their citizens.

It would be good to see some whitehouse, executive branch members

brought down low, tried for treason and executed publically....it would give others courage...and hope...

in the fear the cowardice and the destruction of our values...

remove these scum from having an effect on our lives,

take out the trash.

today.

I sure wouldn't know a prolifergate BS artist is I saw one o nameless shunt and homosexuah lovah...

I really think you're a sell Bullschitt or die trying kinda guy, and you deserve jailtime for spreading propaganda...

you are either grossly ignorant or you're an army PSYOP guy stationed in IRAQ selling shinola to the natives....FOAD SH

.

forget about Rev Wright...

let's talk about Obama's knowledge...

he said George W. Bush and company were not the terrorist threat...

better tell that to the rest of the world...

just because Billy Bob and Joe Ray believe that spew....

don't mean that they couldn't be educated to the truth by presidential election time...

Obama doesn't understand the United States problem...

George W. Bush and thedichcheenie are the number one terrorist threat to the world...

they trained al Qeargyz, the Taliban and the Contras...and Congress funded it...

it's a fact.

Negroponte, Honduras and Iraq
by Peter Watt

July 09, 2004

Until the word became unfashionable in the West, Iraq would have been called a colony. The equivalent of the colonial office, the US embassy in Baghdad, will be the biggest embassy in the world and will be headed by John Negroponte, a veteran neo-conservative of the Reagan administration.

Negroponte's specialty, while ambassador to Honduras under Reagan (1981-1985) was to ensure that any resistance to US hegemony in Nicaragua would be utterly crushed. The ambassador carried out his duties with considerable success. A brief look at Negroponte's Central American period gives us a hint at what bodes for US-run Iraq.

When the Sandinista revolution took power in Nicaragua in 1979, alarm bells rang in Washington. Somoza, the brutal US-backed dictator, had been overthrown by revolutionary forces after 43 years in power. US hegemony in Nicaragua, and thus in Central America was under serious threat. Washington's paranoia about Cuba and Bolshevism had thus spread to Central America - any challenge to the US system of control was treated with absolute contempt, as Nicaraguans were to learn right throughout the 1980s. Indeed, any government in Latin America that refused t