This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

Say what asja.
What's that ranting all about??

Will those committed Christians who believe this 232 year -old country we love is above God's judgment please stand up.

You hypocrites!

Go ahead and post if you you can say you're a committed Christian who strongly believes America and the actions of its political leaders are above God's damnation when we go astray.

Go ahead!

Gallup Poll:

The Gallup poll showed 28 per cent of Senator Clinton's supporters said they would vote for Republican nominee John McCain if the former first lady lost the Democratic nomination for the election.

Almost 20 per cent of Senator Obama's supporters indicated they too would vote for Senator McCain over Senator Clinton if Senator Obama was not the Democratic nominee.

The worrying signs for Democrats came as an unnamed party official told the American ABC network that the only path for Senator Clinton to secure the presidential nomination was to use the "Tonya Harding" option, which implies damaging Senator Obama badly enough to undermine his electability.

In 1994 the disgraced American figure skater was involved in a conspiracy to kneecap rival Nancy Kerrigan ahead of the Winter Olympics.

Hmmm, the population of blacks in Texas is only 17% and he took the most delegates in Texas (despite what the liberal media is telling you). Wait till the state convention in June when the announcement can be legally made. Obama won in Texas.

And, by the way, if the voters in those states still vote for Senator Clinton after the lies she so easily makes, then the deserve what they get.
Polls now show that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Clinton. She has dropped to her lowest rating. Read up.

No, you are sadly mistaken. He does not need to take the lead in any of those states. He just needs to keep the percentage of voters that he has had in other primaries.. Those states are not a winner take all.
Read up. Hillary cannot mathematically win the nomination.

Chris you are usually good at this but today you made a mistake. National polls mean nothing here. It is the Ohio, PA and NJ polls that we need to look at. These are where I think Obama got hurt most by the Pastor Wright comments and he needs to either keep PA and NJ and win Ohio to win the Presidency. This is where the problem could be.

Does the poll say where the 45% of Whites who think he needs to do more are?

Sometimes we fulfill our own prophecies.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/20/rev-wrights-self-fulfilling-prophecy/

Excellent posts from Webster51 and chadibuins.

I predict that Richardson was just the first in line of high-profile Super Delegates that will move to the Obama camp.

The Supers are not stupid. They know just as well as we do that they need to head off a catastophe at the Convention.

It would be catatrophe if Obama were to win the delegate count and the state count and lose the Nom to Hillary. The Supers know this. And I predict they step in and prevent it.

"three in ten of those tested said they had either not seen the speech or had no opinion of it (who are these people?!)."

Believe it or not Chris, some people are more interested in the real pressing national economic crisis we're in, or the war in Iraq, than this media hyped issue of what some pastor said once upon a time.

Seriously, you guys get so in a bubble you forget that the real issues that matter to people have nothing to do with these side shows.

As a fellow Floridian--I completely concur with Webster above--I have not heard one peep from any Florida Dem I have met or know. :)

I am so sick of hearing about Florida and Michigan voters. I live in Florida...and not ONCE has anybody said to me that they are upset because their votes didnt count. And people down here no more blame Obama for the problem but our Governor for changing the date when he knew the rules. So please dont talk about what you dont know. Hillary was ok with these states not counting till she got behind. But it isnt the Floridians that are upset..it is Hillary.

well drindl, you've missed the point.. yet again... big shock.

You say it's no business of mine?

OK, if I formed a whites-only anything (club, business, fraternity, restaurant), is it any business of theirs?

Oh, I thought so.

I accept your apology.

Vammap, a friend explained to me why Obama wins in caucuses and Hillary does so badly. In a caucus, your vote is seen by all and no one wants to be seen voting for Senator Clinton.

And by the way, Obama won the most delegates in Texas and Hillary is threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party.

They're hearing it and hearing it loud and clear, that the votes must be counted. It's the failure of the DNC if they don't make it happen, rules can be changed. It can't be too hard for anyone to realize, Obama's nomination will be looked at as illigitimate unless the votes are counted; and if Hillary wins, having counted those votes, there is no way that could be construed as illigitimate: if both MI/FL races are fair and each candidate can vy for votes the way they would in a normal primary, what's unfair?
Is it unfair because Obama doesn't do well in primaries? And if he loses because he doesn't do well in primaries, is that unfair?

vammap, you do realize if the votes are counted as is the democratic party would be ruined for years. In both Florida and Michigan the candidates agree to withdraw per the request of the democratic party. Then Hillary Clinton did not. In Florida, the Obama did not campaign per agreement. In Michigan all withdrew except Hillary. She was the only major canditate on the ballot and yet "uncommited" still received 37% of the vote. Read up, It is all on the internet to be read.
The Florida and Michigan vote cannot be counted as now stands.

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's positive rating has dropped to a new low of 37 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, the New York senator's positive rating slid 8 percentage points in two weeks and she had a negative rating of 48 percent in a week where she admitted making a mistake in claiming she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.

In head-to-head matchups, Obama and Clinton were even at 45 percent. In general election matchups, Obama led McCain by 44 percent to 42 percent and McCain led Clinton by 46 percent to 44 percent.

When asked which candidate could unite the country if elected, 60 percent said Obama, 58 percent said McCain and 46 percent said Clinton.

The poll of 700 registered voters was conducted on Monday and Tuesday and had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.

Patrick--

The remarks will be in the oral transcripts; so that's why I didn't provide a link. There wasn't one. But, Clinton said this herself in a video clip and Obama's remark was something they quoted. They did not show him saying this as I recall.

The segment was about Dems leaving the party if their candiate was not elected. One would imagine that this has been a frequent discussion, of late, happening all over the Internet, via every which way, emailed and phoned in to Congressmen and women and back to the campaigns, otherwise it wouldn't have aired.

They're hearing it and hearing it loud and clear, that the votes must be counted. It's the failure of the DNC if they don't make it happen, rules can be changed. It can't be too hard for anyone to realize, Obama's nomination will be looked at as illigitimate unless the votes are counted; and if Hillary wins, having counted those votes, there is no way that could be construed as illigitimate: if both MI/FL races are fair and each candidate can vy for votes the way they would in a normal primary, what's unfair?
Is it unfair because Obama doesn't do well in primaries? And if he loses because he doesn't do well in primaries, is that unfair?

The whole basis for our democratic voting process is getting people to vote; the gripe of the African American community is that their votes have been discouraged. What an outrage to think that the first Black President is discouraging votes and on that basis his win would be deemed illigitimate.

It won't happen. As long as he denies voters, he will be looked upon as someone who says one thing and does another, pretty close to a description of old school Washington politics.

(CNN)--Over the past year, bulletins from Barack Obama's church have appeared online that included writings from controversial figures like Louis Farrakahn of the Nations of Islam and Hamas leader Mousa Mohammed Marzook.

One of the articles, reprinted on the Web site's "Pastor's Page," was originally printed in the Los Angeles Times as "Hamas stand." Pastor Wright added a new title, "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle.'

The article defended and justified terrorism and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. The LA Times came under fire for giving a platform to an alleged terrorist.

The pages appear to have been removed from the Church's website.

This week, Obama denounced the articles, telling the Jerusalem Post that the church was "outrageously wrong" in reprinting the pieces. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction," said the Illinois senator.

Obama's former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, also came under fire this week when reports surfaced that he had written an article for Trumpet Magazine, run by his daughters, in which he said that "white supremacy is clearly in charge in America." The article also quotes him referring to Italians' "garlic noses," and characterizing Jesus' crucifixion as "a public lynching, Italian-style."

Similar remarks from Rev. Wright prompted Obama's public address of race last week. Recent polls suggest Obama has recovered politically after that address.

On Wednesday, Rev. Wright cancelled upcoming guest appearances in Florida and Texas, citing security concerns.
------------------
While I hate CNN and all network news, I went to look up the above Clinton remark on not voting for McShame, I came across the above article. How much more is going to come out between now and November. I don't buy that Obama either was not there, did not agree, or his lame 'he's like an old Uncle' crap. This man preaches hate, either Obama disassociates himself from this creep or he's toast.

JD and Mike - The study makes sense when you think of the correlation to church membership. I just had not realized the disparity in church/synagogue membership, I guess.

Thanks for directing me to the Will column - would have got to it eventually!

Posted by: ajtiger92: For clarity and political correctiveness, Rev. Wright should have said Romans and not Italians.

More excuses. The fact is, it doesn't matter what words he used because the message is still the same. It's obvious that political correctness does not occur to Reverend Wright. Evidently the same rules that he expects those he preaches against to follow do not apply to him, or his congregation. It's unbelievably arrogant and hypocritical.

If Barack Obama is such a leader, a motivator and a man for "change", let's see him start with Reverend Wright.

FYI, Dudes, this just in on CNN....

The two camps just came out with this on CNN, the pro-Obama Channel:

Clinton says DEMS don't vote for McCain.

Obama says he'll rethink allowing the votes.

VICTORY IS SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however."

Every time I go to Austin (I truly do try to minimize such unpleasantries), I take an extra long shower afterwards.

Mark, I wonder if your water bill is abnormally high.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 05:15 PM
---------------------
What exactly is it that makes you feel so dirty Mike?

radicalpatroit: I have been looking at Polling data for well over a year and can see no way for Obama to win the GE. I have thought from the very start Hillary was the only Dem that could. This has not changed, and The Media has been almost 100% supportive of Obama. Every day there are negative reports about Hillary, and the only one that has had traction is the "under fire/sniper" thing in which she clearly LIED. I have no idea why she did such a stupid thing, and that is what it was, "STUPID".

MOVEON wants what all good Dems want: nomination process by the rules.
Pretty simple.

MOVEON can't believe Clinton investors would cut off funds to DNC if the votes aren't counted, so they're asking people to sign a letter to that effect. MOVEON does not want the votes counted.

Wasn't it not so long ago that MOVEON wanted votes counted?

This is exactly why the party is being split in half. MOVEON does not speak for all Democrats, which may have been the case in 2000 and 2004, but not now.

And they have the gall to say in the letter, that the Democratic nomination should be picked by the voters.

As long as Obama doesn't want all the votes counted, he loses half the DFL support.

Needlesss to say, MOVEON endorsed and supports Obama.

Rev. Wright says "Italians looked down on Galieans with there garlic noses". He goes to say that "Italians killed Jesus". He is speaking the religious truth although not in the today's correct PC language.
-----------------------

He's so historically ridiculous, one can only laugh. Would have made for an entertaining Sopranos episode though.

I'm sure the Faux News viewers are eating it up like, well, like Italians eating garlic.

I think Rev. Wright's language is the problem not his content. The newest piece to hit the web and conservative radio is a small written piece by Rev. Wright regarding the eulogy of Dr. Asa Hilliard.

Rev. Wright says "Italians looked down on Galieans with there garlic noses". He goes to say that "Italians killed Jesus". He is speaking the religious truth although not in the today's correct PC language.

Romans (i.e. Italians) were very prejudiced against ancient Jews (Galieans) and did eat garlic because they believe it inspired courage. Romans (i.e. Italians because Rome is in Italy) did order the killing of Jesus.

For clarity and political correctiveness, Rev. Wright should have said Romans and not Italians.

"Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise."

But, wpost4112, what about the "Bush Doctrine" ? ! ?

-----------------------------

"Bush" and "Doctrine" seem mutually exclusive.

"Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise."

But, wpost4112, what about the "Bush Doctrine" ? ! ? !

'PS when I posted that, I had in mind those t-shirts "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" - what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only?'

whites were never slaves of blacks. congress used to be all white and on the R side, still mostly is. blacks couldn't get most jobs--and there's still a lot they don't.

and i don't see why you care whether there is a black fraternity at a college. what business is it of yours? how does it hurt you?

but i agree with bsimon . the ACLU would be happy to help.

PS when I posted that, I had in mind those t-shirts "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" - what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only? See how racist the double standard is?

-----------------------

Years ago, I took several classes at the University of Detroit. I was usually the only white person in class. One guy used to wear one of those T-shirts. It didn't bother me per se, but what occurred to me the momoent I saw it was how it stopped all communication, and hence any hope to bridge the gap. Much like the blog tag "proudtobeGOP"...it is in itself a name which stops communication rather than foster it.

Anyhoo, one day we were in a heated debate about the history of something or other, and using my knowledge of ancient Roman history from my graduate studies in Latin, made a scoring point. The guy who wore that T-shirt was pissed for losing the argument turned around and demanded rather loudly: "How do you know that?" I replied, "You wouldn't understand, it's a Classical thing."

The class erupted.

What followed was a very heated and healthy discussion of racism, language, communication, power, community, education.

The fact is, it is always a human thing and we can all understand given time and knowlege.

The finest bit of wisdom the Jesuits ever gave me was this rule of thumb:

Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise.

"Every time I go to Austin... I take an extra long shower..."

I thought the "baths" were in San Francisco.

JD writes
"If it's wrong for whites, it's wrong for blacks. End of story."

I guess it doesn't bother me much.

Here's an idea: get yourself elected to Congress, then make a big stink if they don't let you join the Congressional Black Caucus. I bet the ACLU would back you on that one.

"So THAT'S why you write as you do! Those kicks to the head must hurt! You should really start wearing a helmet to prevent further cognitive and emotive deterioration. Please."

Speaking of others' writing?

Your ever-hyperbolic, explanation-filled disasters bore me.

Whatever your hobby is, [insert personal insult here].

"A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however."

Every time I go to Austin (I truly do try to minimize such unpleasantries), I take an extra long shower afterwards.

Mark, I wonder if your water bill is abnormally high.

I'd love to have them for students in my kickboxing class.

--------------------

So THAT'S why you write as you do! Those kicks to the head must hurt! You should really start wearing a helmet to prevent further cognitive and emotive deterioration. Please.

Remember it's March, not November. There is a lot of time between now and then. Polls held in March aren't very accurate at forecasting what will happen in November.
It is something the Democratic party will have to address, but not an impossible situation to resolve. I think a lot of Democrats are bluffing about voting for McCain--on both Obama's and Clinton's side.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 04:08 PM

You sound like someone from the DNC. You're talking about a deep fissure, that's been reopened and is rapidly getting deeper and deeper..the more Obama camp tries to evade the utter racist core at his hope and change campaign, the disenfranchising of voters, the lack of honesty about policy positions and relationships with Rezko, Wright and Farraken, his overexaggerated position at the U of I, practicing the same old attacks, while saying his campaign is different, the deeper the fissure gets.

It's an insurmountable problem for his campaign and one which the Clinton camp will play to the hilt, and rightfully so. And if she doesn't beat him, he'll face it again with Republicans.

1. His speech had little impact to convince white voters that hate speech is acceptable, under any conditions.

2. Just one more hit, where people question his motivations, integrity, character and he's toast.

3. He has the giant task of changing the perception people have about him, it's uphill all the way...

mark_in_austin --

To your first: that was a George Will article in WSJ, posted by JD.

My commentary: I was surprised as well. I almost would have predicted that liberals were more generous.

To your second: Operation Chaos is not for the weak stomach.

And yes, voting for another Clinton would not be my cup of tea.

mark:

Which of them do you think didn't know/have an opinion of Rev. Wright's sermon? 3 out of 10 according to the poll, right?

BTW, we're into crazy season here. President Clinton is here tonight, followed by Sen. Obama on Sunday. I can't go hear ol' Bill, but I'll join the mosh pit on Sunday.

bsimon and chad; yes, despite popular opinion, I'm not an idiot. I get it, that's the historical rationale for their existence.

But today? When everything is open (and indeed, blacks have it 'easier', at least from the gov perspective)? How can we continue to maintain these segregated institutions?

If it's wrong for whites, it's wrong for blacks. End of story.

What do you think? Could we?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 04:34 PM

No question, yes. But what are you willing to sacrifice?

Drill in Alaska and offshore
Mine and burn a whole lot of coal (we have 300 yrs supply in Tennessee Mtns)
Build and operate 3 dozen nuke plants (we have 500 yrs supply of uranium in Kentucky's shale
Build 50 wind farms offshore, ruining Ted Kennedy's view

So whose ox did you want to gore?

JD said:
"what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only?"

What you are missing is in large part "main stream America" is a "white thing"--the reason there are HBCU's and HBC frats/sors is because blacks were historically not allowed into the others--a white person can go to a HBCU or pledge a HBC frat/sor--but the acknowledgement is that it was there for the balck community when the white community wouldn't let them in. The Congressional Black Caucus exists becasue of the disparity of elected officials from the Af-Am community--they meet to discuss and speak about issues (they feel) affect the Af-Am community as a whole--not as a way to keep whites down, or steal power or anything else--they are recognizing their historic place as Af-Am legislators--not declaring a gov't within a gov't--as far as affirmative action, I will not attemmpt to replay that argument at the threat of a threadjack.

JD writes of double standards
"What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities?"

I don't find the CBC valuable, personally, but I think the point in establishing the CBC or black universities and fraternities is precisely because Congress and higher ed institutions were all-white institutions for a long time.

Thanks, JD - had not time to read Will yet. Later.

"A really happy crew."

Happy, really happy.

I'd love to have them for students in my kickboxing class. That'd be fun.

A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 04:41 PM
---------------
Hey Mark you said that the ladies were attractive but not the guys, that's not fair. ;)

just a joke -- take it easy!

;-)

Mark,
the guys were Republicans.

Back on topic of the Wright sermons and Obama response ....

It looks like Obama got at least one notable political figure to start talking about race.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/gingrich-engages-on-the-issue-of-race/

Completely off-topic, this is an Austin vignette.

I met my youngest daughter for lunch at a steakhouse today. At the next table were four people in their twenties: a big blonde guy with a military brush cut, a big black guy with dreads, an attractive but muscular anglo woman, and an attractive lean latina.
They were playing verbal graba$$ the entire lunch the way 25 year olds do.

We left behind them. The guys walked out with their arms over each other's shoulders. The women walked out with their arms around each other's waists. T-shirts, jeans, work boots. They all pile into a big pick-up owned by a major building contractor.

A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however.

About three weeks ago, Hillary's lead in the RealClearPolitics average was nine percent. Now it is 16 percent.

From mid-February to mid-March, Obama lost ten points of favorability in a state (TX)in which he did only a little bit of campaigning. Some of that was due to sharper attacks from Hillary Clinton (particularly the "3 a.m." ad), but a healthy chunk of is probably fallout from Wright.

What's more, it's not clear how quickly Obama can earn back that trust. His speech probably didn't make much difference with the blue-collar, white, working-class Democrats -- they're more interested in 'show me',' not 'give me a speech.'

lylepink writes: "I will never vote for Obama, and no way can he win the GE. There is just so much wrong about this guy, I cannot even understand this "Feeling" I have every time I see and hear him."

First, if there is any one lesson everyone should have learned from this campaign, it is that nothing is for certain. Anyone who makes some sweeping statement that "X will easily win the election" or "X does not have a chance against Y in the election" has obviously not learned even the first lesson of the past year. One "invincible" [Giuliani] is in the trashcan of history where he belongs, and the
other "invincible" is so badly behind that
it is now possible that only an internal destruction of the Democratic party will be the way for her to steal the nomination.

And as for basing your political opinions by what you "FEEL" . . . That is the Lucetta argument [from "The Two Gentlemen from Verona"]. In trying to decide between two men, she says: "I have no other but mine own reasoning. I think him to be so, because I think him to be so."

Try some real reasons. The Clinton-Clinton team is just as despicable as President Bush-Cheney. And I've given my list of REASONS on this site too many times to post them again, unless you really want to think about such things.

Food for Thought:

If we invested $400,000,000 a day into a National Effort -- a nation-wide project -- on becoming energy independent, how long would it take before we achieved energy independence?

If we assembled the best and brightest from academia and the business world into a think-tank with the goal of making this country self-sufficient, and were willing to provide them with $400,000,000 a day, do you think they could do it?

The Manhattan Project built a successful atomic bomb; if we marshaled our resources, couldn't we kick the oil-addiction and figure out alternatives?

What do you think? Could we?

Mark... .ahem....

the source was the G will column... I posted today...

Are you really hurt by some black guy calling you cracker, ofay, or peckerwood? When guys like Wright say things like the US government deliberately infects blacks with AIDS, he is admitting his own powerlessness. I say let the guy rant. He can't hurt you.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 03:02 PM

No, but I see blacks calling other blacks the n-word all the time, both in person and in pop culture.

I firmly believe it's a free country, and Wright definitely has the right to rant, as you put it.

But Obama's at least tangentially connected to this guy. Since BHO has pretty much no track record to judge him on, people will, reasonably, look at who his friends are and make assumptions accordingly.

JD

PS when I posted that, I had in mind those t-shirts "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" - what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only? See how racist the double standard is?

Mike, that charity info is very interesting. What is the source?

I would have predicted no statistical difference - so I really want to follow up on this because it surprises me.
---------------------
Imputing individual motivations to groups of persons is treacherous ground - I am referring to Rs who x-over to vote D in the primaries. Some vote their least unfavored D; some vote their fave D [a different calculation], some vote the D-most-likely to-lose-in-the-voter's-estimation, and some were just making mischief. In my Precinct, the D and R judges figured exactly 3 Rs voted D b/c of Rush. Probably @50/@700 the day of the Primary were x-over Rs. The R support was based more on which D the R voter would rather suffer through for four years than which D would likely lose to McC, according to the Rs in my neighborhood. I tend to believe that.

If Proud had been in TX, she would have voted Clinton if the R Primary was meaningless, b/c she thinks Clinton knows more, not to game the system. Most individuals are still motivated as individuals, not as pawns.

Mike, you wanted me to vote for MDH, or HRC to extend the Ds' misery, It's easy to ask someone else to do that, but in the voting booth it is so hard to vote for someone one would rather not see in office.

Not to mention the Supreme Court.

"I think a lot of Democrats are bluffing about voting for McCain--on both Obama's and Clinton's side."

Once the Dems do finally decide on a candidate -- and the debate on issues begins -- I, too, think the Hillary Supporters and Obama Supporters will realize what a vote for McCain really means.

A vote for McCain means a vote for the continued occupation of Iraq. $400,000,000 a day. Just ponder that for a moment.

A vote for McCain is also a vote to make Bush's tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans permanent.

How big can the deficit get? How weak can the dollar get? How big can the record get for Oil Company profits?

A vote for McCain will also mean reactionary judicial appointments to the bench.

When the Democratic voters see the difference between McCain and the Democratic Nominee, the choice will be clear. The differences are SO stark...

McCain is turning into Bush so fast he's even using 'bush's brain'

McCain's secret weapon: maps by 'Karl Rove & Co.' Filed Under: Administration

McCain's secret weapon: maps by 'Karl Rove & Co.'»
"During a public conversation in Texas last night with former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) media adviser, Mark Mckinnon, displayed "maps of the states broken down by electoral votes" that gamed McCain's chances in November. According to Texas Monthly's Evan Smith, "the printed header on both" maps "read 'Karl Rove & Co.'"

Rove has previously been reported to be "informally advising" McCain's campaign. During the chat, McKinnon also revealed that "McCain would be happy to have Bush campaign with him in the fall" and "that he had no intention of running from Bush.""

I hope he takes him on every stop. Now, there's judgment.

thanks wpost--its up :)

'Or, better yet, just spend half a million bucks of supporters' money to make a slick ad. Spend spend spend That's the lib way!'

yeah, absolutely. because republicans never spend money to make a 'slick ad.' that's why Mccain has spent hundreds of thousands on the 'slickest' people in the propaganda/ slime business to do his dirty work.

"Taken collectively, what the numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll suggest is that Rev. Wright did not derail Obama's candidacy".

I am totally dumbfounded as to how people of my party can sit back and still support Obama after what we have heard coming out of his church? IT'S UNBELIEVABLE!!

And his excuses of "never hearing" anything like this or knowing about this is a bold-faced LIE! THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. He is a product of this church as much as a child is a product of his family environment.

Now we are finding out that the bulletins of this church referred to Italians as "garlic-noses" and the crucifixion of Jesus a "lynching italian-style".

WHAT KIND OF CHURCH IS THIS?!!!!

Call me a "typical white person" because the churches I have attended would never, ever even think of saying or publishing such hateful, racist or bigoted remarks. But I guess it's ok for churches in the Black Community. Why? Because for some reason they are ENTITLED? Sorry, I'm not buying it and no one else with any COMMON SENSE should either!

Obama has no business even running for president of our country.

And by the way, the media is trying to deflect this controversy by dwelling on the comment Hillary made about her trip to Bosnia. A comment that, as Obama likes to put it when he does it, was "something stupid" and "knuckle-headed". Well, it doesn't even COMPARE!

wpost--I agree with everything you said except the part about anyone can be a racist--call it what you will there is a difference in prejudice when it comes from those in authority or the majority than prejudicial comments from the minority. Rev. Wright, or any black-national could never get "white Jim Crow" laws passed; nor could NBC ever have a show about 6 Af-Am "Friends" and not have it called "Af-Am-centered" or "urban"--yet when they have a show about 6 white "Friends"--of which I am a huge fan--it is considered "mainstrea,". I am not hating on Friends, or anything--just pointing out there is a difference. But I have explained my thinking and my rationale--how about we just agree to meet on the 2/3 middle ground and chalk the rest up to semantics and POV? :)

vammap: Not at all. I will never vote for Obama, and no way can he win the GE. There is just so much wrong about this guy, I cannot even understand this "Feeling" I have every time I see and hear him.

Hillary is staying in the race for good reason. She can make the argument that there simply aren't enough blacks, young voters, and latte liberals to build a successful coalition for a D candidate in a general election.

Trying to bolster his street cred for the CheeseSteak primary, the Obama campaign recently spent $330,000 on television ads in the Philadelphia market. One ad's message was about Obama's efforts on ethics reform and his refusal to allow "special interests" to run his campaign or his White House.

Special interests- You mean like the $92 million in earmarks Obama took?

And the senator from Illinois, who says that he wants transparency in government, will not reveal the number of earmarks that he received in 2006 and 2005. Is that transparency in government? I don't think so.

Another ad features Republican Illinois state lawmakers praising his negotiation skills and bipartisanship.

Well, he seemed to have quite a bit of difficulty negotiating anything with his pastor friend about using race-baiting to incite hatred for govt and fellow citizens; seems like he could have honed his negotiating skills a little better there. He'd rather negotiate with Chavez and Castro instead, they're not as scary as Wright.

Or, better yet, just spend half a million bucks of supporters' money to make a slick ad. Spend spend spend That's the lib way!

New numbers are available in the form of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- one of the best polls, to our mind, out there these days"

LMAO, the poll that always leans towards Obama!

why did you skip that Obama now ranks lower than either other candidate in honesty, leadership, and trustworthiness?
Why not send people to Pollster.com that shows the results of all the big polls.

and shows that Obama is in trouble.

Oh, yeah, you're chris!

"I'm barry obama and I support this column

New numbers are available in the form of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- one of the best polls, to our mind, out there these days"

LMAO, the poll that always leans towards Obama!

why did you skip that Obama now ranks lower than either other candidate in honesty, leadership, and trustworthiness?
Why not send people to Pollster.com that shows the results of all the big polls.

and shows that Obama is in trouble.

Oh, yeah, you're chris!

"I'm barry obama and I support this column

I would like permission to post it and your 1:52 post on my own blog http://roastedreligion.blogspot.com

---------------

no prob.

That's already been evidenced by a poll that just came out showing Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton if she wins, and Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama if he wins. McCain is moderate; and would pick up Clinton's votes.

Get a brain!

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 04:01 PM

Remember it's March, not November. There is a lot of time between now and then. Polls held in March aren't very accurate at forecasting what will happen in November.
It is something the Democratic party will have to address, but not an impossible situation to resolve. I think a lot of Democrats are bluffing about voting for McCain--on both Obama's and Clinton's side.

"Rev Wright Supports Hamas, which supports using children, including new-born babies, as "human bombs"

You really ought to be banned--you're a complete moron.

Also, it's likely there will be DFL control in both houses, so if McCain won he'd be stymied legislatively...

racism implies power and superiority.
Prejudiced is pre-judgement.
Blacks and minorities cannot be racist (however prejudiced--ignorantly or otherwise--some may be)

-------------

gotta disagree wih you here.

Racism is a BELIEF in the superiority of a group of people based on race. Such a belief implies either extreme ignorance or deep insecurity.

Any human being can be a racist. Many racists I have met in the south, both black and white, seem to have 2 things in common...they see themselves as powerless and they keep reality far from their door. Racism is nothing more than weakest of excuses for one's own poor state in life. I have never met a racist who is vibrantly self-sufficient, intelligent, well-informed and secure in themselves.

Most people forget that the anti-semitism of Nazi Germany, the racism of the pre Civil War South, the Apartheid in Africa, the current anti-semitism in Arab countries and the anti-arabism in the far-right communities in Israel, require one very necessary ingredient:

fostering a closed society with poor access to communication and heavy propaganda.

This is why the far-right conservatives--mostly religious fascists--want to control the internet..it is the greatest threat to
their control of information. It's why China is so focussed on controlling the internet...information is power.

It is why Rush, Hannity, Obermann, etc those extreme pundits on either side, spend most of their time attacking the other side rather than trying to find common ground. To silence the other by demonizing them stops the free flow of information. Rush et al are too insecure for the free exchange of info ..it's one of the reasons they choos the professions they do..they control the microphone.... They thrive on hate, because it is so blind and deaf....so irrational. It stops meaningful comuunication.

Can poor blacks be racists? Absolutely. And they are just as wrong as ignorant and insecure as the wealthiest KKK kook.

Yeah, Brigham Young was a nasty piece of work, besides being a racist and serial child molester. But the press corps would never disparage the relgion of a white republican. They haven't said a work about McCain's 'spiritual advisor' who says Catholics are wh*res.

And referencing the camel and the needle's eye, McCain's other spiritul advisor runs a sleazy carny sideshow 'prosperity' ministry' where he tells people however much they give to him, God will give them 10 times as much. But will the press touch it? Of course not.

how 'bout this,
"god almighty will give the united states a pill that will puke them to death. i am prophet enough to prophesy the downfall of the government...woe to the united states...i see them greedy after death and destruction."
-brigham young

Posted by: jeffmcnary | March 27, 2008 03:50 PM
------------------------------
Man I hope McShame picks Romney. It's going to make Wright seem like an angel. Magic underwear, gold tablets read through a hat, bigamy, rape, murder. Oh what fun it will be.

Correction CA-Webb.

We've got a lot of practical jokers, I means spinners, I mean imbeciles on this blog.

She said that if they don't count the votes in FL/MI than it's likely Democrats will not win in Nov. And she's right, because if in November Obama runs against McCain, Republicans will hold him responsible for millions of votes he wouldn't count; they'll pound him. But, what's worse, it will come back to haunt him when Fl and MI voters will not check his name off on the ballot.

That's already been evidenced by a poll that just came out showing Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton if she wins, and Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama if he wins. McCain is moderate; and would pick up Clinton's votes.

Get a brain!

USMC-Mike: Huh?? Your Repub friends voted for Hillary because THEY disagreed with me?? I would commend them, but you should ask them why they are trying to deceive you, when I also think there is something bad wrong with the guy and have said so many times. svreader & others are in agreement with me as your friends apparently are as well.

how 'bout this,
"god almighty will give the united states a pill that will puke them to death. i am prophet enough to prophesy the downfall of the government...woe to the united states...i see them greedy after death and destruction."
-brigham young

AJtiger--thanks for posting the whole sermon. I cannot say I reacted much different--in the days after 9/11 I was pilloried at my former church because I taught a lesson on "Pray for your enemies" and had the audacity to take that at face value. I think Wright's words were right-on in this case--I do not share all of his beliefs and do think he suffers from some prejudice (AS DO WE ALL) but I think the clips are more of a distraction--the words themselves should cause our nation to think and pause.

Wpost--wonderful poignant post--I would like permission to post it and your 1:52 post on my own blog http://roastedreligion.blogspot.com

of course I'll credit it to you. :)

Lylepink,

Are you saying that all Democrats must vote for Obama if Clinton loses? Is that your point?

On Fox yesterday, HRC claims that she doesn't think a Dem can win the race for President.

What a stab for her supporters and the DNC.

The full transcript is at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342151,00.html

"Judging each other on matters of the heart are as meaningless as judging charity from an IRS filing."

I suggest re-reading the article.

According to the data, liberals would have a greater incentive for tax-write-offs (as they have higher taxable income).

Nice rant though. Wasted energy.

bsimon calling someone testy?

no one must have insulted your dream-boy today.

Charity.

As some one remarked long ago, the poor will always be with us. In other words, we will always be creatures of choice.

That same man remarked on the rich who paraded their charity for all to see. To empower the poor? To promote the general welfare? No. To reap compliements and indulge in self-pride at a being so "generous," giving a pittance from their piled-up of wealth.

True charity has little to do with money or tax-write offs. It has to do with treating others with respect. It has to do with empowering those who have no power. It has to do with protecting the environment. It has to do with creating balance in society. It has to do with sacrificing one's comfort for another's survival. It has to do with self-respect, respect for others and respect for the created universe.

It has nothing to do with sending a check to Africa from the comfort of a exclusive country club.

As that same man said so many years ago, it will be easier for a camel loaded with baggage to get through the tiniest of archways than a rich person to enter the gates of heaven. Not because they are rich, but because they can't let go of the baggage.

Money is not the root of evil, it is the desire for it.

But as some of the rich are unable to release their grasp of materialism for love of neighbor, so too many of those who are not rich are unable to release their grasp of envy.

Judging each other on matters of the heart are as meaningless as judging charity from an IRS filing.

radpat, you seem a bit testy.

I thought your phrase
"I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatical precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway."

Should read
"I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatically precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway."

Generally, when chastising others for limited intelligence, it is best to not include errors of your own in the same post.

Upon further review, I see a spelling error as well.

Jeremiah Wright's full 9/11 sermon (let the educated get e full story then decide):

"Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God's guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do -- paybacks.

There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine: [rising voice] "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks."[lower voice] The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon. How shall we sing the Lord's song? If I forget the order ... The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]-these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple, burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents -- [low voice] the babies, the babies.

Blessed are they who dash your baby's brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.

Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.
Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, "Faith footnote." [Voices: "Faith footnote"]

[Begin faith footnote]
I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) -a white man- he pointed out- an ambassador- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism-we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.

[fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people -mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New
York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.

America's chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

[lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, "Footnote is over." [Voices: "Footnote is over."]

[End Faith Footnote]

[Gentle voice] Now, now. C'mon back to my question to the Lord, "What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act. I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey. No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport. On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the desinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn't even get her for Mr. Radford's father's funeral. And I asked God, "What should our response be?

I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone- no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. [plaintiff high voice] And I asked the Lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC. But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world, a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things. Let me share them with you quickly and I'm gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.

Number one: The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father's death, God showed me that this was a time for me to examine my relationship with God. MY own relationship with God- personalrelationship with God.

I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency? It showed up in full force. Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week. I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week. [inaudible]

But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination. But the Lord said, "How is "our" relationship doing Jeremiah? How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?

This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do for the sake of eternity? [voice rising] This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God -- self examination.

[end of video tape.]

USMC_Mike --

Lylepink may have an even better answer than I do, but I call tell you that Republicans I know would LOVE to have Obama as the GE candidate, because they know that they can CRUSH him.

Take a look at this:

Its filled with facts from guy who worked as a reporter in Chicago and has known Obama for years.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

And this:

Barry Obama calls Rev. Wright, "his close friend", "his brother", "his spritual advisor"

Here's some interesting information about Rev. Wrigtht.

Rev Wright Supports Hamas, which supports using children, including new-born babies, as "human bombs"

From Reuters --

Embattled Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has experienced one of the most awful weeks in American political history. As I said here, you know it's bad when revealing extensive ties to Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko isn't the big news of the week. Clearly, the Pastor J-Wright scandal has temporarily sucked the oxygen out of the presidential campaigns. As bas as that seems, this article in WND adds another chapter to the Pastor J-Wright scandal. This headline says it all:

Obama Church Published Hamas Terror Manifesto

It gets worse from there:

The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

That it was reprinted in Pastor J-Wright's newsletter calls into question how deep his hatred of Israel runs. Let's remember that this isn't something from 10 years ago. That op-ed ran last July. It's that much more troubling considering the fact that Pastor Wright accompanied Louis Farrakhan on a trip to Libya where he met Col. Qhadhaffi.

I'll take Sen. Obama at his word when he says that Pastor Wright has been his mentor. That's troubling because Pastor Wright's thinking towards Israel is far outside mainstream evangelical Christian thinking. Let's set that aside temporarily for the sake of this discussion. Let's pretend that evangelical Christians didn't take a position on Israel. Instead, let's think about this from a State Department standpoint. It seems like Hamas has been on the State Department's list of known terrorists forever.

That brings me to this question: What impact has Pastor J-Wright's views on Israel had on Sen. Obama? Sen. Obama says that he hasn't talked politics with Pastor J-Wright but, prior to this week, he insisted that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory sermons, too.

Suffice it to say that this story eliminates the possibility of the Obama-J-Wright controversy going away anytime soon.

lylepink -- do you know about Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? Everyday on his show he takes calls from guys [it's always guys] who say they voted for Hillary in their primaries to keep the dem race going longer, and that they will be voting for McCain in the general. This is, of course, illegal in some states but what do laws mean to the rightwingers? They think their a joke, something for other people.

spectator said:
"chadibuins: thanks for adding your eloquence to what I was trying to get at."

thanks--I feel like Sally Field at the Oscars--LOL :)

mul: Your vast flatulant words just proves what I suggested about the nature of Obama's speech. Thanks for being a living example of what I was merely suggesting.

And how foolishly inaccurate to call me a "GOP lib." A plague on both the Parties--they've made wormsmeat of America. Blind liberals are as misguided as blind conservatives. It is a radical patriotism, not a partisan politics, that America needs. Bush-Cheney are as bad a pair of of reading, and in some cases, a lot of politicians as Clinton-Clinton are. If you'd like a long list of REASONS why they are both similar and despicable, I have them right at hand, but it will take a lot thinking. I don't want to endanger anyone's mental health, such as it may be.

'AP: Green Zone Hit For Fourth Day This Week:

Shiite militants are hammering the U.S.-protected Green Zone with rockets and mortars for the fourth day this week.

Thick, black smoke is billowing from inside the heavily fortified home to the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi government.'

everyone together now -- THE SURGE IS WORKING!

chadibuins: thanks for adding your eloquence to what I was trying to get at.

'in this country, blacks can be racist. Whites cannot.'

whites have never been the slaves of blacks, have they? whites have not been lynched by black men for looking at black women, have they?

black people in this country have every right to be angry over the way they have been, and still are, treated. some spoiled little rich white pukes don't seem to quite get that.

and as for listening to rush, what else do they have? rightwingers need an authoritarian to tell them what to think and do.

bsimon--I know the reference to Hamlet perfectly well. But in what way has my own petard hoisted me? It is either that the sentence was not grammatically correct, or that you are one of those brainless irrationals that I predicted would not be able to even comprehend the sentence [said partly in jest, of course].

Since the sentence is grammatically correct, then it must be concluded that you consider yourself one of the latter group, and you were insulted. Actually, I was not thinking of you at all. Should I? I was thinking of others whom I won't bother to honor by even acknowledging their names.

racism implies power and superiority.

Prejudiced is pre-judgement.

Blacks and minorities cannot be racist (however prejudiced--ignorantly or otherwise--some may be)

Wright's words and calls for action did not deny rights or participation to non blacks or whites.

Racism is prejudiced backed with political power, economic power or social power (or some combination) This is a predom white country--and even more so our law and culture are predom white. It is not a judgement call--just fact--when it comes to racism in America it is us of European/Caucasion descent who are the perps--others are merely prejudiced because of our (unatoned for)racist past.

lylepink -- I know R's who really did vote for HRC just because they disagreed with you - they believe Obama is a scary GE candidate. How do you explain that?

vammap & radicalpatroit: I have said the same thing for months, and when proof is being offered about the Repub strategy to stop Hillary at any cost/price, what happens is exactly as expected, A few Repubs comes out with the joke "Vote for Hillary", when they mean just the opposite, as I have pointed out so many times. If their strategy works, we will have a Repub in The WH for at least another four years, because no way can Obama win the GE.

You mean the right-wing Shelby Steele who is trapped in the 60s? THAT Shelby Steele?

For balance , a review of his latest book on Barack:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2170&recalcul=oui

wpost--your 1:52 post was brilliant.
Patrick--glad you chimed in.

No one I know is excusing Spitzer or McGreevy or Patterson--they all have owned up to their mistakes--that is the biggest difference--apart from Mark Foley and the undergae page thing---Larry Craig is still sitting in congress trying to get people to believe he "plead not-guilty before he plead guilty" or what-not---the same is true of the Obama speech--he has said on more than one occasion and in the speech he denounces Rev Wright's comments, he thinks they were wrong and divisive--more than once he has come right out and said they are woefully inappropriate and wrong---so what do you right-wing cons expect him to do? He took a bad situation and dealt with it honestly, he could have come out and made a big show about denouncing Wright and I am sure Wright would have understood "It was all for politics" but he didn't he was honest he said he could not disown the man--even as he denounces the comments. My grandfather once said the KKK was a good thing because they kept the "coloreds" in line--this is a man I love a man who has never been anything but loving to his Af-Am g-daughter-in-law and his Af-Am great-grandson---I tok those comments as though they came from the environment he was raised in (S. Ga.) and did not stop loving the man--all the clap trap about "you can choose your pastor"--is not taking into account the WHOLE of the man. Obviously this man brought something positive and loving into Obama's life--to squelch it down to something so cold as "you can choose your pastor" is missing the whole point. Have you never disagreed with someone you love, have you never been embarassed by someone you love, do you leave them . . .NOT when they continue to show you love and continue to be a good human being IN SPITE of their wrong beliefs.

Obama: Pied Piper

It's not controversial; it's right on.

How about this for a controversial point of view?

http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html

And I quote:

... [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters' assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. "Obama's campaign pretends to transcend race," Steele says, "but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race-and very little else."

"proud, as per your 2p comment;

in this country, blacks can be racist. Whites cannot.

Double standard."

JD, I agree with you to some extent but there's also a double standard in terms of the effect of black racist language. Are you really hurt by some black guy calling you cracker, ofay, or peckerwood? When guys like Wright say things like the US government deliberately infects blacks with AIDS, he is admitting his own powerlessness. I say let the guy rant. He can't hurt you.

More misstatements, more emblishments and more problems.....

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The
Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's
primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of
Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In
academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details
matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have
tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times,
8/8/04]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his
community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing
residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's
asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings
and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the
story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the
asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My
Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to
deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news
accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at
Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama
does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was
engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' ".Obama has been too
self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that
nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity:
Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod
Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and
property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune
editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my
White House.'"White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to
revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that
lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written
plan says they could, with some restrictions. After being challenged on the
accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge --
at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what
had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago
Sun-Times,12/16/07]

How about this for a controversial point of view?
http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html
And I quote:
... [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters' assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. "Obama's campaign pretends to transcend race," Steele says, "but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race-and very little else."

-----------------'

You mean the right-wing Shelby Steele who is trapped in the 60s? THAT Shelby Steele?

For balance , a review of his latest book on Barack:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2170&recalcul=oui

• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Adrick writes "[Obama] has the eloquence and the experience to lead us in this discussion."

Throwing his white grandmother under the bus was hardly eloquent. Saying that she's just like the "typical white person" was not eloquent.

What Obama HAS done is show everybody that even he, the Great Orator, messed up and said offensive things once he stepped into that minefield un-aided by the teleprompter.

He hasn't elevated anything...he has dodged questions and made up his own questions to answer (that's the nice thing about speeches) - but it was a caluculated attempt to shift the focus, to regain the upper hand with the base.

If, as current polls predict, Barack Obama loses Pennsylvania by a double-digit margin on April 22, the truly ominous omen will not be the loss itself, but his campaign's catastrophic inability to tailor its message to vital demographics.

"Mike, he did discuss the bigger issue in his speech. The hard fact is that there are millions of Americans who believe the crap Wright spouted."

And we are expected to believe that Obama, a 20 year loyal attendee, is *NOT* one of them?

What a joke.

CNN and the FIX: Media LIARS

The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?

Posted by: logicaldoubtofhumansanity | March 27, 2008 02:21 PM

proud, as per your 2p comment;

in this country, blacks can be racist. Whites cannot.

Double standard.

logicaldoubtofhumansanity is right!

"The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?

logicaldoubtofhumansanity is right!

"The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?

So much copying and pasting here today...

Oh well, might as well join the clan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html

George Will details how conservatives are the ones really helping the poor (they make the charitable contributions), while liberals mostly talk a good game. Of course, you could extend this argument to my hotbutton issue, school choice, as well.

bondjedi --

Nice try. No Cigar.

The post you refer to was made by someone else, at another site, and you know it.

Its just another trick to try to discredit me.

It won't work.

You only discredit yourself.

bondjedi --

Nice try. No Cigar.

That's not my post, and you know it.

or the cocain use by a current governor isn't going to bat an eye.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 02:17 PM
-------------------------------------
Didn't hurt W when he ran and stole the White House.

13 million voters will remember these kinds of assinine comments from the Obama supporters. Keep it up.

'You are Clintocrats -- go start a new party'

Mike, he did discuss the bigger issue in his speech. The hard fact is that there are millions of Americans who believe the crap Wright spouted. So, the bigger question is: are we going to face this? Are we going to acknowledge that on both sides of the racial divide there is racism and inequity? Or are we going to carry on -- business as usual -- know it exists, and pretend it doesn't?

He challenged us. He has the courage to face it. Do we as a People?

Furthermore, he has the eloquence and the experience to lead us in this discussion.

So, I ask you, Mike. Can you move past this event that started this to face the bigger issue? Or would you prefer to avoid the bigger issue, sweep it under the rug, and continue to focus on another diversionary issue?

"Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush."

Elsewhere you've said it was Hillary Clinton. Which is it -- Obama or Clinton?

svreader, your hatred of Obama is obsessive. Psychotic, really. Are you passionately in love with him and feel that he hasn't returned that love? Write him a letter. Tell him how you really feel. Maybe he'll send you a used pair of underwear.

How about this for a controversial point of view?

http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html

And I quote:

... [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters' assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. "Obama's campaign pretends to transcend race," Steele says, "but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race-and very little else."

According to Steele, the United States has not eradicated the twin specters of racism and "white guilt" over slavery. Steele contends that, despite outward appearances of competence and prominence, most African-Americans who have found success in mainstream America--politicians in particular--have adopted one of two "masks": that of the bargainer or that of a challenger. Steele has declared Obama a "bargainer," someone who, to gain acceptance from whites, is willing to avoid addressing America's history of racism. "Challengers," such as Jackson and Sharpton, obtain power by wielding racial stigma to elicit guilt from whites. The confrontational style of challengers, as evidenced by Jackson's and Sharpton's failed campaigns, tends to alienate most mainstream voters.
...

wpost4112 --

Read the article. Its about the fact that Obama is a total fraud, a product of teh chicago politicial machine.

Its about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

Its about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

AdrickHenry - "Supporters of Obama, however, accurately see that Obama [can do nothing wrong.] ... The speech he gave was ground-breaking in its honesty [even though he never bothered to answer the basic question of why he chose to listen to hate speech that he supposedly didn't agree with]. The next generation will read about it in their history books [as a clear example of how a documented power-driven liar could have swept the Democrat party again, and again, and again]."

The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?

Proud -- don't bother.

Can't you already hear the drones

"Larry Craig! Larry Craig! Larry Craig!"

If you mention 3 Democrat congressmen who conspired with Hussein, they'll just shout three times.

If you mention the NJ, NY, and new NY governors, they'll just shout louder.

So, a 2nd prostitution ring by a former governor or the cocain use by a current governor isn't going to bat an eye.

You are right Proud, this story does have legs. Amongst the far-right fringe. And among white supremacists. And other fear and hate mongers.

Supporters of Obama