Monday, May 12, 2008


Back in Februrary Barack Obama gave a speech about race that some called his Lincoln Moment. At the time,I called it Obama's "I am not a crook" moment since it was more than anything else, an attempt to deflect attention from his 17 year relationship with Wright and to seek political absolution for his failure to disassociate himself with Wright's racially inflammatory and divisive views.

Of course Obama eventually did cut his ties to Wright. The candidate who has campaigned as the one with the judgement to be ready on day one, cut his ties to Wright but it took till day 6,205 to do it.

And given what we know about Michele Obama's views on race, another reason he might not have disassociated himself with Wright for 17 years is that Obama didn't want to sleep on the couch. When you listen to Wright and recall MIchelle Obama's statement that it took Obama winning the Iowa caucus for her to be proud of the United States for the first time in her life, you can clearly see a connection between Wright's views and her own beliefs. And one could assume there havent been too many fights over the kitchen table about Wright's anti-American, ant-white, anti-Semetic sermons. So divisive views on race have been there for a long time. And despite anything Obama says publicly to the contrary, some of these views may be his own. Or at least partly his own.

When I called Obama's speech his "I am not a crook moment" I also didn't realize at the time how prophetic the comparison with Nixon was going to be since Obama has turned out to be one of the most divisive political figures since Nixon.The candidate who said he has this great talent for unifying people, a talent that shows up nowhere in his past, has created more divisiveness in the Democratic party than any figure in history.But the issue that has caused one of the most serious divisions is the one that Obama himself has created over race.

The people who were dazzled by Obama;'s speech on race and saw him as some kind of unifying figure were, of course, the same people who gushed over Bush's case for going to war in Iraq, the people who called Bush's case, "compelling", and "a slam dunk". This was the speech that the news media praised for its profundity, honesty and sincerity, the speech where Obama said he could no sooner disown Jeremiah Wright than he could disown a member of his own family which might give his wife and children something to worry about.

But the issue of race that the Obama candidacy was in the process of erasing, which started to bubble underneath the surface, has started to boil over largely because Obama has been the one stirring the cauldron.

Clinton didn't help with her "hard working white people" comment but its indicative of how the issue of race, and race baiting by Obama and his campaign has poisoned the atmosphere to the point where someone who was out registering black voters 35 years ago and who has long standing ties to the African American community is now talking about "white people"

Most of the dishonest and biased press supporting Obama's candidacy are going to jump on Clinton because it fuels their biased pro Obama agenda and it also lets them feel good about themselves and show how un-racist and forward thinking they are. So they will use her remarks to further poison the atmosphere and create deeper racial divides in the service of an Obama candidacy ( this from the people who have accused Clinton of doing anything to win). But its an atmosphere poisoned by Obama almost from the beginning with his wife's remarks after Iowa,, his subsequent tactics, and whether anyone likes it or not, 17 years of Jeremiah Wright.

Race has always played a role from the beginning, either notable by its absence in Obama's victory in the Iowa caucus and mostly white mid west caucus states, or notably present in getting 90% of the African American vote. Unless you believe that one ethnic group has suddenly acquired a monopoly on wisdom,about half of the 90% of African Americans voting for him were voting for him because of skin color, the same reason their grandparents couldn't use white restrooms

Which means that half the African American community and everyone else, black or white, who has voted for or supported a candidate simply based on race, has decided to take everything Martin Luther King took a bullet for and throw it out the window.

King's most enduring comment was, "I dream of a day when a man will be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin".That idea has been discarded by supporters of Obama both black and white who have been trying to promote the idea that having a black President is a good reason to vote for him regardless of anything else.

In support of this idea we have had racially condescending articles by Besty Reed and Richard Kim in The Nation which has tried to blame Clinton for playing the race card in South Carolina when it was clearly Obama who played it. Kim's article even accuses the 60% of white voters that are voting for Clinton of being racist while at the same time ignoring the 90% of the African American vote going to Obama.

Anything that treats African Americans differently than anyone else, or applies a different set of standards is racially condescending. And while I can understand that many African Americans might want to vote for Obama out of a sense of racial pride, that doesn't excuse it either. Voting for him because of the color of his skin is as insidious as voting against him for the same reason.

There is only one reason to vote for him and that is if you think he is the better more qualified candidate. And Im sure that is why half the 90% of African Americans who have voted for him did so. But race and race alone is what accounts for the other half though there are still African Americans supporting Clinton because they think she is the better candidate and they are not lacking in any pride for their heritiage.

That there are so many in the press promoting Obama as a candidate soley on race( Andrew Sullivan to name one), and that many are voting for him solely on race and that the atmosphere has become poisoned over race, is largely Obama's fault. He has created these divisions in the service of his own political ambitions. It's been Obama and his campaign that has cynically tried to exploit race, Clinton's recent ill advised remarks notwithstanding. If Clinton had wanted to exploit race she would have done it before this.

It was Obama who played the race card in South Carolina, And while I have no proof of this, I can see Congressman Clyburn's fingerprints are all over it. Clyburn is a savvy politician. In fact it will take Obama the rest of his life to learn what Clyburn has already forgotten. Clinton's comments that it took an LBJ to get the civil rights act passed, the act that King had fought, and ultimately died for was right on every count. King succeeded in mobilizing not just African Americans but the conscience of the country and brought it to the point where the shame that was racism couldn't be tolerated anymore. But it still took a President like Johnson who understood the workings of Congress, who knew how to flatter when necessary, arm twist when necessary, threaten when necessary, make promises when necessary or give warnings when necessary, and generally, to paraphrase Malcom X, use any means necessary, to get the white southern members of congress of both parties who stood in the way to finally pass the bill. To give you a small idea of the resistance Johnson faced in congress to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one of the congressman who voted against it was George HW Bush, a fellow Texan, and someone who everyone considers a decent man.

But Obama ( or was it Clyburn?) saw an opening. And he tried to do to Clinton what Bush did to John Kerry with his "insulting the troops" fiasco, to take Clintons statement about LBJ and twist its meaning , accusing her statement as diminishing and devaluing King's work and his legacy. And he did it for no other reason than to try to drive a wedge between Clinton and the African American community in South Carolina.

The accusation was absurd and it had more in common with the tactics of a Nixon than Martin Luther King. South Carolina was important to Obama. It was a state with an African American population that was the largest in the country. More than 55% of voters were African American and the Clintons had long standing ties to the African American community. To drive a wedge between the Clintons and African Americans was the kind of strategy you'd expect from Karl Rove. Or Richard Nixon.But this is what Mr. Unity did. And it worked.

Unfortunately Clinton's response to Obama's attacks at the time was as tepid as Kerry's. What she should have done was drag Obama out into the street and have it out with him over his remarks that her comments were "unfortunate and misinformed" and his insidiously playing the race card. She should have made a major issue over the fact that it was he who was misinformed and that it was unfortunate that he would try and make such a dishonest accusation that he knew wasn't true to try and cause racial divisions for nothing more than his own political purposes. She should have stood up to him, used her ties of 35 years to the African American community as proof, and pointed out that when he was a child she was going door to door registering African Americans to vote before she ever asked anyone for a single vote for herself.

Maybe if she had taken on the issue of race and Obama's race baiting a the time it wouldn't have surfaced the way it did the other day. And she certainly would not have done any worse with the African American community in terms of votes and probably a lot better.

But she didn't do it, largely because she allowed herself to be put back on her heels, because she has been getting horrible political advice from the beginning and because a biased media was feeding the storm for the sake of their own bias and political agenda, something Clinton voters resented and that is not going to go away if Obama gets the nomination.

The other racial incident coming out of South Carolina was Obama surrogates and the press accusing Bill Clinton of denigrating Obama's victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's( I wonder how Jackson feels about that?). In fact, Bill Clinton was denigrating the press ( the one group in this country who deserves to be denigrated) who were acting like Obama's landslide win was somehow indicative of the mood of the entire country. He didn't make his point forcefully enough but he was right, Jackson did win primaries in South Carolina and the win needed to be put in perspective but this was clearly a case of the press being too stupid to know they were being called stupid.

Obama's qualifications ( or lack of) have all but been lost in dealing with the issue of race, especially in the press who views any attack on Obama ( an attack being anything that seeks to show him as the less qualified candidate) as "taking the low road", the code for exploiting race.

So the best way to deal Obama's qualifications is to take race out of it completely. And the best way to do that is to imagine this: Imagine a Presidential race between Barack Obama and Colin Powell. I know. Youre probably laughing already. Or at least smiling. In a scenario like that, the Democrats would be snickered at all over the world for sending out a candidate as unqualified and as unprepared as Obama to go up against someone with the gravitas, experience, respect, ability, grasp of the workings of government, world view, and last but least, accomplishment, of a Colin Powell. The late night joke would be that the Democrats have found another way to lose an election. And race would have nothing to do with it.

Clinton is not Powell. But there is still not a thing in Barack Obama's life that shows he could even remotely handle the single most important job in the world. And the press and Obama himself has tried to create an atmosphere where even questioning that makes it an issue of race. After all wasnt it Jesse Jackson Jr. who was reported to be calling up African American super delegates who had declared for Clinton and asking them " do you want to be the one to stand in the way of the first black President"? Many were intimidated enough to switch.

There is now a concern among some in the Democratic party that Obama might use race as a way to threaten or intimidate other super delegates to vote for him, to propagate the fear that if he is not given the nomination both his supporters and members of the press will cry "racism". Dick Morris went so far as to write that Obama supporters would riot, and start throwing chairs in the convention center in Denver if Obama didn't get the nomination (very respectful, Dick) Morris of course is a Clinton hater who predicted an Obama win in the California primary which Clinton won by 15 points and its obvious that he has no compunction about stirring up the racial cauldron ( in a most racist way I might add -- Im sure every African American who read Morris' piece would prefer he keep his mouth shut).

Obama's campaign has been trying to play the expectations game, attempting, from a public relations point of view, to make it look like the nomination is already his,obviously hoping to intimidate super delegates into accepting it as a reality and that if he doesn't get it Obama and his supporters will claim the reason is racial (his wife certainly will) and they are warning that this would cause untold damage to the Democratic party.

Like everything else Barack Obama has claimed, it's the opposite that's true,

If super delegates ignore the true results of the primaries ( by not including Florida and Michigan) the party will come apart at the seams if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama gets the nomination. And it will be divided in ways it hasnt seen since 1968. It will also create divisions and damage to the party it will not recover from for years. It will also guarantee a McCain landslide in the fall since Obama will get no support from Clinton voters who will feel robbed. Most Clinton voters as it is, resent the bullying, race baiting and divisive tactics of the Obama campaign and the grotesque media bias that has accompanied it. If 50% of Clinton voters are telling pollsters they will never vote for Obama you can bet that 75% are thinking it and probably 90% will act on it.

Super delegates have an obligation in an election this close to honor the will of the voters. (as of now Clinton trails Obama in the popular vote by 0.56% counting the popular votes of Florida and Michigan and with the approximately 70 delegates she netted in both states, Obama's delegate lead is 99 with 215 still up for grabs and 200 super delegates still to decide, which makes the calls for Clinton to get out and Obama's plan to declare victory on May 20th even more outrageous and repugnant to Clinton voters)

Super delegates who want to win in November also have to take into account the byzantium way the Democrats award delegates in a system where Obama received more than 600 delegates in states he lost to Clinton by landslide margins, and make a decision. Without regard to race.And without regards to threats.

If super delegates let themselves be intimidated and give the nomination to Obama when the primary results show he was not the true will of the people the Democrats can look forward to a moment at the convention when the candidate takes the podium, the balloons are released, the confetti comes down and half the Democratic party including all of Clinton's delegates, will get up and walk out. And they will not be back in the fall. The election at that moment will be over.It will also give the networks one hell of an interesting shot. On that no one is going to forget..

The point of Martin Luther King's life and his death is that race isnt supposed to matter. It is going to be up to super delegates to make that a reality and put an end to Obama's uncivil war. And once that happens the Reconstruction can begin.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for this information. You hit on a lot of good stuff I hadn't realized.

One more that kicked me in the gut:

Way back last November, when there were still 10 candidates in the race, Chris Rock introduced Obama at a fundraiser in Harlem and told the audience that they would be embarassed if they voted for "the white lady."
Did the msm report on it, or the Obama campaign disown the remarks?

Imagine, last November, when there were still 10 candidates in the race, what would have happened if Bill Clinton had told the audience at a fundraiser that they would be embarassed if they voted for "the black guy."

Yes, you are correct -- Obama has been allowed to play the race card from the very beginning.

Thanks again for a great article.

Anonymous said...

HRC actually did suggest the Obama campaign was being divisive in the days leading up to the South Carolina primary. Obama in his dismissive way, was "astonished" that HRC could blame him for something she said.

Nevertheless, this fact actually strengthens your point, i.e., that the media has framed issues in a pro-Obama way the entire campaign.

Take a look at the following illustrations:

Senator Obama astonished at accusations of race-baiting.

Senator Clinton accuses Obama camp of race-baiting.

This is how it has been this entire campaign.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for articulating my entire perception of Obama and his campaign tactics, and my experience of the way in which HRC has been systematically defamed by a very biased and self-flattering press. It's really been a disheartening trainwreck to watch.

I'm hoping and praying that this primary fight continues; it would be such a travesty were it to conclude so prematurely and unfairly. Hope lots of people read this post!! And thanks for nailing right on the head.

Anonymous said...

When David Dinkins (D) was elected in 1989 as New York City's first black mayor, many New York City residents had high hopes that he would bring about racial healing to the tensions that existed among certain segments of the city's population, but during his four-year mayoralty, it brought about many things that eventually led to racial discourse, especially blacks against non-blacks, etc., via high crime rate, high unemployment, as well as other ills/vices that New York City had endured. He was barely voted out of office four years later in a racially-charged environment. As far as Senator Barack Obama (D), the apparent Democratic presidential nominee for 2008, is concerned, he is once considered by many as someone who transcends race, but when his long-time association with his former pastor has surfaced, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who made so many controversial and incendiary remarks regarding to all the issues that this country faces (including race and ethnicity), it kind of made the Illinois Senator a hypocrite. But unfortunately, this and other controversies surrounding his candidacy couldn't stop him from winning his party's presidential nomination and it may not even stop him from winnning the general election thereafter (he really should thank President George W. Bush (R), who is extremely hated by so many for well-known reasons, for making voters electing him). There is no doubt that the Obama Presidency would be controversial or at times, turbulent, just like the Dinkins' New York City Mayoralty many years ago. Unlike Dinkins, thanks to George W. Bush and his hapless Republican Party, a President Barack "Slick Barry" Obama (he truly is another "Bill Clinton") will get away with it as he decides to run for reelection in 2012. Unfortunately, the Republicans have pretty much run out of promising candidates of their own for the White House in many, many presidential election cycles to come, and the growth of ethnic minority groups such as Hispanics and Asians in this country's electorate would likely contribute to their long-term woes.

sgreene said...

I love the way people try to treat the African American community like we are children--okay as followers but not quite smart enough to be leaders. Or, my personal favorite is telling us who we should admire. Could it be possible that we just prefer the no drama appeal of Obama versus the baggage of the Clintons? Also, you will not win any friends by telling us what we should and should not be offended about because the Clintons have done so much for us. Well, since you are obviously an expert on us, please enlighten me on all the things they did. While I appreciate that Hillary came to register AAs to vote, my parents were beaten for trying to vote in La. Moreover, I think that LBJ would have done nothing about Civil Rights if it were not for a few brave souls who demanded more from their country. He did not seem to recognize the problem before. As as aside, Bill's mentor in Arkansas was Fulbright, the big segrationist himself. That said, I am beyond the point of caring if the Supers give the nomination to Senator Clinton. If she wins outright, I can accept it, but you cannot make me vote for her. And a lot of other AAs feel the same way because we talk about it all the time. It is good to find out that the Democratic Party is really your party and not our party. As we AAs make our exit, it is about time that our votes were in play anyway.

MDR said...

Actually no one was telling anyone what to be offended about. Anyone can look for and find things they can be offended about everyday if thats what you want to do.And if someone wants to use race as an excuse for any kind of behavior they can do that too. As for what the Clintons did for you( the collective "you" that you are referring to) ask Maya Angelou who called Bill Clinton the first black president. She must have had something in mind.

smg said...

It was not Maya but Toni Morrisson who gave Bill that title. Maya supports them because she was born and raised in Arkansas, but Toni supports Barrack.
It was not because he did so much for AAs that Toni gave Bill that title but it was in relation to his background and how he was treated by the establishment at the time. Google it if you do not believe my answer.

Anonymous said...

Found your web site by happy accident - someone posted the link to this article over at SavagePolitics. The poster felt he should email this article to all the undecided superdelegates. In any event, I've now flagged your site under my "favorites." Well-written, articulate and fair article. Thanks for that.

Anonymous said...

I am struck by the extreme bias of this article. You do not know what Mr. and Mrs. Obama feel about race or the Rev. Wright because you don't know them. You can only speculate. I am so tired of the threats. If Hillary and her people accepted the rules of the game on the rogue states, why try to change them after the game has already started? I make the same argument about the superdelegates because they are free to vote for Hillary or Obama. Unlike your propaganda, I am consistent. I also like the way that you use MLK to suggest that the majority of Blacks voting for Obama are not following his way. What nerve....You also have no idea what MLK would think about this election. I bet he would be supporting Obama as well. I can speculate just like you. You Clinton supporters just cannot let it go. If you support her, that is fine and wonderful. Build her up, but you do not have to tear down someone else's choice. We are individuals. We do not have to agree.

Anonymous said...

For those inspired to contact superdelegates, you can find all or most (along with contact info) by clicking on

Claudia said...

Great exposition.

In response to a poster here re what WJC has done for African Americans, this is Bill Clinton in his own words in an op-ed piece that appeared in NYTimes on the 10th anniversary of welfare reform. See link below.

This is an opinion piece that ran in the St. Petersburg Times (Jan '08) re the Clinton legacy with helping African Americans:

One is free to admire whomever they want. However, common respect for an ex-President's efforts to work for the common good - which happen to be rooted in fact - is warranted. (We even give some wiggle room to current WH occupant but not WJC? Puh-leese!)

It's all too easy these days to 'switch brands' sans the smell test.

Watch out for 'revisionist history' - you may regret 'forgetting' the good guys.


Big Easy said...

Many thanks for writing this article. It has been media in the tank for Obama while they portray Hillary as the punching bag. Sad day in America when a superior leader who has proven to be totally dedicated to serving our country, speaking for those who do not have a voice, gets "cleverly" pushed into the gutter for a smoother talker with suspicious aquantances and unpatriotic behavior. Obama is the polarizing figure in this picture and will bring our country to the brink of a civil war and open the flood gates to radical islum. Michelle believes that our country is a mean place. How can the be? If she came from poverty to where she is now, she is the product of America's promise and opportunity! Her comments are unpatriotic and like Obama, does not represent mainstream America. Is she raising her kids in the same way?

Anonymous said...

Many thanks for writing this article. It has been media in the tank for Obama while they portray Hillary as the punching bag. Sad day in America when a superior leader who has proven to be totally dedicated to serving our country, speaking for those who do not have a voice, gets "cleverly" pushed into the gutter for a smoother talker with suspicious aquantances and unpatriotic behavior. Obama is the polarizing figure in this picture and will bring our country to the brink of a civil war and open the flood gates to radical islum. Michelle believes that our country is a mean place. How can the be? If she came from poverty to where she is now, she is the product of America's promise and opportunity! Her comments are unpatriotic and like Obama, does not represent mainstream America. Is she raising her kids in the same way?

Anonymous said...

And don't forget Mr. Obama himself talking code to his audiences in S. Carolina and other states with large AA communitites to turn them against the Clintons: -"They want to bamboozle you, hoodwink ya"
Anyone who watched "Malcolm X", knows what he was talking about.
This is Malcolm X in the movie:
I'm gonna tell you like it really is. Every election year these politicians are sent up here to pacify us! They're sent here and setup here by the White Man!(...)
Oh, I say and I say it again, ya been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled!"
It was very clever, but he only got away with it with the complicity of the MSM looking the other way, or may be it was too much to expect from them to notice that.

Anonymous said...

Good journalists/bloggers are clearly are not!!!
You are in the tank for Hillary , so what does that make you...enlightened?
I have no stakes in this election as I live abroad so it allows me to watch, read and be objective. It is clear to see who Sen. Clinton is vis a vis Sen Obama.
The fact that Hillary Clinton wants to keep trying to change rules throughout this contest is unbelievable and also unethical. If this is how she will run your country i.e. based on her campaign debt and always wanting to change rules including suggesting that if the Democratic party was using the Republican party's rules she would have already won shows that she is a sore loser and an unethical person who if not stopped is going to cause the U.S. significant problems and /or she will be impeached like her husband. Please spare the world of part 10 of the Clinton drama.

If you are unclear , take a look at SNL (which by the way has made Obama the butt of it's satire also providing credence to being objective).

The drip of superdelegates moving to Obama's side will become deafening soon and I guess you think they are not enlightened or smart enough to look at pros and cons of both candidates....right?!
Wake up!!
The Clintons for all the good they have done, are in this to win this to feed their egos and pass some token bills on to redeem their flawed legacy. Out with the old, in with the new...this is not a fairytale as Bill Clinton asserted when he saw Obama's potency which rivalled his own..... it's time to turn the page.

MDR said...

"I have no stakes in this election"

Yes and you have vacation land you want to sell me in the Everglades.
As far as being in the tank is concerned, do you know what projection is? Any psychologist can tell you. It might be worth the visit.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this information. I myself have believed this from the beginning of the campaign. Now not only will Clinton delegates walk out but my hope is that they organize a write in campaign. Now this would give a truthful account of the real nominee and next President of the United States. My bet would be on Hillary!

Anonymous said...

I don't know where you guys are getting this crap that Obama used the race card, but it's quite sad.
When Ferraro made her comment, CNN asked Obama if he thought it was racist, and he said "NO". He just thought that it was misguided, and left it at that.
When Bill Clinton made his comment, Barack never came out and said it was racist. (His supporters did) but Barack has no control over what his supporters say on blogs or wherever. But the fact is that he didn't go after Bill like you guys would like to think he did.
Look, Barack has been a gentalmen throughout this process to Hillary. You can't even point out ONE TIME when he eluded to her gender that was in a way of talking bad about her. NOT ONCE!
He doesn't go around saying "Hey I'm bi-racial, vote for me! This is HISTORIC!!"
But Hillary has soooo many times!
He's trying to be fair, and Hillry just tries so had to drag him down in the mud to make it look like he is beating up on her, and he doesn't take the bait.
I'm proud that he has the intelligence, the integrity, and the TEMPERMENT to be our next president.

Diamond said...

Cowards can't even use their names - posting racist comments as 'annonymous'.

Look, if Obama used the race card, Hillary would've been out of the race a long time ago. But it's just below his ethical standards.

If you guys want us to continue this fighting, let's go ahead. And come November, you can vote for McCain if you want. But if you support Hillary, that means you support ending the war, passing universal healthcare, etc. McCain won't give you any of that.

Anonymous said...

"Good journalists/bloggers are objective"
And you post a link to Huffington Post, Obama's propaganda central online. And cite a Saturday Night Live skit as proof of your point.
That's deep.

ojah_w said...

i find it curious that clinton's gender play seems to get no attention, even though it is so breathtakingly obvious. as a white female, i have been told that i am required to "vote for her because she is a woman". i have received hate e-mail from n.o.w. nyc because i do not support clinton and i am a dare i turn away from the sisterhood? how often do you see an interview with a voter who says "well, it's just time for a black man to run the country"...but you hear people say it's time for a woman. black people vote for obama and it's racist, but women vote for clinton and it's acceptable.
so enough with the race baiting bs. let's discuss the gender baiting that clinton gets a pass on.

MDR said...

"I don't know where you guys are getting this crap that Obama used the race card"

Try his public statement saying that Clintons' remarks in South Carolina that it took an LBJ to get the Civil Rights Act passed was "unfortunate and misinformed". Then add his comment that her remarks diminished the accomplishment of Martin Luther King. THAT race card.

By the way if you agree with Obama then go fight it out with John Lewis. He was there in Selma with King and he was at his side in the Oval Office when LBJ signed the Act. Lewis defended Clinton's remarks as being true, and basically said Obama didnt know what he was talking about. Which as everyone knows, isnt the first time.

MDR said...

"Look, if Obama used the race card, Hillary would've been out of the race a long time ago. But it's just below his ethical standards."

What ethical standards? the eithical standard where he says every vote should count and voices must be heard and then tries to hold his hand over the mouths of 3 million people in Florida and Michigan? The ethical standard where " I could no longer disown Jeremiah Wright as a member of my own family" ( think his wife and kids have something to worry about?)
Maybe it was his ethical standard of telling the people of Ohio he was going to do away with NAFTA while an advisor to his campaign was telling the Candadian Government not to pay attention to anything he says about NAFTA publicly that its only for political consumption. You mean those ethical standards?

I had to sit here and list all of Obama's hypocrisy and "lapses" in his ethical standards Id be here for a week. Now you know why those of us who see Obama as the snakeoil salesman that he is think those of you who think he has "ethical standards" and support everything else are drinking the Kool Aid.

Anonymous said...

I have seen it and the Saturday Night Live skit depicting Sen. Clinton's self absorbed mindset is right on!!

If you are too blind to see it by examining the facts about Hillary Clinton maybe the skit will help to crystallize what you are missing.

Heather said...

the canadian government has issued formal statements in regard to nafta saying that the story against obama was false. it was CLINTON'S aide who did the famous "wink wink" that cause such uproar in ohio.
michigan and florida are not the fault of obama OR clinton. negotiations have been happening for months in both camps. some ides have indeed been shot down by obama. and some have been shot down by clinton. the true "voice silencers" are the individual state governments who didn't give a damn about the rules.

and to anonymous #1...comparing comedian chris rock's comments to a former president? seriously???

MDR said...

"the canadian government has issued formal statements in regard to nafta saying that the story against obama was false."

Yes we are all aware of that.The Associated Press also has the notes of the meeting taken by the person in the room which disputes the Canadian Governments attempt at damage control. We also have 5 consecutive lies put out by the Obama campaign when the story broke trying to weasel their way out of it. First that the advisor wasnt there. When a sign-in sheet at the Canadian Embassy proved he was there, the Obama story changed and it was that he wasnt an advisor. When everyone associated with the incident acknowledged he WAS an advisor story number 3 was that he was an advisor but he was there in his capacity as a professor not as an advisor to the Obama campaign. When that was proved to be another falsehood (he admitted and the notes showed he had identified himself as an advisor to the Obama campaign) story number 5 was he was an advisor and he was there but they didnt authorize it. When the notes showed otherwise the story changed again. But thank you for your "are you going to believe what Obama tells you or your own lying eyes" approach to the truth.

Now you see why we say Obama followers are drinking the Kool Aid. There has never been more blatant lies about more things coming from one candidate since Richard Nixon.And yet Obama followers are true belivers. If Obama says it, then it must be so.

Heather said...

i see. let me put my glass of koolaid down for just a minute and ask a question or two....
hillary lied about bosnia...doesn't bother you?
bill is actively promoting cafta....doesn't bother you?
hillary has already angered iran with her "obliterate" comments....doesn't bother you?
hillary has discounted small states, caucus states, younger voters, black voters, red states..doesn't bother you?
the clintons have actively campaigned FOR john mccain, (praising his policies, and his record in the media and on the stump) going against the dem party....doesn't bother you?

i could go on and on.

here...i think this koolaid belongs to you.

MDR said...

"hillary lied about bosnia...doesn't bother you?"

No.First of all she didnt lie. A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. Hillary recounted the Bosnia incident exactly as it actually happened in her book in 2004. If she had intended to lie or deceive she would have lied about it then instead of describing it accurately in 2004.

Secondly it was trivial not something like Obama's postion on NAFTA or the fact that Obama lied at first about not being at Wright'sermons when he was trying to do damage control then having to admit that he was there when it was obvious that he couldnt deny it any longer Obama's knee jerk reaction to bad news or facts that catch him in a contradiction, is to lie about it. As for Clinton, she is far from perfect and has her flaws. But I have to choose between whats there and to me there is no choice. If I had to choose on honesty and integrity alone, going back to Obama's betrayal of Alice Palmer in Chicago to get his career going, then seeing how he has handled problems and accusations on the campaign trail, Clinton wins by a mile. Clinton's flaws (and she has them) compared to Obamaa's is the difference between a pimple and a tumor.

Since there are a few comments from Obama supporters raising some issues,when there are enough,I'll address them all in one entry instead of piece meal. but Im sure others will have the same facts at their disposal as I do and can answer many of the issues raised.

Anonymous said...

Early in the primary debates, when all the male candidates were questioning some remark of hers, Hillary said the "boys were all picking on the girl", or something close to that. She also did the tear-drop number before New Hampshire vote.
How many times has she played the gender card?
Rush Limbaugh started his sickening attack against Obama, which he calls Operation Chaos, which he's instructed his "operatives" to change registration to Democratic, (where ever necessary), & vote for Hillary during the remainder of the primary elections.
This BLOC of sabotage voting is what got HRC back into the Primaries, (& has KEPT her in), ever since Ohio-Texas voted!
Makes me so angry, that R.L. is keeping HRC afloat to cause "chaos", after all the years the Republicans have tried to get her OUT!
During the earlier Primary contests, while Republicans were still involved, I used to listen to Obama's speeches, so inspiring, so easy to listen to, and hoped that Obama would get the Democratic nomination.
But whenever HRC came on TV, I grabbed the remote & hit the mute button.
Sorry, can't be positive about her, (besides pitch of her voice), there is way too much unscrupulous baggage attached.
Now I'm 100% for Obama.

Anonymous said...

RE: Rev Wright
"then having to admit that he was there when it was obvious that he couldnt deny it any longer"

While I agree that statements that Rev. Wright said were offensive and should be condemned, your allegation that Obama said he wasn't there at first and then he admitted to being there when it was obvious that he couldn't deny it any longer is False. He said he had heard Rev. Wright say controversial things before but not those statemnets strung together in the loop that was highly publicized.
At the minimum please try to comment on/quote the facts.

Glad to see that you have at least reviewed Hillary Clinton's baggage which she claims is extensive & has been rummaged through.
Read Bay Buchanan's Hillary Clinton's extreme makeover for some additional insight.
The White House that she would run would be a nightmare just like the ineffective campaign that she has run whicch has her currently in debt $20 million. What a disaster!!

I agree with the comment above that Hillary Clinton may set up our country for impeachment since she overtly tries to change rules again and again and lies unashamedly. Her husband was impeached and disbarred over trying to parse the meaming of the word "is". At the rate she is going she may be headed on that path too if she makes it to the White House. I think the superdelegates have seen this and are trying to save the country.
God bless America!!

Vanessa said...

Interestingly, as someone who, like Obama, is black/white, I had the same reaction that you did to his "transcendent sppech on race".

I called it bullshit then and I call it bullshit now.

The hypocritical and divisive use of race by the Obama campaign in this primary race has been a most painful experience. The open collusion of the so-called "leaders" of the Democratic Party who have not just let him get away with it, but have actively aided and abetted him, has been a disillusioning eye-opener.

For the first time in my adult life, I am really not proud of my party.

Thank you for putting it out there. If we are ever to have an honest discussion on race in this country - ever to overcome the racial barriers that divide us - this kind of crap cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Hillary08 said...

Obama does not have clean hands. It thoroughly surprises me how people can so easily fall for a smile and smooth words - now I know how Hitler generated a mass army (he was notorious for being a good speaker too), or how Mao started the Cultural Revolution, in all cases relying massively on the youth to carry it out (as Obama's so-called youth movement shows). Could it be they are too naive and inexperienced in the ways of the world? Perhaps. Idealism is for the inexperienced. As Hitler noted, "I use emotion for the masses, and reserve reason for the few." There's a reason why when asked why they support Obama - they can only reply with coined phrases like "change" or "yes we can," it is all about emotion, while suspending reason. Wake up and look at his policies, connections, and actions.

As for one poster's comment about Obama not using gender - he routinely calls professional reporters and female factory workers that ask him hard questions as "sweetie," degrading them as one of his fainting admirers as he can't seriously answer the question or can't be bothered by some pesky woman who's asking for facts and clarification. Furthermore, it has been noted by many who attend his rallies that he routinely plays rap songs with some of the most misogynistic and degrading comments about women rather than raps that are uplifting and urge social change through unification (possibly planting subliminal messages against his female opponent?). As someone who studies psychology:

Too many Freudian slips = their true thoughts and personality.

Anonymous said...

If Obama wanted to really use race he would have every right to. However as the attached article illuminates, relatively speaking he has downplayed the inevitable issue of race ad at times has tried to use his bi-racial heritage to shed light on the differing but important perspectives in the country.

Race baiter Hillary Clinton agreed on CNN last night that Charlie Rangel's commenting about her recent statements about "hard working Americans, white americans" etc. was stupid was indeed right.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is a racist but she is a shrewd politician that has chosen to use racial division to try to win the nomination and alas it has not worked....not this time! We are better than that as a nation.

Anonymous said...

Wow. So much to tackle.

First off, your "either blacks suddenly got wisdom or they're racist" bit. Blacks have been going 90 percent Dem for generations now, and it's always been a white person. Blacks vote the way they vote because (a) they're liberal and (b) they are afraid of racists seizing power. That's why, for instance, 80% of of MD blacks voted for white Dem Ben Cardin over black GOPer Michael Steele. Steele was a moderate and he didn't even carry the black vote in his home county.

You read the Clinton's tactics one way, I read them another. Every other black person I know was pro-Clinton before this year. Now, after the "hardworking white person" crack, one friend of mine, who has never said a kind word about ANY Republican, called her "evil." The Clintons are now toxic to blacks. And they still command the commendable loyalty of many black SDs.

Clinton led Obama in polls among blacks. Then the Clintons panicked after SC (maybe because they knew they couldn't afford for the contest to go beyond Super Tuesday?), played the race card, and blacks turned away in revulsion. The black vote this season has been just as much anti-Clinton as it has pro-Obama. Progressive blacks are pro-Obama, but mainstream blacks are bitter that Clinton has shown herself to be just another southern Dem pol: talk up blacks when you want their votes, forget them when you get in office, and throw them under the bus if you want to attract white racist votes.

I'm not going to write a book here, but there's a lot in your post you might change if you actually spoke with a couple of black people. I do want to touch on one more thing: Clyburn.

You crack Clyburn to be some Machiavellian figure. He's not. He was loyal to the Clintons and a longtime personal friend. His district was strong for Obama, but he stayed neutral -- until Bill couldn't avoid putting his foot in his mouth. Like it or not, justly or not, comparing Jesse Jackson to Obama -- and not, say John Edwards to Obama -- is deeply offensive to blacks. We are not all alike, we do not look alike, and when you deny our individuality, we presume that, to you, race trumps all -- which makes you look racist to us.

Instead of heeding Clyburn, the Clintons have gone farther and farther down the road of polarization, culminating (hopefully -- I guess the next stop on the train is "shiftless and lazy", or maybe she'll just play the "defend white womanhood" card) in Hillary's hardworking white people crack. They make it _extremely_ difficult for any black with any self-respect to support them; you have to wonder what the Clintons say and think about you when you are not present.

Bill Parcells famously said, "You are what your record is." Hillary is what her campaign has been. She hired the consultants. She disregarded her staffer's good advice to skip Iowa. She put out the surrogates she consequently had to disown (Billy Shaheen, Ferraro, her husband). She told the Bosnia lie and she made the "hardworking white people" remark. Worst of all, she suffered the hubris that she was the inevitable nominee for who primaries were a mere formality.* To put this defeat off on her staff is simply denial.

Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are three of the most talented politicians I have seen in my 50+ years on this earth. Anytime you can win statewide office in Ilinois, and be odds on with a name like "Obama" -- you've got skills. Hillary's nowhere near as talented, so she just swings harder, and more frequently. It's the political equivalent of Ali-Frazier, and she's Frazier.

*That hubris is clearly part of a larger personality issue that is demonstrated by the wholesale defection of so many people who were once close to the Clintons. Somehow, if Bill was really criticizing the press in SC, I think Bob Reich's smart enough to have picked up on that. He even used to date Hillary, he bolted. I'm pretty sure that most of the DNC chairs during the Clinton years have gone to Obama. Either Clinton is, personally, an unpleasant person, or Obama is really as nice a guy as he comes off; either way, Clinton's situation is wholly of her own making. Not the press, not black racists, not misogynists, hers. And Bill's.

MDR said...

"First off, your "either blacks suddenly got wisdom or they're racist" bit..."

Is this an example of Senator Obama's supporters being more intelligent and educated than Senator Clinton's? I didnt say "blacks suddenly got wisdom". And I didnt say anyone was "racist". I said, "unless you believe one ethnic group suddenly has a monopoly on wisdom," which means, that unless you believe that African Americans suddenly know more than anyone else as to who is best qualified to be President, half are voting strictly on race since the vote as a whole is pretty much 50-50. And there is a difference between "racial" and "racist" and that was made clear also, when I said I could understand voting for Obama out of some kind of racial pride (even though that is no reason to vote for someone).

Obama is getting 90% of the African American vote.No one else is getting 90% of any demographic. Im almost afraid to ask but why do YOU think he's getting 90% of the African American vote?

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul!

Obamafraud said...

How did Obama gain the Black vote? He bamboozled and hoodwinked them. Gave them Rezko-type housing, Wright-like hate speech, and became their absentee Senator - too busy campaigning than working for his constituents.

As quoted from the New Statesman article on "Hating Hillary" by Andrew Stephen:

One of Obama's female staff distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presidential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again.

And that is how Obama played "got-cha" politics, the very kind he denounces. Tag them a racist for everything they say. Take snippets of quotes and turn them into hate-filled speech. This is what Obama and his campaign does. Disgusting and it's sad to see many Blacks falling for this. Luckily, some see above it. Don't let Obama fool you into an Odinga-type riot as he has done in Kenya. He is not worth. Jesse Jackson or Jerry Brown would have made much better presidents than Obama. Sadly, they were not as charismatic or as corrupt and willing to be bought.

Anonymous said...

There was most certainly manipula-
tion of the "race related" infor-
mation by the media and race baiting by the Obama campaign way
before South Carolina. For media
it "hyping" the ratings, setting up each successive contest. The
Obama campaign used the MSM's antipathy towards the Clinton's for
their own benefit.
Up til now, they have escaped with only superficial "vetting". It is
my hope that this will change.
Iowa voters had no knowledge of
Rev. Wright. Would the outcome
have been the same? Perhaps John
Edwards fortunes would have fared
better. More important, see:, May 29th.
I came an article: BARACK OBAMA
RAN ON A MARXIST PARTY LINE IN 1996! No MSM outlet vetted this in-
formation during the primary season to the voters, that I'm
aware of. What a failure of the
Fourth Estate! Our "presumptive
nominee" has a marxist background
known to the likes of Jessie
Jackson, Chicago's New Party, and
the ACORN organization.
This is our possible leader of
military? CIC?
VETT NOW! Should be our Call.
Yes, I want a Democrat in the White House but, the right one.