Thursday, July 10, 2008


On July 4th the New York Times wrote an editorial criticizing Senator Obama and expressing what might be called dismay over the fact that he's reneged on every promise he's ever made and changed or reversed his position on every issue of importance to the people who supported him during the primary. The most recent betrayal was his vote on the FISA legislation which at one time he promised to filibuster, giving the telecoms immunity for breaking the law on behalf of the Bush Administration and violating their customers 4th amendment rights. And it's easy to know why. Having opted out of public campaign financing, (another broken pledge,) it was for campaign contributions from the telecoms. And he was more than willing to sell out the 4th Amendment to get it.

All this seems to have taken the New York Times completely by surprise. Which doesn't say much for the New York Times and their powers of journalistic observation given the fact that these things have been obvious to at least 18 million people for anywhere from 7 months to 5 years including the people who know him from Chicago, And it doesn't say much for the judgement of Gail Collins, the editorial page editor of the New York Times who either wrote or approved the editorial.

But what was most startling about this editorial was it's referral to Obama's lies, deceptions,pandering, and reneging on pledges as "The New Obama".

To Collins this "New Obama" was confounding. She found Obama's dishonesty and the fact that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth and reversing himself on every position he took during the primary "perplexing". And she is "distressed" to learn that Obama does not keep his word and panders to whomever he happens to be talking to at the moment to try and get what he wants.

Calling him "The New Obama" , the Times never makes the obvious connection to what 40 years ago was called "The New Nixon". This was the term Nixon used to forge his political comeback. Everyone saw through it and it was a joke because everyone knew it was the same old Nixon trying to repackage himself just as it is the same old Obama, who conned the people he needed to gain his primary advantage and is now trying to sell his snake oil to evangelicals and conservatives but telling them it contains a completely different set of ingredients than the snake oil he sold to Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Bill Richardson, Newsweek, and everyone else who bought it and drank it. And that's the difference.

While the old media never bought "the New Nixon" and saw through it, obviously this collection of journalists who seem to have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night on Bali, led by Collins and the New York Times, has never been able to see through Obama. They think that what they're seeing now is something "new", instead of the same Obama so many millions saw through right from the beginning, though Bob Herbert a Times columnist and Obama supporter seems to be the first at the newspaper to actually start saying "wait a minute..".

The analogy of Obama to Nixon is valid from many different points of view since a case can be made that Obama is the most underhanded and dishonest politician since Nixon. Obama even has his own Helen Gahagan Douglas, the political opponent Nixon falsely smeared as a communist to win his first election, in Alice Palmer.Obama, using money and oppressive legal tactics challenging every name on Palmer's petition strong armed Palmer off the ballot in Chicago to win his first election. There is a similar attempt going on now in a more subtle way to try and keep Senator Clinton from putting her name in nomination at the convention which is not only her right but which democratic process demands given that as of this moment, there is in fact no official nominee of the Democratic Party since neither won enough delegates to secure the nomination. And there wont be any nominee until super delegates vote at the convention where, as the rules provide, they can cast their vote for whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish and are not bound by any previous declarations.

The comparison between "The New Obama" and "The New Nixon" were obviously lost on Gail Collins and The New York Times. She didn't even seem to know there was a comparison to make and that the term had been used 40 years ago to describe Nixon. That there is an editorial page editor writing about politics for the NY Times that is this ignorant of fairly recent political history is a reflection of what passes for journalism today and how weak it is.

Maybe turning Obama into "The New Obama" is what Collins and the NY Times need to do in order to save face rather than admit they were taken in by a snake oil salesman and fooled. This is what con artists traditionally count on -- that people who get conned are so embarrassed they were taken in, that, rather than admit it, they keep their mouths shut or pretend it didn't happen to avoid having to face that they were stupid enough to be conned in the first place. This is how con artists get away with it, when they do.

How far the press has to go before they'll admit they were conned no one knows. And what super delegates will do and whether they can admit they were conned no one knows. It will come down to whether or not they regard saving the party more important than saving their face.

According to the most recent poll, 54% of Clinton's primary voters said they will never vote for Obama if he is the nominee ( yes if), and if 54% are saying it, 75% are thinking it and possibly more will act on it. And even if it were only 50%, that still makes it impossible for Obama to win a single state and if a third stay home as they are saying they would, he will take the Democratically controlled congress down with him.So, to quote Jeremiah Wright the chickens could be coming home to roost.

With Clinton having her name placed in nomination the Democratic Party has an out. Whether super delegates will take it no one can know.But this makes it more important than ever for the Democrats to have Clinton's name placed in nomination and to have an honest roll call vote in spite of Obama's machinations to try and stop it. Because what we do know is that the New Obama, like the New Nixon will always be up to the same old tricks. And the New York Times, who closed their negative Obama editorial by actually quoting Obama's campaign slogan of "change we can believe in", cant seem to learn new ones.


Anonymous said...

Marc. Wow!!!!!!!!! YET!!!! another home run! Loved it! Elixir for the soul!

TOTALLY agree that this primary (even more than the Iraq war...if you can believe that) exposes the pathetic...and therefore dangerous blindness/ignorance/ of American media.

It is more than frightening!

You offer hope!!!!


THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ElleR said...

Actually, Andrew Rosenthal is the editorial page editor and Gail Collins is now a columnist who wrote a column entitled "The Same Obama" today -- making some of the same points you are making.

Marc said...

"Actually, Andrew Rosenthal is the editorial page editor and Gail Collins is now a columnist who wrote a column entitled "The Same Obama" today -- "

My understanding was that Rosenthal retired and that Collins was promoted to editorial page editor but if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

Anonymous said...

Tom pardon me if I think out loud a moment.

If a signifcant amount of Hillary's voters stay home or vote McCain, the #'s seem to say an Obama win is highly unlikely.

If you guys succeed, get Hillary's name on the ballot(as it should be)which either way that goes the interncine conflict within the party might be irreperable.

If she does in the end get the nomination. The Obots will cause pandemonium the likes of which I shudder to imagine, and might discredit the party into oblivion. Also the AA vote(94% suppoting him)will likely at best stay home. The Dems cannot win without them, period.

On top of all this there is the money issue, she is $20mil in the hole. Most of her big donors are maxed out already. As we can see by Obama's half-hearted efforts to help her with this, if he is knocked out of the race at the covention I think I am fairly safe in saying his massive war-chest will be closed to her.

How then can she mount a viable bid for the White House? The DNC is at best best broke if not bankrupt, the RNC is flush with cash and McCain's fund-raising is finally picking($27mil this mo.) up a head of steam.

Seams like a daunting moutain to climb if ask me.

Where am I going with all of this? As a concerned and patriotic Ind. the divisive and partisan infighting in Congress is destroying our nation. To get out the place we find ourselves in, we need to think outside of the box.

Call me crazy but I think the only way to break out of this is a split ticket. As a former campaign worker for John I am trying build support for a McCain/Clinton ticket...I know ,I know, But look at this and tell me if it truly impossible..

Now it seems faily evident to me that these have at minimum an amicable working relationship, more likely I'd say they genuinely like eachother. Sure the hurdles to reconcile their differences would immense. Health care anyone?

But that is the point, WE ALL OF US, have to do this very thing. Can anyone think of two better people to accomplish this herculean task?

I floated this question over on No Quarter and got a surprisingly positive response Whaddaya Think?

Anonymous said...

just thinking are they really stupid or corrupt

Adam said...

In response to Anonymous: as to where Hillary Clinton would get money to compete in the general election? Well, the $84 million dollars in federal funding would be a good place to start looking. Furthermore, I doubt many of her big-money supporters have maxed out their $28,000 to the DNC, plus unlike Barack Obama, Hillary would not be afraid to utilize the support of 527s. Money ultimately would not be much of an issue. But you are right that if Hillary were selected as the nominee the Obamabots would raise hell like you've never seen. What else would you expect from a bunch of childish half-wits? They would probably tear down Invesco field brick by brick. Man, even if Hillary would end up losing in a landslide because every Obama supporters votes for McCain, it would be worth it just to see the look on their faces at the convention.

democraticjack said...

Everything old is new again. Or vice versa. The "new candidate of change" never existed and Marc knew it and I knew it along with nearly 18 million others. After all the sturm and drang and the smoke clears the Obama supporters are left with the truth and as they say, the truth hurts.

regencyg said...

I say, in response to the last Anonymous, Hillary can indeed win without the AA vote if it came to that, which I don't think it would. Her coalition was already bigger than Obama's within the Dem party; it would be even bigger once Indies and Republicans are allowed to vote without question.

That's not arrogance, that's fact.

trist said...

Call me crazy but I think the only way to break out of this is a split ticket. As a former campaign worker for John I am trying build support for a McCain/Clinton ticket...I know ,I know, But look at this and tell me if it truly impossible..

Well, if the DNC puts through the messiah, I WILL be voting 4 McCain. I really don't know how a joint ticket with him and Hillary would work though. I've actually talked about it with others before, but it's not gonna happen. The idea is intriguing though.

BTW I posted this in the other thread, but for anyone who didn't see it, I'll repost it again, as it's very important!

For anyone who doubts that there is REAL hope for Hillary to come out of the convention as our nominee, go listen to Will Bower one of the founders of PUMA who co-hosted the "No-We-Wont" radio show on Wed. You can here it here:
He said that already 8 super delegates who had pledge to the messiah have switched over, or back over, to Hillary.

People, this movement(unlike that corporate funded total fabrication of Obamas) is REAL. And it's WORKING!

Right now there is a major push to retire Hillary debt. Will was on FOX today speaking about it. Apparently Dean and the DNC are forcing Hillary to retire her debt by THIS FRIDAY that is July 11 or they will use that as some lame excuse to remove her name from the ballot!

Will said we are nearly there, and feels confident we will make the goal, but if you can help by giving ANYthing at all please go to Hillary's site and do so.

We are in the fight of our lives for this country and we can win this...we HAVE to!


Anonymous said...

turndownobama-com here

Marc said:
"According to the most recent poll, 54% of Clinton's primary voters said they will never vote for Obama if he is the nominee"

Is that a typo or a different poll? CNN says it is 54% who will vote for Obama, leaving 46% who will not.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

trist said...

I say, in response to the last Anonymous, Hillary can indeed win without the AA vote if it came to that,

I agree. Hillary took nearly every big state any Dem will have to win in the General and she did it WITHOUT the black vote.

But the real issue is how not to lose the AA vote in future elections. The DNC has put us ALL in a terrible position. No matter what happens at the convention half the party will be disenfranchised. They've already decided we were the ones they didn't care about disenfranchising. So it IS pretty hard to see they would do the right thing now, and then tick off the other half. ESPECIALLY since they do not want Hillary.

I really think what it comes down to is what do they want take back the White House in Nov. or keep Hillary out of the WH?

At this point the ONLY real solution I see is a joint ticket. They would want the messiah on the top, but I think enough Hillary people will not go for that to ensure a win in Nov.
I know I wouldn't vote for it. I do not that man anywhere NEAR the WH unless it's on a public tour.
However, I WOULD grit my teeth and support a joint ticket if Hillary was at the top of the ticket.
That is the ONLY compromise for the sake of getting the WH back that I would be willing to make.
I know the culties and much of black America won't go for it, but it's that or nothing I think.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a secret VoteBoth person, and I am certainly against this because I have no interest in seeing Clinton iron Obama's shirt, so to speak:

Doesn't it seem that if Obama's numbers and fundraising do not go up because of Clinton holdouts, that he will most likely put her on the ticket, and therefore what will that do to his chances of a win? the number of PUMAs will probably go down and the Democratic turnout will rise?

If acrimony exists, and the party worries that a riot will erupt, again, wouldn't the best way to avoid this be to put them together on the ticket?


Anonymous said...

in response to Trist:

the DNC should send Obama out on a dog and pony show of Unity and tout the Clinton administration's record for the AA community, including diversity in the Administration.

I think the threat that we'd lose the black vote is complete BS...more likely it's the Obama-supporting elitists including the media (mostly white, and white males) who were using this fear-mongering meme to subvert Clinton.

Seriously, how often did we see the media ask African Americans - the typical man or woman on the street - how they would vote if Clinton had won the nomination? basically zero...because the media were afraid being so honest about race would seem like racism.


trist said...

Seriously, how often did we see the media ask African Americans - the typical man or woman on the street - how they would vote if Clinton had won the nomination?

Very true. I noticed that myself, during the coverage.

EVERYthing about the primary was media manipulation.

Right from the start of the primary after Obama won Iowa and they were heading into NH when all the media’s polling indicated she would lose there too, they were salivating over it. They were saying things like “Oh it’s so sad to see the Clinton era over, but everyone knows it’s time now” or “The Clintons did a lot for this country, but it really is time to allow the new face of the Democratic party to come to light and lead us into the future” They also made mention how the press was tired of covering them. They said this on tv. That during the rallies leading up to NH the people in the press pool would be talking to each other, those that were covering Hillary’s rallies, and were glad that it was finally almost over for the Clintons and they could move on.
I thought to myself: “what the hell! They’re writing her off after one little caucus and some polling?!?!” Who else would they have EVER said that about? No ONE!
I would never have believed that the Clintons were hated as they are by the media and those in the DNC before this election. I just never knew.

One of the other things that stands out relates to how Bill was treated. First was right before or right after the vote in SC. You know where he was officially labeled the worlds biggest racist. Not sure if it was from the “fairytale” comment or the Jesse comparison but the day after on MSNBC the worst offenders. Every single reporter on that day asked whomever they were interviewing the same question in the exact same way. It was phrased something like “So let me show you the clip of Bill Clinton’s racist remarks, and then I’ll get your opinion on them” They ALL did this. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I knew different people wouldn’t have asked the same question, especially in the same way. So I knew they were reading copy pushed by who ever runs things over there, the director, or the network itself. But it was a leading question designed to re-enforce a negative in the viewers minds. In essence they were actively helping to create this idea that Bill is a racist.
Honestly, that was the day, I thought I was losing it. This is the station I trusted! I thought maybe it’s me. And then Maxine Waters came on there, and that Nora O’donell asked her the same question and FINALLY she called them on it….sort of. She said something like I’ve been watching you guys all day and you need to stop it! She was mad. And I was GLAD, that someone else saw what was happening. She’s didn’t specify what they were doing, but she sure got her point across and threw Nora for a loop!

I don’t know who I hate more at this point, the Obama camp, the DNC or the media. I guess equally since they ALL had a part in it.

There are MORE things I could bring up, but I won’t, just makes my pressure go up! ^_^

Susie said...

***Actually, Andrew Rosenthal is the editorial page editor and Gail Collins is now a columnist who wrote a column entitled "The Same Obama" today -- making some of the same points you are making.***

She is and she did, but she decided, cheerily, that none of Obama's 180-degree turns meant anything as long as he kept the faith on what's really important, to her anyway, and she seemed to be sure he would, although I don't know on what grounds.

Anonymous said...

turndownobama here

As a PUMA for McCain, I'd work harder against Obama/Clinton than Obama/anyone. -- As someone said,I don't want to see her put him over the top so she can give up her own career and iron his shirt till she's 68!

Recently a O/C ticket was discussed on bitterpoliticz with iirc all negative reaction, and pumapac or h44 also nearly all negative.

I've even got a petition against it:

The only Hillary admirers I know of who are for it are some at (and I don't know how many of them are).

Unfortunately, I'm sure there are a lot of low-information Dems who would go for it,though.

JoeySky said...

I won't let neither the new or old Obama walk my dog.
His phony speech ain't fool me.

JoeySky said...

The different between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary has a broader base of coalition and she can get GOP vote.

If she does get the nominee, Hillary will win the White House. First, she can pull the vote from McCain - the women vote & the blue collar vote will go to Hillary.

Second, more BO supporters are willing to vote for HRC than vice versa.

Third, a lot of liberal that voted for BO already have buyer remorse due to his Repug-lite talking-voting. Hillary can pull the vote from this group.

waiting4hrc said...

Dear Marc,

I hope this article becomes another e-mail that you fire off to a newspaper, this time NYT.

Folks, how about a Clinton/McCain ticket?!

Also, the country cannot be held hostage to threats of violence by Obamugabe's supporters if he does not get the nom. Leave those tactics for Zimbabwe!

Sarah Ferguson said...

Trist, you nailed it. Here is a great article

Sarah Ferguson said...

I forgot to say...

The race baiting came from the Obama camp.
That's the guts of the article, written by Sean Wilentz, an historian at Princeton.

trist said...

Sarah, Thank you for the link! That article summed everything up perfectly! I'm bookmarking that one!

I have to say as a black American who wasn't sure I would ever see a person of color get this close to becoming Pres. I also NEVER thought that if I did, I would look at it with such pending dread. But then I never imagined there was a Barack Obama out there waiting to come along.
I also never thought I would hate someone more than Bush, and certainly didn't expect someone worse would come up right after him! And the strangest thing is, Bush actually ruined this country, he DID something to deserve contempt. What the hell has Obama done, but run his mouth?

It's not a nice position to be in I can tell ya. But the idea that, that man could be in the history books and serve as some sort of example and role model for generations to come sickens me!

Honestly, I do not even think of him as AA, I see him as a slimy poser who has used the legacy and history of blacks in this country which he has NO claim to, and used it along with the race baiting tactics to get so many of us to back him. We're being played, and most don't even see it. Sad, sad, sad.

And I will NEVER forget of forgive for what was done to Bill and Hillary's reputations and legacy. I will also never understand how so many can so easily accept what was said about them as truth and turn their backs on them. They deserved better.

The over-ridding desire to say: "Yeah! We finally got one!"
Has lead so many blacks and whites I think, to be blind to the type of person they're on the verge of electing, or at least nominating.
And it's precisely because they can't see past skin color that they're doing it....Oh the irony of it all!

Mirlo said...

I agree with waiting4hrc; it would be wrong to be held hostage to threats of some Obamabots, going along out of fear of riots. Just think wwhat it would mean in the long run!
One other very important point: I think many AA voters will realize that having the first AA POTUS being a corrupt, inexperienced, empty suit would hurt their community for decades. Who'd want another Nixon? It's been 40 years and being associated with him is still a negative. I wish for AA's to have their first POTUS to be a capable, value driven, honest, strong and shining personality.

britgirls said...

I did fleetingly see the appeal of an Obama/Clinton ticket, but the fact is it would be a vote to completely end her chances of being POTUS forever.

If Obama/Clinton lost in November then the blame would be heaped on Clinton for dragging him down and the DNC would more than likely subject us to Obama as the nominee in 2012. Oh ma Gaaaaaad!!! Make it stop!!!

If Obama/Clinton wins in November then you know he's never going to let her outshine him ... being VP will be a total waste of her talents. He'll have such a disastrous presidency that he'll be defeated in 2012. And Hillary won't have a chance to run again until 2016.

So there's no way in hell I can vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. Just praying that Clinton is nominated this time, if not, I'm voting for McCain.

susan h said...

Our big question: Do we save the Democratic party or do we save the country? Everyone here needs to think this through and answer it for themselves. Please read - an article dated July 7, 2008 entitled "Why we don't shut up and fall in line". I am not advocating voting for John McCain (I have not made up my mind yet what to do about Nov. 4) but so many things about Obama make me thnk we need to save the country from him at any cost (I am from Chicago and know first hand his history of corrupt politics and lack of interest in doing anything for his constituents). The Dem. party as we knew and loved seems to no longer exist after this coup from the rabid Obama zealouts. I wonder how AA's will feel after they finally realize Mr. O. really does not care about their agendas (I think Jesse Jackson has known this all along) - where does Obama really stand on any issue?

Thank you Marc, for the wonderful article and thank you all bloggers - it is great to be among such lovely company.

glennmcgahee said...

Mr. Rubin, who knew? All Hillary needed to do these last months was just go to work. At last, when Obama had to get back to the Senate, he shows what he's made of. I guess thats why his records from the Illinois legislature are disaqppeared, they'd tell us too much. No mention in any media of Obama's work in the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee. Why? Because there is none. Thats why.
Just words, thats all he is.

not a dem anymore said...

This is a great read...Thank you for taking the time.

suef4hil said...

Marc- I wish I had the ability to articulate like you. Guess that's why I am not a journalist.
I am sending this link to everyone I know today, this is a great piece for my democratic friends who do not understand why I am not on the unity train.
They keep forgetting I was run over by the Obamabus.

Anonymous said...

Some comments on other blogs by AA's that I would love to share with you all...

This is posted over on Greta’s PUMA blog. I found it moving and thought it should be shared.

Comment by Wisewoman
July 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
From a 63 yr old, black female supporter of Hillary, thanks. I knew I would not vote for Obama after the awful debacle in SC where while accusing the Clintons of racism, Obama himself used race-baiting tactics to win SC and further his campaign. Obama had won IA, lost NH, lost Nevada, he had to win SC or risk being out of the race if he didn’t win this overwhelmingly black participating democratic primary. At this point Hillary had a 65% black support in SC. Obama had to rip these voters from Hillary’s hands, thus he played the victim of race on comments that in no way could be consrued to be racist. He was helped in this effort by Donna Brazille and Jim Clyburn of SC. Because I am retired I was able to closely watch his effort unfold. I marched with Dr King. Obama dishonored all who helped in the civil rights struggle and dishonored King. For this I despise him and will never vote for him, ever. I grew up during the James Brown “I’m black and I’m proud” era. I can not be proud of him becomming the first “black affirmative action nominee” due to the actions of the DNC and the super delegates.

This is from a black woman on Unheard American Voices... i love it!!

Rev. Wright Different isn't Defective.....Well Duh

by: 1 black Detroit mom aka vote theft victim #3
Sunday April 28th 2008
the Rev. Jeremiah Wright came to Detroit Michigan to address the Michigan NAACP. He gave a sermon with a very focused message, vote Barack Obama and I am not a racist. Well after listening to his sermon and taking time to absorb his oration, I am astounded at just how insulated Rev. Wright must be, ethnically, socially and culturally or is that just what he aspires for his followers?

Apparently the esteemed Rev. Wright has missed a large part of the world I live in. The world I live in is full of color and individual variances, we have blue, green, pink, red and any other color of hair we have people with a lot of cranial accessories (facial jewelry), we have heterosexuals working alongside homosexuals that do not experience discrimination and vice versa, we have white and black and brown and any color you can image that attend church together, work together, we live along side each other, we travel together, our children go to school together, we are involved in our community together, we dine together, we walk through the same doors, we drink from the same fountains. America has been changing, apparently Rev. Wright has not rather it would seem he has hidden from progress.

Rev. Wright was correct about one thing, "different is not defective". Guess what Rev. Wright. Most of America already knows that and lives it everyday. Although it appears the esteemed Rev. Wright has segregated himself and his community to the point that this concept is new to him. I am going to go Rev. Wright one better, different is not defective different is delightful. Rev. Wright different is beautiful, colorful, and interesting and in this day and age it is not discouraged it is encouraged.
Despite his constant subliminal Vote for Barack Obama "Change is coming" messages, it was apparent rather than seeking unity and progress he was using the art of phraseology and the beautiful spirit filled exuberance of the black church to put emphasis on his underlying message of separatism.

My roots are not in Africa, my ancestors were, my neighbors roots are not in Europe, their ancestors where, my roots are in America. I am a person of color, but I am a American I am not an African and make no mistake my loyalties lie with America Rev. Wright. I do not wish to separate myself nor my family from America I do not wish to see a black America and white America and yellow America and brown America.

Rev. Wright I grew up on welfare in "the projects". I am now a college graduate a wife and mother of 2 children. I will not teach my children to look for injustices because if they cant make it in this world and rise above the unfairness we all experience in life it is their own deficiencies not societies. If you teach children to look for injustices they will always find them and they will always see others of another color as out to hold them down, with an attitude like that they will never find successes.

I do not now nor have I ever nor will I ever tolerate Ebonics in my household, while we do not speak the English of England or Europe we do speak, in this house, the English of America, because Rev. Wright we are American's in this house. I am personally sick and tired of hearing all about the mother land Africa, yes our history is beautiful and colorful and sad and frightening and bright and vibrant but my mother land is America my ancestors mother land was Africa. I will tell you what apparently other blacks don't want to tell you or are afraid to tell you, if you feel so strongly that big bad whitey is out to get you and the mother land Africa needs so much help then you should leave you mansion in Illinois and go to Africa and do you nasty separatist work there.

From BMW60 PUMAPAC member

Anonymous said...


THANK YOU!!!!! for sharing your concerns.

It literally brings me to tears of sorrow and someone who is not AA...(but who is DEEPLY concerned about our country's need to address racial injustice) witness Obama's sly and dangerous manipulations and use of raw, racial advance his own campaign/ ways that I believe will ultimately reverse hard-fought advances.

(One blaring example: He says he's for death penalty for rapists... And just what color does he think a rapist who would get the death penalty is most likely to be...given our prejudiced judicial system!)

Your writing from the perspective as an AA...with such eloquence and clarity...helps me find some peace...AND hope.

Also, I'm SO!! glad there is a place we can share our this respectiful forum.

But wanted you to know, Trist, that your writing REALLY makes a difference!!!!

Anonymous said...

turndownobama here

It seems to me that the actions coincide: saving the Democratic party and saving the country.

In both cases, the action is to defeat Obama in November. This saves the USA from another ego puppet POTUS and hopefully helps us clean house in the DNC so as to preserve a true two party system.

We're lucky McCain is running this year. A victory for him will bring the GOP toward sane center, saving them from the radical religious rightwing.

That's a lot of saving for just one vote. :-)

trist said...

Dear anonymous,
thank YOU for the comments about my post. It means a lot! ^_^

Sarah Ferguson said...

Trist, I also appreciate your words.

It's definitely a weird place to be. I see both tokenism and a desire to transcend race in Obama. I'm not sure if I already mentioned this here, but I think the race card is now going to be used against him. When a feminist of notoriety refers to him as exotic, when a woman on "The Countdown" slyly refers to him as backhanded, when Chris Matthews sneers in a split screen shot with him, there is a racial subtext.

But it's the first case that I'm so interested in, because the fetishization of identity, whether cultural or racial, is not only dangerous, but it has unpredictable consequences.

You are expressing something that I believe will be demonstrated in the polls in the form of a backlash to the "making of Obama." Archie Bunker doesn't give a rat's ass what Obama's middle name is. He is worried about his pension and may lose his home. He will vote for who he thinks will help his bottom line. The more "Obama as phenomena" is about identity, the less likely he'll win over Archie, the swing voter.

Disclaimer and plea: When Bill Clinton ran in '92, I was 27 years old and I hated him. I thought he was phony. I voted for him regardless. Now, 16 years later, I think he was a pretty damn good president. I'm only saying this because I no longer demonize politicians, including Obama. He played the only card he had to beat Hillary. I hate that he did it. But I'll pull the lever for him if I have to.

In the meantime, Marc is giving me hope that I may be able to vote *for* someone, instead of against someone, for the first time in my life.

Kendall Dean said...

I found your blog from another website, and I made a youtube video about Obama's FISA vote that no one in the mainstream media seems to be talking about. I was wondering if you would possibly share this with your friends on here. Thanks!


Mar said...

Paul Klugman at the NYTimes was alone in not drinking the Obama kool-ade. He consistantly supported Hillary during the primaries and he favored her health care plan.

I stopped reading Frank Rich a long time ago because of his blind devotion to the precious messiah Obama.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH i saw your ad in the chicago tribune. you guys are a joke.

Anonymous said...


Watched your POWERFUL video. Thanks for posting it here!

Hope everyone who posts here gets a chance to view it!

Again...Kendell's VIDEO (on Obama's FISA vote) video is at

Hope you keep making your videos!!!!

Anonymous said...

wah wah wah.
I did not get my way so I'm going to throw a temper tantrum.

Wow. You guys really are crazy. A real piece of work.
I suggest instead of throwing fits you take your meds and grow the hell up.
Hillary lost and the clinton era is in the trash heap of history.
It is now Obama's time and era and the party is Obama's.
Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

You know if you all hold your breath, stomp your feet and vote for mcCain it still won't matter.
Not enough of you.
But, it will be fun to see how childish you behave when McSame loses in November and for a second time this year you backed a loser.
so, please vote for McSame.
It will be fun to see the temper tantrums you throw then. Hope they are as crazy and nutso as the ones you are throwing now.

Anonymous said...

If you are soooo devoted to the queen why don't you do something besides whine and cry and bellyache. Like pay off her debts.
Put your money where your mouth is.
You are so in love with Hillary and think she is all that.
Then prove it and send her some money.
Prove your devotion and instead of just sitting around crying, help Hillary out and pay off the huge debt she has.
or does that devotion only go so far. Only is useful to complain and wallow in self pity.
do something useful instead and constructive.
Send money and prove how much you really care.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for responding!!! with encouragement to my remarks.

I was so relieved...actually...because I was actually brooding...thinking why did I have to add the part about the death penalty...which is such an emotional/controversial issue...that REALLY divides people. I worried that it would get in the way of my main message...which is

I don't think I can even express how DEEPLY I appreciated reading your remarks. I SO!!! totally agree with your perspective but have felt I'd be considered a express my concerns.

But more importantly...I haven't seen a better expression than yours...of the feelings...of wanting an AA President...but you said it so well...he seems like such an many ways...but even in his aligning himself with the awesome legacy of AA history/contributions!

Hope you are sharing your views in other forums!!!!!

ALSO. I meant what I said about appreciating having a place to exchange views. (Marc, this is the best I've found!!!!)

Last year I had an opportunity to become more familiar with the works/writings/sermons of Martin Luthern King, Jr. For example, I listened to audiotape ("A Knock at Midnight")...featuring his AMAZING sermons. And I found his sermons STILL contain needed! wisdom which empowers...not only regarding civil rights issues...but for anyone searching for spiritual guidance...regarding life's challenges. (Whatever one's religious/spiritual leanings.) Such as how to deal with feeling broken-hearted.

If I had a zillion dollars...I'd be putting his words out counter the poison of REV. Wright...and to truly build racial/ethnic understanding/forgiveness/trust/unity. He's even more relevant today!




"A Knock at Midnight" can be purchased on audiotape through

You can purchase the book at
I know it's a long shot...that anyone would read this and click on his speeches/sermons. But I don't believe you'd be sorry. Most of us know MLK, Jr. only from the "I have a dream speech" and we need his wisdom now...more than ever....

bethtopaz said...

Someone please help me. I was discussing Obama with one of my friends today and telling him about what he did to Alice Palmer, how the DNC selected him a long time ago and denied the people's choice (Hillary won the popular vote in the primary), his vote on FISA and how he's not who he pretends to be.
My friend said, "Well, the one thing I really like about Obama is that he's only taking money from small donors."
I said that wasn't true.
I need some documentation to back this up. please send it me at

Tony Kondaks said...

Do pledged Obama delegates have the obligation to switch votes at the convention if they feel that he no longer represents the sentiments of those that elected him?

The DNC rules not only allow it, they encourage it:

RealChange said...

So, you're upset because Obama changed some of his positions? And Hillary has not? Isn't this the unfortunate nature of running for President? In the case of Democrats, candidates appeal to the Left in the primaries, then appeal to the Middle and Right in the general election. Show me one Democrat in recent history who hasn't changed their positions for the general election. Do I wish it wouldn't happen? Yes, of course. But to change this requires building a broader base for real change. How about we work together to do that, instead of promoting your divisive, and ultimately suicidal tactics?

dotcommodity said...

The ignorance is what made it possible for this astroturf campaign to convince people that he already won and simply needs coronating at the convention. He did not have enough delegates to win. It must be decided at the convention, or these last tatters of our democracy is a sham.

It is not true that taking this to a real convention dooms our chances against McCain. FDR was selected at the convention.

It is the undemocratic process of booting out a tied winner that dooms us.

MDR said...

"wah wah wah.
I did not get my way so I'm going to throw a temper tantrum."

Now we finally know the change that Obama supporters are looking for. Its a diaper.

MR said...

"You know if you all hold your breath, stomp your feet..."

"wah wah wah.
I did not get my way so I'm going to throw a temper tantrum..."

are we seeing a pattern with Obama supporters? Is the change they believe in consist of a diaper? Or are they just a case of arrested development?

Anonymous said...

What a mess we are in. The country and the Democratic Party. Before I go any further, common sense and reality dictate that anything that results in the election of McCain as President will doom this country's future. Think of your children and grandchildren and know that not one of us should allow that to happen.

I was not an Obama nor Hillary supporter in the primary. I was for Edwards but reluctantly came to accept Obama. Now I am in a complete conundrum. While I am angry and not a bit pleased with Obama for already broken promises, the Hillary support here baffles me for these reasons:

1.) What in the world shows any hope that she could win the election if she were the nominee? Too hated, too much baggage and her management of the primary was an absolute disaster (and no you CANNOT blame that on the media.)

2.) If any candidate has changed positions like underwear, it is Hillary. Suddenly the courageous fighter for the middle class? Give me a break! She never met a mega corporation or lobbyist she didn't like and get in bed with. She enabled GWB totally. The only vote that has character is her recent no on FISA and one has to wonder about that.

3.) Her outright lying about the bullets. Her different persona every week of the primary. Honestly I began to wonder if she was sane.

4.) Her new found feminism and pandering to women -- even more disingenuous than Obama's race baiting.

I've come to believe we've got BIG problems with Obama, but do not feel that Hillary is any practical solution for all the reasons above AND the inescapable reality that switching to Hillary at the convention would create riots, blood in the street and decades of set-back for the party -- providing Republicans the ticket to finish off the country.

I'm not really questioning the truth of "The New Obama" post highlighting that problem. If his recent betrayal on FISA and his other arrogant "dancing" is not enough to convince you of the problem, read this remarkable piece by Todd Spivak who was a reporter in Chicago when Obama started. It connects the dots you are seeing now:

So what to do? I propose a radical solution and I invite you to join me in its support: neither Obama nor Hillary get enough votes at the convention in the first round to claim the nomination. The delegates turn to John Edwards as the compromise candidate and award him the nomination.

Lest you think I propose this because of my initial support of John Edwards and wishful thinking, let me strongly emphasize that I lost enormous respect for John Edwards due to his profound falsehood of promising that he was in the primary until the end and soliciting money on that basis the day before he withdrew with no real explanation. That revealed deep character flaws in my opinion -- but probably not AS deep as Hillary has demonstrated nor as Obama has shown with his outrageous betrayal on FISA and the Constitution, but I agree that those points are perhaps debatable.

What is NOT debatable is that:

1) Obama has proven he is not a good choice;

2) If we switch to Hillary now we will have an election killing drama;

3) A switch to Edwards is the best choice and and path to win;

No matter what -- many of us are going to have a very sour taste in our mouth about this disaster, but depriving Republicans of a win is absolutely THE most important issue -- perhaps of our lifetime.

I hope you will sincerely consider what I suggest. Thanks for reading -- and thinking.

steve said...

I think this is all good stuff for the country. I've always despised her arrogance and absolute desperation to grab votes by whatever means necessary.

Obama made all the right noises during the campaign. He set a civil tone and raised the level of discourse. But once he had the nomination, he did an about face. So did I. I had my campaign contribution (the first ever) returned to me when he voted for the FISA bill.

As for lecturing the American people on not knowing everything about Obama, well, Rubin, not all of us eat, drink and shit politics. And the Fourth Estate (that includes you, as well) has long since abdicated its responsibility to serve the public because the entire society now serves corporations. Think before you pontificate.

In the end, however, I'd love to see the Dems implode. It might actually lead to a revolution. God knows if the GOP gets another four years in the White House, it may spell the end of their own party.

Me, I'll be honoring my integrity and voting for "None of the Asses Above."

MR said...

"Obama made all the right noises during the campaign. He set a civil tone and raised the level of discourse."

this is why 18 million people refer to obamabots as drinking the Kool Aid. the only thing correct about this statement is that what emanated from his mouth could be classifed as noise. Other than that he is simply someone who impresses the easily impressed with discourse that isnt much higher than a high school student trying to impress the adults with words that mean nothing but that he thinks sounds sophisticated. And unsophisticated people trying to pretend they are sophisticated fall for it and make fools out of themselves. And obviously youre one of the adults who is impressed. Other than that you can reverse every comment you made and apply it to Obama and then you will slowly start to resemble something close to the truth.

Anonymous said...

Obama is the most dishonest politician since Nixon? Really? What about George W. Bush?

I would be curious to see some cited sources proving that Obama voted against FISA specifically because of courting telecom campaign contributions. Do they exist? Or is this allegation speculative?

What about Senator Clinton's broken promise to respect the DNC concerning Florida and Michigan? Hillary has officially endorsed Obama. Would you have her "break that pledge?"

Remember 2003? A simpler time when "progressives" like Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq? Remember the war in Iraq? You guys are right, though. Let's all hand McCain the election and keep it going.

trist said...

I don't think I can even express how DEEPLY I appreciated reading your remarks. I SO!!! totally agree with your perspective but have felt I'd be considered a express my concerns.

Anonymous, I understand how you feel. Yes, we've ALWAYS had difficulty in the country talking about issues like race and racism, mostly because we don't know how what we say will be interpreted, or miss-interpreted. But thanks to Obama it's become a complete climate of fear! And dispite all his false claims of opening up a dialouge and uniting people, he has built his whole campaign on doing the exact opposite!

I've remarked many times with others how I know many whites are afraid to make any comments or critizms about his campaign or him, because of the racist claims they face. Not just from Obama's campaign but many of all backgrounds in the media and from his supporters. Of course it's also happening within the black community as well. I've seen plenty of people both on tv, online and off talking about the pressure to support him or suffer backlash if they don't.
But the thing is, they've used that claim so often, it's become a joke! They've actually devalued the word "racist" now. And from what I've seen people are so sick of having that charged labeled against them no matter WHAT they say or do, they no longer fear it. If they're gonna label you as one anyway, you might as well express your true feelings!

And we HAVE to, because Obama is counting on people's fear to keep anyone from challenging him on ANYthing. That is the only path he has left to try and waltz his way into that White House.

So don't feel bad or let those who devalue the true horror of racism by hurling it at EVERYone stop you from speaking out.
I mean I myself was called a racist just today. Someone had posted a video on Youtube, an Obama supporter wanting opinions on why some non-supporters refer to them as "cult like". After giving him my thoughts on it, he came back first with a post to engage me on the issue further, then I suppose he looked at my profile and when he didn't see a pic of me, I guess he thought I was white, because he left a second reply in which he said, he saw I was a "faceless hater" and called me a closest racist and that he didn't have time for my opinions any further.

So yeah, we're ALL getting it equally these days! LOL!

trist said...

Disclaimer and plea: When Bill Clinton ran in '92, I was 27 years old and I hated him. I thought he was phony. I voted for him regardless. Now, 16 years later, I think he was a pretty damn good president.

Sarah, you kinda sound like me. ^_^

Back in '92 I was 20 and that was my first time voting. For me it was about getting rid of Republican rule after 12yrs. But even though I knew I was going to vote Dem, I had NO CLUE who to support. Only thing I did know was I would never vote for Bill Clinton. I don't know what it was but I just didn't connect to or trust him I guess. I looked at all the candidates, was leaning toward Jerry Brown, but didn't feel too great about him either.
I just remember going to the polling place during the primary with my Mom and actually got all the way into the voting booth with that little punch pin in hand not knowing who would would get my vote, only that Bill wouldn't.
Well, I surprised myself and ended up voting for him anyway. But the strangest thing is even though I had been adamantly against him, as soon as I did it, I KNEW it was right. And I felt so good about it afterward. And even though his candidacy wasn't perfect and neither is he, I do believe he did this country good, and has been the BEST Pres. we've had in my life time.
I do think even with her flaws, Hillary would be the next great Pres. of our time, probably even better than Bill. Which I would never have believed, I suppose, if she hadn't gone through this trial by fire. I know she's grown as a person and a leader because of it. And garnered the type of support and loyalty she may never have had, if not truly distinguishing herself from Bill's legacy. She will make an even better Pres. because of it. We just can't lose this chance!

repubstheirownworstenemy said...


Bunch of sore losers.

Vote for McCain or don't vote as a protest? The blood'll be on your hands, folks. So will the generations of damage done to our country with McSame's appointment of two Supremes.

Do you really want to cut off your nose to spite your own face?

trist said...

anonymous I just wanted to respond to some of your charges:
#1What in the world shows any hope that she could win the election if she were the nominee? Too hated, too much baggage and her management of the primary was an absolute disaster (and no you CANNOT blame that on the media.)
Yes, Hillary's campaign made some serious errors in the beginning. Though I did read an article the other day about her former manager Doyle who is now working for Obama, possibly not having been working for Hillary in the BEST way, the buck STILL stopped with Hillary. She made the one fatal flaw that the DNC did this year, they both thought it's a sure thing!
If Hillary had planned for going past Super Tues. or had not counted on just the Clinton name to see her through, things would have been different even with everyone around her apparently conspiring to keep her out. If you want to call it arrogance or say she felt entitled fine.
But that SAME flaw also lead the DNC to think they could pick the most unqualified, ill-prepared person they could find, even more so than Bush, and still get him elected. Why? because they thought with great arrogance that there is no way in hell they can lose this year. They felt entitled, not that they had to do anything to actually earn it. No, it was just due them because the outrage over the Bush years.
Well suprise, surpise! They ALL messed themselves up.
The only difference here is that Hillary, because she WAS forced to endure this campaign, has proven herself the type of leader, with the type of strength and knowledge that she displayed, to be the person we hope beyond hope to find in someone who wants to lead this country. What has the DNC proven? That they can mount schemes like the Republicans, and are more than willing to screw over whoever they have to, to get what they want. Including throwing half the Democratic party overboard in the process.
Only unlike the Repubs. they even SUCK at this! They can't even cheat and win!
And now because they chose to not allow a fair election process to occur, they are on the verge of sticking us with a nominee who will lose, and probably lose badly in the general election. AND leave them without their voting base in tact. Because I promise you, the band-wangon jumping newbies that make up the bulk of the Obama support, will jump right off that wagon once he's out. They will not be here in 2yr, 4yr ect...And the Hillary people, the ones to come out and vote in every election, the give money to the DNC ones, are not going to support a party that chucks them and their concerns and issues aside whenever it's convenient. So they've screwed themselves and us, and for what????

I would LOVE to know if they had to do it all over again, would they do the same? Was the risk of ending up with another Clinton in the WH worth all this?

And to your other part, why do we think she can win? You only have to look at how the primary ended to answer that. Or have you forgotten that Hillary won 9 of the last 14 contest? At a time when it was supposedly all over, Obama was the "winner", more people came out for her. And if you want to chalk it up to a vote against him rather than for her, well that just makes it worse. Since if they're doing so now, imagine how many will come out to vote against him in the Gen! And as you said, after his latest flip flops and broken promises, he's even losing support amongst the most loyal supporters. Why do we think she can win? Because the longer this went on, the stronger she got, and the weaker he's become. THAT IS WHY!

Anonymous said...

I supported Hillary and will not vote for Obama because of his empty say-nothing rhetoric; his flip on FISA; and his disregard for women in general ['sweeties, tolerating his fundraiser characterizing women as "ho's."]
I am donating money I would have donated to the ACLU so they can overturn Obama on FISA. Also, I work too hard to have my money wasted on a football stadium meglomaniacal star turn in Denver.

trist said...

Please everyone should read this amazing commentary on Obama and his ego.

It is the best piece I've read. I was laughing hard. It was sad, pathetic, yet true, which makes it even sadder. It is one to pass on!

waiting4hrc said...

"What in the world shows any hope that she could win the election if she were the nominee?..."

Uhh, how about 18 million+ reasons, swingstate landslides and McCain matchup polls (for starters).

p.s.- Marc, do you notice a sudden increase in the number of Obamugabe supporters foaming at the mouth on this site? I'd say the Denver Group ad is having success! Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

"But you are right that if Hillary were selected as the nominee the Obamabots would raise hell like you've never seen. What else would you expect from a bunch of childish half-wits? They would probably tear down Invesco field brick by brick. Man, even if Hillary would end up losing in a landslide because every Obama supporters votes for McCain, it would be worth it just to see the look on their faces at the convention."

Spoken like a true Republican, just like the ones trying to push McCain as a co-candidate or alternative. How transparent!

Guess it's the old plant-and-switch game played so well by Nixon, speak of the devil. Any Democrat falling for this bunch of hooey deserves banishment. Divided we fall, so are you buying into that again? If you are, admiration is the last thing you'll get for it. You might even go down in history, but it won't be pretty - nothing your grandkids will be proud of, I can guarantee that.

Paine's in pain, rants like that have no basis in fact, just in hate. Get thee to a therapist or whoever heals the soul for you, Tom. All that personal hate in politics kills - many, many innocent people.

PTC said...

You “defenders of democracy” believe in your cause so much that you blatantly screen and ghost write comments so that you will find little more than cheerleading on this “blog”. This thing reads like a something created by the Chinese government in China.

After being linked on several other real blogs, and the fact that Hillary has conceded, one might think that you folks may have had a negative comment or two in here? But no! You are the heroes of the universe. Lol. What a joke.

Hillary has and continues to do the right thing, and you folks are obviously nothing more than a couple of angry dead enders supported by Republicans. I understand that controversy creates money. If there are some democrats in here, hope you all enjoy your new found friends Sean Hannity, Rush, and the other “Operation Chaos” clowns that muddled with a free and fair primary. May McCain’s zero record on women’s issues not trouble you at all as you push to get him elected.

McCain voted against SCHIP

Against the Family Leave Act

Against mandated birth control from insurance companies (for Viagra)

For “abstinence only” education

And against multiple bills supporting equal pay for women

If you are a Democrat, When this thing ends and if McCain wins, Roe may well be overturned. Have fun looking yourself in the mirror as you work against every issue that you believe in.

Hillary conceded. The election is over.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Obama is now being seen for what he is. A hypocrite since he is reversing himself on every issue to get to the middle as a moderate. The RNC and McCain will remind everyone he is the most liberal senator in the senate and point out all his flip flops. BTW, I am an AA and never thought Obama was qualified to be President. Unless HRC is put on the ticket as VP I will not be voting in November.

trist said...

anoymous said:
"Paine's in pain, rants like that have no basis in fact, just in hate. Get thee to a therapist or whoever heals the soul for you, Tom."

Well, if it's "soul healing" wouldn't that lead to your messiah? Michelle after all is the one who said at one of her rallies that she's married to the only person in this race who can "heal our souls"

Now, I don't know about you, but hearing that come from the wife of a politician is scary as hell! But perhaps I just need more info to alleviate me of my concerns.

Tell me, what is Obama's stance on soul healing? Is this supposed to be part of his "in name only" universal health care package? Will we therefor have the option of opting out of said soul healing services? Will this be covered by my health insurance, or does soul healing come under some other plan? What about those who don't have insurance?

And how is he planning to implement such an audacious initiative? Get to each of the 300+ million of us individually (which wouldn't exactly leave time for anything else, like running the country) or will it be a sort of all at once type of affair? And how are we supposed to know when our souls have in fact been healed? Can I expect to undergo some type of metaphysical change? Or ummmm I dunno maybe my clothes start to feel a bit tighter? Of course that could just be too many donuts.
Or perhaps he'll just send out mailers informing us he has in fact healed our souls? Which I'm assuming would be under tax payers expense. But then what's a few extra million in the budget for something as monumental as persons soul being healed!

Really, someone needs to press him on this. There are sooooo many questions I have about it. And I would like some answers.

It COULD make the difference in how many more people come out to vote for him....or not.

bethtopaz said...

trist - in answer to your question - nothing is impossible to the messiah, obama.

Anonymous said...

AGAIN! You nailed it.

Realize there is something in human DNA that seems to crave self-proclaimed Messiahs.

But even watch the media coronate Obama...has been the scariest part.

So, it's in forums like this...and posts like yours...and others here...that I maintain some hope/sanity.

Happy Bastille Day...everyone.

Donnie said...

54% said they would vote for Obama: Regardless your point is still true. Obama looks more and more vunerable, even with John McCain and the republicians, thus far, running the lamest campaign ever against him. We Hillary supporters could see pass the hype from the begginning.

Anonymous said...

Go ahead and keep trying to bring back the Clinton dynasty. Power corrupts anyone, and the longer one has it, the more adept they get at abusing it. The Clinton's were good, very good at power abuse by the presidency, Nixon would be proud. W carried on the tradition in the relay. But really, it's time to get over it. I see right through what Obama is doing. He focuses on the battle adversary immediately in front of him, while still keeping secret future plans of drying up the flood of excess housing with "reparartions" and resettlement of Iraqi refugees. (with all the bailouts, the Feds might as well take possession) If he is so bad, then start vortexs of enthusiasm now for candidates in 2012. But please, let the Clinton's go, and press to close that loophole in the 22nd amendment, we really don't need any more Bushs.