Barack Obama or John McCain

[John Simkin]

It is still not clear why Barack Obama was not willing to completely disassociate himself from Jeremiah Wright. That would have been the safest option. True, he would have been attacked by extremists, but that would only help him.

The speech was far too sophisticated for most electors. This is illustrated by Craig’s comments about the racism of Obama. It is the intellectual quality of Obama’s speech that I found most appealing. However, I suspect I am in a small minority. As I said before, a mainstream politician in the UK would not have dared to make such a speech.

This is what Michael Tomasky had to say about the speech:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/1...selections20082

Barack Obama's speech on race, delivered yesterday in Philadelphia, the city in which American democracy was founded and made concrete, was admirable, powerful, substantive and nuanced. That much is easy to know. What is harder to know, and what I do not know, is whether it will prove successful as a piece of politics.

He addressed head-on the firestorm over the incendiary and anti-American remarks made in a 2003 sermon by his former pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, the Rev Jeremiah Wright. Obama denounced Wright, making it clear where he disagreed with his spiritual mentor. The "profound mistake" Wright made in his most scabrous utterances, said Obama, rested in his assumption that "our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old - is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

But this was no facile "distancing" project of the sort politicians in extremis undertake to make a problem go away - for he embraced Wright as well. He is, Obama said, "like family to me". Say what you want of Obama; he did not take the easy way out here.

By longstanding tradition, the stage-crafted biographies of presidential candidates are presented to make Americans feel happy feelings about both candidate and country. Where possible, tales of heroism in battle are featured - see John McCain, John Kerry, George HW Bush et al.

Lacking that, the candidate and his handlers usually go for an up-by-the-bootstraps narrative, an immigrant success story - such as Michael Dukakis - or an account of a rise from the ashes of a broken home - one Bill Clinton. Lacking any of the above, some saga of personal redemption is offered - George W Bush flushed the whisky down the toilet and found Jesus.

In all cases, some small dose of adversity, some gesture towards the darker aspects of American life, is accepted. It is even demanded, because the point of introducing the gesture is to affirm the candidate's will and the nation's capacity to change. The 1988 Democratic candidate Dukakis's forbears faced discrimination; but they asked for no handouts and made it. Dole, who lost to an incumbent Clinton, came back from the second world war handicapped, lonely, a little embittered even, but he put himself back together and the greatest nation on earth allowed him to rise to great heights. That is the formula.

Obama's story does not quite hew to the formula. Or, perhaps, it does, but in a concentrated and intense form. His story asks Americans - specifically white Americans - to consider things about America that most of them would rather not. From this task, too, he was unflinching. He conspicuously did not speak of the "genius" of US constitution, as American politicians are meant to. He called the document "unfinished" and "stained by this nation's original sin of slavery", even making the founding fathers, whom he described as putting off for 20 years the decision on what to do about slavery, sound like regular old politicians.

I have to assume that many white Americans have been attracted to him in no small part because he seemed to offer a narrative that would not take us into these discomfiting, cobwebbed corners of the American psyche. He seemed, as someone's one-liner put it, "just the right amount of black"; like he probably belonged to a nice, genteel, interracial Episcopal church.

Well, tough - he didn't. And yesterday he basically told us why. He did so with about as much honesty as we have any right to expect from a person seeking the presidency. I am sure it helps us, as a society, to hear it all put out there with intelligence and subtlety. I am less sure about whether it will help him.

[Christopher Hall]

It is still not clear why Barack Obama was not willing to completely disassociate himself from Jeremiah Wright. That would have been the safest option. True, he would have been attacked by extremists, but that would only help him.

The speech was far too sophisticated for most electors. This is illustrated by Craig’s comments about the racism of Obama. It is the intellectual quality of Obama’s speech that I found most appealing. However, I suspect I am in a small minority. As I said before, a mainstream politician in the UK would not have dared to make such a speech.

This is what Michael Tomasky had to say about the speech:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/1...selections20082

Barack Obama's speech on race, delivered yesterday in Philadelphia, the city in which American democracy was founded and made concrete, was admirable, powerful, substantive and nuanced. That much is easy to know. What is harder to know, and what I do not know, is whether it will prove successful as a piece of politics.

He addressed head-on the firestorm over the incendiary and anti-American remarks made in a 2003 sermon by his former pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, the Rev Jeremiah Wright. Obama denounced Wright, making it clear where he disagreed with his spiritual mentor. The "profound mistake" Wright made in his most scabrous utterances, said Obama, rested in his assumption that "our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old - is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

But this was no facile "distancing" project of the sort politicians in extremis undertake to make a problem go away - for he embraced Wright as well. He is, Obama said, "like family to me". Say what you want of Obama; he did not take the easy way out here.

By longstanding tradition, the stage-crafted biographies of presidential candidates are presented to make Americans feel happy feelings about both candidate and country. Where possible, tales of heroism in battle are featured - see John McCain, John Kerry, George HW Bush et al.

Lacking that, the candidate and his handlers usually go for an up-by-the-bootstraps narrative, an immigrant success story - such as Michael Dukakis - or an account of a rise from the ashes of a broken home - one Bill Clinton. Lacking any of the above, some saga of personal redemption is offered - George W Bush flushed the whisky down the toilet and found Jesus.

In all cases, some small dose of adversity, some gesture towards the darker aspects of American life, is accepted. It is even demanded, because the point of introducing the gesture is to affirm the candidate's will and the nation's capacity to change. The 1988 Democratic candidate Dukakis's forbears faced discrimination; but they asked for no handouts and made it. Dole, who lost to an incumbent Clinton, came back from the second world war handicapped, lonely, a little embittered even, but he put himself back together and the greatest nation on earth allowed him to rise to great heights. That is the formula.

Obama's story does not quite hew to the formula. Or, perhaps, it does, but in a concentrated and intense form. His story asks Americans - specifically white Americans - to consider things about America that most of them would rather not. From this task, too, he was unflinching. He conspicuously did not speak of the "genius" of US constitution, as American politicians are meant to. He called the document "unfinished" and "stained by this nation's original sin of slavery", even making the founding fathers, whom he described as putting off for 20 years the decision on what to do about slavery, sound like regular old politicians.

I have to assume that many white Americans have been attracted to him in no small part because he seemed to offer a narrative that would not take us into these discomfiting, cobwebbed corners of the American psyche. He seemed, as someone's one-liner put it, "just the right amount of black"; like he probably belonged to a nice, genteel, interracial Episcopal church.

Well, tough - he didn't. And yesterday he basically told us why. He did so with about as much honesty as we have any right to expect from a person seeking the presidency. I am sure it helps us, as a society, to hear it all put out there with intelligence and subtlety. I am less sure about whether it will help him.

John-

I agree with a good bit of what you say, except for slighting Craig.

I don't agree with black or white separatists, and I find Wright repugnant.

As always, Obama delivered a speech in his masterful, eloquent manner, but his willing association with Wright is a tremendous poitical liability.

[Craig Lamson]

The speech was far too sophisticated for most electors. This is illustrated by Craig’s comments about the racism of Obama.

Perhaps you are sophisticated enough to point out my comments about the racism of Obama.....I would love to see them.

Obama blew it in his speach. Instead of taking a chance to actually lead he chose to pander...to the black voters. Words like Wrights are the standard fare for the leaders of the Black community. They promote hatred and division. They must as it's the link that secures their power.

If Obama was the true leader and uniter that he claims he would not have excused the hatred spewing from Wright and others, he would have made it clear it needed to stop and stop now. But he didn't do that. Why? Because to do so would have been political death. He simply became another lying pol. He needs the black vote. Without those who will vote for him based on the color of his skin, he is done.

So Obama pandered instead of leading.

A sophisticated and intellectual speach? Na. Just your garden variety cover-your-butt political doubletalk.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The speech was far too sophisticated for most electors. ...It is the intellectual quality of Obama’s speech that I found most appealing. However, I suspect I am in a small minority.

Obama's appeal is to the young and the college-educated, and I do not think the speech was too sophisticated for that audience.

Hillary's appeal has been to blue-collar whites and, while the speech may be sophisticated for some of them, their college-educated kids will explain it.

One of the remarkable features of this campaign is that people are supporting Obama at the behest of their own children. Caroline Kennedy is the best-known example of this phenomenon, but no doubt many other examples will be unfolding this weekend as families gather for the Easter holidays.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Today I feel sorry for poor Geraldine Ferraro's tarnished legacy:

Geraldine Ferraro resents being lumped in with the Rev. Wright in Obama speech

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8629143

In the speech, Obama sought to place the inflammatory remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a broader context, in part by placing them on a continuum with Ferraro's recent remark to the Daily Breeze that Obama is "lucky" to be black.

"To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable," Ferraro said today. "He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred."

Here's poor Geraldine, trying to spread the Christian Gospel of Love and Peace and racial healing, and now Obama is comparing her to the prohet Jeremiah.

Here's why Geraldine is going nowhere fast: In his speech, Obama very cleverly referred to Ferraro's racist comments as a "gaffe."

Ferraro's comments were not intended as a gaffe by either Hillary or herself, yet somehow thats what they turned out to be.

[Craig Lamson]

The speech was far too sophisticated for most electors. This is illustrated by Craig’s comments about the racism of Obama.

Perhaps you are sophisticated enough to point out my comments about the racism of Obama.....I would love to see them.

Obama blew it in his speach. Instead of taking a chance to actually lead he chose to pander...to the black voters. Words like Wrights are the standard fare for the leaders of the Black community. They promote hatred and division. They must as it's the link that secures their power.

If Obama was the true leader and uniter that he claims he would not have excused the hatred spewing from Wright and others, he would have made it clear it needed to stop and stop now. But he didn't do that. Why? Because to do so would have been political death. He simply became another lying pol. He needs the black vote. Without those who will vote for him based on the color of his skin, he is done.

So Obama pandered instead of leading.

A sophisticated and intellectual speach? Na. Just your garden variety cover-your-butt political doubletalk.

Senator Obama pandered to black voters because he needs the black vote? Some real profound political analysis you've been supplying in this thread, Craig; at least this one contained more than your standard two to three sentences. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama should already have the nomination locked up if it weren't for hundreds of thousands of Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries -- talk about "two-faced." And the not-so-simple thing about Obama's speech is that it spoke to the complexities of what it means to be an American -- proof of which being that what he said is totally lost on the likes of you.

Yea..he panderes all right. Sorry you can't see what's right in front of your eyes.

So now a republicans can't vote for anyone but a republican? Sheesh. Welcome to America. Seems that the dems have been doing ths same this year but who is counting?

He "spoke to the complexities" eh? What he did was EXCUSE his poor judgement and EXCUSE the hateful and racist overtones of not only his minister but a big part of black america.

Thats not the complexity of America, its black racism. And its being kept alive by many black leaders. Power hungry black leaders. Where was Obama's outrage? Where was his calls for them to be removed from their positions of power and influence? Oh yea...there was none. What we got was Obama pandering. The really funny thing is he sure had plenty for Imus and Trent Lott.

He needs his "black victims", now and in the general election and no way he is going to tick them off by acting like a real leader.

Is reality totally lost on you? It must be, you think excuses equate to "complexity"...amazing!

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/852746,CST-EDT-mitch20.article

We get it. A lot of white people were offended by snippets of sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

But frankly, critics and those who are supporting a candidate other than Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination have gotten all of the mileage they can out of this debate.

The aftermath of this racially polarizing incident is predictable. Instead of rising to the challenge to move away from the racial rhetoric that Obama talked about in his historic speech, we the media will continue to fan its flames.

Next, you'll be bombarded with polling data that purport to show that Obama is losing ground with the white vote.

And, of course, the vote in Pennsylvania, where that state's governor, Ed Rendell, has already said "conservative" whites will not vote for Obama because he is black, will be dissected to prove that Obama's relationship with Wright cost him white votes.

At this point, Obama has done all he can do to put this matter to rest.

He has condemned Wright's controversial sermons as "wrong" and "divisive," even though he knows as well as I do that after 9/11, you could have walked into several activist churches in Chicago and heard a similar sermon delivered from the pulpit.

And he has given many black people reason to pause by distancing himself from a man he once introduced to the world as his spiritual leader.

But the one thing he has not done is give his critics the satisfaction of seeing him "disown" Wright by leaving Trinity and letting stand the false notion that Trinity is the "separatist" and "racist" institution it has been made out to be.

Nowhere to be found For many blacks, such an act would have been seen as a betrayal.

As it is, the political warfare has thrust Wright, a man with a charismatic leadership style, a big-hearted nature, and grass-roots organizing skills, into an undeserved spotlight.

Yes, undeserved.

Where was that spotlight when Wright, whose church was no less Afro-centric than it is now, led Trinity to be among the first in the nation to take the fight against South Africa's former racist government to the streets?

Where was that spotlight when Wright took a small but devout membership and grew it to an estimated 8 ,000 members that include some of the most respected citizens in Chicago?

Where was that spotlight when Wright launched one of the earliest responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the black community right here in Chicago?

Where were we?

We were nowhere to be found.

I have not spoken to Wright, who will retire in June as the church's senior pastor, but I imagine his heart is broken.

After all, he didn't labor in the vineyard for 36 years among the mighty and the low to be demonized by white people who not only don't have a grasp of the black church experience, but apparently don't have a desire to understand why that experience is rife with emotions.

Despite all the hoopla, Wright is revered on the South Side of Chicago and is treated as a gifted theologian across the country.

Politically astute Indeed, many would consider it a great honor to be nurtured spiritually at the feet of a man like Jeremiah Wright.

He has two master's degrees, including one from the University of Chicago Divinity School, and earned his doctorate from the United Theological Seminary.

Besides his four earned degrees, Wright has received eight honorary doctorates from acclaimed universities and colleges.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."

But in this case, those who have held their peace about Wright aren't cowards. They are politically astute enough to know that this battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers.

As for Obama and his wife, Michelle, this episode must have been devastating.

There are few places in this world that one can find the kind of peace and camaraderie that is found among those of the same faith.

Yet at a time when Obama and his family needed it most, their sacred relationship with their church was tossed adrift by people who couldn't care less.

Like I said, we get it.

Now let's move on.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oew-meyers20mar20,1,5615767.story?track=rss

BLOWBACK

Obama blew it

What the candidate should have said about race.

By Michael Meyers

March 20, 2008

Tim Rutten's column, "Obama's Lincoln moment" and The Times editorial, "Obama on race" both miss the mark.

In my considered judgment as a race and civil rights specialist, I would say that Barack Obama's "momentous" speech on race settled on merely "explaining" so-called racial differences between blacks and whites -- and in so doing amplified deep-seated racial tensions and divisions. Instead of giving us a polarizing treatise on the "black experience," Obama should have reiterated the theme that has brought so many to his campaign: That race ain't what it used to be in America.

He should have presented us a pathway out of our racial boxes and a road map for new thinking about race. He should have depicted his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., as a symbol of the dysfunctional angry men who are stuck in the past and who must yield to a new generation of color-blind, hopeful Americans and to a new global economy in which we will look on our neighbors' skin color no differently than how we look on their eye color.

In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.

I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" -- meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to the so-called black experience.

Well, I am black, and I can't relate to a "black experience" that shields and explains old-style black ministers who rant and rave about supposed racial differences and about how America ought to be damned. I long ago broke away from all associations and churches that preached the gospel of hate and ethnic divisiveness -- including canceling my membership in 100 Black Men of America Inc., when they refused my motion to admit women and whites. They still don't. I was not going to stay in any group that assigned status or privileges of membership based solely on race or gender.

We and our leaders -- especially our candidates for the highest office in the land -- must repudiate all forms of racial idiocy and sexism, and be judged by whether we still belong to exclusionary or hateful groups. I don't know any church that respects, much less reflects, my personal beliefs in the absolute equality of all people, so I choose not to belong to any of them. And I would never -- as have some presidential candidates -- accept the endorsement of preachers of the gospel according to the most racist and sexist of doctrines.

But someone's race or religion is not mine or anybody else's concern. I couldn't care less that Wright is a Christian or that Louis Farrakhan professes to be a Muslim. I couldn't care less whether the hateful minister who endorsed John McCain is, deep inside, a decent man or a fundamentalist. But I do care about these pastors' divisive and crazed words; I do care that their "sermons" exploit and pander to the worst fears and passions of people based on perceptions and misperceptions about race. I hate that these preachers' sermons prejudge people's motives or behavior based on their race or ethnicity. I hate the haters, and I expected Obama to make a straightforward speech about what has become the Hate Hour -- and the most segregated hour -- in America on Sunday mornings.

I expected Obama, who up to now had been steering a perfect course away from the racial boxes of the past, to challenge racial labels and so-called black experiences. We're all mixed up, and if we haven't yet been by the process of miscegenation, trans-racial adoptions and interracial marriage, we sure ought to get used to how things will be in short order.

That would have been the forward-looking message of a visionary candidate. But Obama erred by looking backward -- as far back as slavery. What does slavery have to do with the price of milk at the grocery store? He referenced continuing segregation, especially segregated public schools, but stopped short. What is he going to do about them? How does he feel about public schools for black boys or single-sex public schools and classes? What does the gospel according to Wright say about such race-based and gender-specific schemes for getting around our civil rights laws?

We can't be united as a nation if we continue to think racially and give credence to racial experiences and differences based on ethnicity, past victim status and stereotypical categories. All of these prejudices surrounding tribe-against-tribe are old-hat and dysfunctional -- especially the rants of ministers, of whatever skin color or religion, who appeal to our base prejudices and to superstitions about our supposed racial differences. The man or woman who talks plainly about our commonality as a race of human beings, about our future as one nation indivisible, rather than about our discredited and disunited past, is, I predict, likely to finish ahead of the pack and do us a great public service.

Michael Meyers is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP. These views are his own.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Michael Hogan]

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Shelby Steele writes that Barack Obama is a "bargainer:"

Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence....

Full story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html

"Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of

"A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win"

(Free Press, 2007)."

http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Man-Excited-Ab...5710&sr=1-1

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable.

Shelby Steele continues the Wall Street line.

Meanwhile, uptown at the New York Times the inquiry takes a different turn

Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance.

“The big thing for Wright is hope,” said Martin Marty, one of America’s foremost theologians, who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. “You hear ‘hope, hope, hope.’ Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope.”

Professor Marty said that as a white person, he sticks out in the largely black congregation but is always greeted with warmth and hospitality. “It’s not anti-white,” he said. “I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/...&ei=5087%0A

Edited March 21, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Craig Lamson]

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable.

Shelby Steele continues the Wall Street line.

Meanwhile, uptown at the New York Times the inquiry takes a different turn

Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance.

“The big thing for Wright is hope,” said Martin Marty, one of America’s foremost theologians, who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. “You hear ‘hope, hope, hope.’ Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope.”

Professor Marty said that as a white person, he sticks out in the largely black congregation but is always greeted with warmth and hospitality. “It’s not anti-white,” he said. “I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/...&ei=5087%0A

Meanwhile Obama puts his foot in it again. After throwing his grandmother under the racist bus.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh...ic_b_92601.html

Obama: Grandmother "Typical White Person"

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Meanwhile Obama puts his foot in it again. After throwing his grandmother under the racist bus.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh...ic_b_92601.html

Obama: Grandmother "Typical White Person"

Well if Obama loves the typical white person as much as he loved his dear old grandmother who practically raised him, then we should all be in pretty good shape, wouldn't you say?

[Craig Lamson]

Meanwhile Obama puts his foot in it again. After throwing his grandmother under the racist bus.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh...ic_b_92601.html

Obama: Grandmother "Typical White Person"

Well if Obama loves the typical white person as much as he loved his dear old grandmother who practically raised him, then we should all be in pretty good shape, wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure comparing her to the hate filled Wright is an act of love but whatever Raymond. But hey what choice do we as white people have...BHO says its bred into us.

You have to wonder how the left and the press would have reacted to McCain for example saying something like" typical black people just can't learn because its bred into them."

I've got a feeling you and others who been drinking the Obama kool-aid just might be in a bit of an uproar about a statement like that. I'm just saying.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm not sure comparing her to the hate filled Wright is an act of love

The prophet Jeremiah is actually brimming with forgiveness. Just look at how he forgave Wild Bill for his sinful ways.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03...right-surfaces/

But hey what choice do we as white people have...BHO says its bred into us.

In fact our bold Barack says just the opposite. In case you missed it, his campaign is predicated upon our ability to CHANGE.

You have to wonder how the left and the press would have reacted to McCain for example saying something like" typical black people just can't learn because its bred into them."

Our bold Barack will deal with John McCain's Cult of Perpetual Empire in due course. Right now he has to deal with the Clintons who are still stinking up the joint

I've got a feeling you and others who been drinking the Obama kool-aid just might be in a bit of an uproar about a statement like that. I'm just saying.

The Kool-Aid stuff is getting tired, Craig. Its time for a CHANGE.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm not sure comparing her to the hate filled Wright is an act of love

The prophet Jeremiah is actually brimming with forgiveness. Just look at how he forgave Wild Bill for his sinful ways.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03...right-surfaces/

Briming all wright...God Damn America...usKKKa!

But hey what choice do we as white people have...BHO says its bred into us.

In fact our bold Barack says just the opposite. In case you missed it, his campaign is predicated upon our ability to CHANGE.

Yea...his actions speak much louder than his words, yet the kool-aid drinkers only hear the words. I love the way he helped guide the hate filled Wright to change over TWENTY years. BTW your "bold" BHO did say it was BRED into us.

You have to wonder how the left and the press would have reacted to McCain for example saying something like" typical black people just can't learn because its bred into them."

Our bold Barack will deal with John McCain's Cult of Perpetual Empire in due course. Right now he has to deal with the Clintons who are still stinking up the joint

Nice, but failed attempt to deflect Raymond. But thanks so much from making my point.

I've got a feeling you and others who been drinking the Obama kool-aid just might be in a bit of an uproar about a statement like that. I'm just saying.

The Kool-Aid stuff is getting tired, Craig. Its time for a CHANGE.

Sorry Raymond, you want some "change" them quit drinking the stuff.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

BTW your "bold" BHO did say it was BRED into us. [/color]

I'm not suggesting that you made this up, but could you please provide the citation?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

NEWSFLASH: NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR DRINKS KOOL AID

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080321/D8VHPS300.html

Edited March 21, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll