“...only Hillary’s name appeared on the ballot....”

However, an oft over looked fact is that originally Obama was on the ballot, too. He withdrew his name ONLY AFTER polls had him losing to Hillary 60 to 40.

His withdrawal was actually a CALCULATED cynical political move to prevent him from a humiliating loss in MI.

Knowitall:
It is good to see you moderating your more intemperate language and writing well thought out sensible comments.
I agree with you totally that Ralph Nader is the only candidate that “speaks the truth” and recognizes that the system has been is so totally broken that nothing will or can come right until it is changed.  Obama, on the other hand, is such a smart guy that he has been playing the system to maximuum advantage.  But when he comes to power, as seems to be likely, it is hard to see how he will be able to stop using the system.

Let’s face it; Bush and Cheney have given the Executive branch more power than they have ever had. If we elect a new president they will walk into that office with that power.
I would feel more comfortable with someone who has a strong support of the people instead of special interests.  Not sure, but that would have included someone like Kucinich.

It remains to be seen what happens now.

From now on I plan on using the high road, though it may be quite hard.

Our Checks and balance system is broken.

It can only happen on TruthDig, bert, uhh.......

You are so right. Well, on second thought it also happens on Daily Kos, Salon, and Hyff Po with regularity too. I don’t understand why it has to be so.

It can only happen on TruthDig, bert, uhh.......

Bert, this is really sad…

Here’s what Leefeller wrote:

“Bush spin is equal to the Clinton spin we are wining the war against terror.”

There’s no statement of ‘fact’ there. It’s an analogy or parallel. The Clinton campaigne spins and spins, and tells folks whatever they think they want to hear.

Dick Cheney’s Bush mob does the same. They’ve been lying and spinning for years now, and the Clinton’s are doing the same.

Problem with the Clintonistas is that they’ve taken it beyond the pale, to the swift-boating Rovarian tactics that could damn the entire thing.

It’s the typical mentality behavior of people like them, who would as soon kill the baby as share custody.

It’s like the person who gets foreclosed out of their home, and decides to burn the thing just to keep the bank from getting it back.

It’s like the person that says, if I can’t have it, NOBODY is gonna have it.

Gee...sounds like Bush.

Leefeller:

I heard one pundit make an interesting, and I believe, correct statement.  He said that, although he does not support re-votes in FL and MI, and the popular vote in MI would have to be discounted since only Hillary’s name appeared on the ballot, that the Florida popular vote should be included when calculating the popular vote total thus far, since all the candidates’ names actually appeared on the ballot, and thus the vote represents a relatively accurate assessment of how Hillary WOULD have done had the delegates themselves been apportioned.

In this regard, if we add the 300,000 votes that Hillary got in FL to her totals from other primaries - and even including giving Obama HIS vote total from FL - the two of them would be less than 100,000 votes apart vis-a-vis the total popular vote thus far.

In this regard, the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in almost all of the “big” states becomes a more legitimate issue.

Peace.

Bert,
Facts are Hillary touts the spin; she has won all the big states, the states that really count, the ones that are important.  When in fact she is behind in votes, delegates and lost Texas too.  Is not Texas a big state that counts?

After Bush gave his great spin speech on how well the war has been going, how effective the surge was and how the war was worth it and we must stay the course. I am merely pointing out the similarities Hillary and Bush have in the Spin misters department.  Bush and Hillary have much more in common than even I had believed; guess I am simply stating why I feel Hillary is none other than Bush Lite.

I am fact challenged because of being fact depraved, because the spin from those like Hillary and Bush, provide factless spin. Twisting the truth into untruths in order to support Hillary and Bush’s own illusion’s of reality, their own little spin worlds. 

When Hillary becomes president, we can expect more spin and nothing but the spin.  Hence Status Quo.

Re:  “.....Clinton spin we are wining the war against terror. It was worth it, the end of the war is just around the corner. “

A little fact challenged here, are we not? It is Bush and Co. saying these things, not Clinton.

You know, when you get basic simple FACTS like this wrong you make your whole argument look inaccurate and stupid.

But then your candidate is often fact challenged to, so I know why you tend to be that way.

Hillary clowns, how about grabbing your asses and admit that Hillary has lost the numbers, delegates and states and super delegates of course her spin states otherwise.  Spin. Spin how she has won all the big important states, the big states the states that really count.  Bush spin is equal to the Clinton spin we are wining the war against terror. It was worth it, the end of the war is just around the corner.  Yes I believe in the twisting of numbers to fit your spin, increases my chances of winning the Lottery.  Hillary won Texas, oh a little spin.

Thanks Hillary folks, you may fool some of the fools some of the time, but you can not fool all of the fools all of the time, the Clintons know what they are doing, when it comes to promoting themselves, for they are the most selfish of the selfish, ultimate self serving war mongers.  Yes support the spin. 

Wright in the forefront, spin the get the redneck vote for Hillary, or McCain.  Clinton supporters seem to have this zombie approach to winning, no matter what.  Oh, yes spin for spin’s sake

Sorry folks, it is Hillary’s turn in the barrel.

Are you dizzy yet from all your spinning? Well never fear, my dear, the Bert Truth Squad is here to set the record straight.

Yesterday the Obama campaign, obviously in panic mode as they see their poll nunbers drop, gave the New York Times a photo that Jeremiah Wright had to have given them. It shows Wright with President Clinton. 

The only person besides Wright with a copy of this photo is the Clinton Library and I am certain the Clinton Library did not send this picture to the press on short notice.

Wright also gave the Obama campaign a copy of the thank you note he received from President Clinton, which they dutifully passed on to the Times.

Wright was at the 1998 Prayer breakfast along with SEVERAL HUNDRED other religious leaders, including rabbis, pastors, priests, and imams. President Clinton posed with SEVERAL HUNDRED , who received similar photos.

President Clinton has never considered Jeremiah Wright someone whom he should confide in, nor was he a sounding board. He also has never considered Jeremiah an uncle or any relative for that matter.

Why did Obama claim last week that they had cut all ties with Wright (in fact, isn’t he on a cruise some where?) but this week are still getting and receiving Wright’s help by providing them with this picture?

This is shameless of Obama’s campaaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Jeremia h_Wright_was_White_House_guest.html

Thanks for the AA.  I just couldn’t figure it out.  As for Nader, I can accept his truth without questioning his motives.

“But what is “AA’s”?”

Is this a legitinate question, or are you, like some others on this site, just a way to hassle? If legit, ‘AA’ is shorthand for African American. I am basically a lazy person and like shorthand, that’s all. Sorry for any confusion.

“Who knows for sure what motivates Ralph Nader?  But, one thing I know I know is that he speaks the truth.”

Pretty much. But like you the last few years I am not sure what his motivations are.

Sorry, Bert, my last comment was not headed and didn’t come up under your comment as a reply. 

Starts off “Oh, I agree.

Oh, I agree.  But what is “AA’s”?

My relatively long life has taught me that, for me, a working class person, there’s little to no difference between the parties and how they govern. 
I fully expect that things will get worse for me, while they get better for the wealthy.  That’s the way it works in America.  If you’re poor, it’s even worse and if you’re poor and non-white, it’s a disaster. 

Who knows for sure what motivates Ralph Nader?  But, one thing I know I know is that he speaks the truth. 

I predict that, someday, there won’t be republicans or democrats in this country.  And that someday seems to be getting closer.  I don’t pretend to imagine how it will end, I just know it will. 

Bottom line, Bert, since Nader is a non-issue, I don’t care who gets in.  It’ll make no difference in my life.  BTW, it might be a little foolish to expect Hill or Obam to honor their promise to end the war.  Things will vastly change for either of them once the WH door closes behind them.  Then it will be time for the GREAT RATIONALIZATION.

You write:  “Maybe you should read some of Dr. Kings most studied works. Try his “Letter from A Birmingham Jail"…it’s quite accessible.”

Yes, anger was expressed on letters. That is what made letters such a masterful work. But King’s words never sounded like Wright’s. There was never the anti-American sentiment in any of Dr. King’s words.

There is little (I say this becasue I do not know much if anything about Rev. Wright’s work in the community,) if any, similarity.

You disparge Dr. King’s legacy and memory by linking him to Wright.

You write:  “My ears and mind heard Wright indict our government, not every white person.”

Depends upon what perspective you are looking at. In terms of history and treatment of AA’s, yes.

However, if your perspective is from how will this play with Main St. America and WINNING THE NOV. ELECTION, and getting a majority of votes in that election, well now that is different.

This whole episode, unfortunately, plays right into Republican’s long-standing favorite anti-Democratic theme - patriotism.

Expect LOTS of attack ads on this, and unfortunately attack ads work.

And all the wishin and hopin in the universe will not change that dynamic.

I don’t share, I guess, you idea of what is racist.  I heard Wright say GD America because of what he thought were systematic injustices committed by our government against oppressed peoples everywhere, regardless of their color. 

I do not agree that it is racist for him to say that Hillary, because she is not a black man, could not understand the lot of a black man. 

My ears and mind heard Wright indict our government, not every white person. 

I believe it would be very difficult, if not impossible for there to be found in America one person completely without predjudice, suspicion, and some amount of “fear” in their feelings about other people.  It should be the function and the goal of a country like America, which explicitly states on no uncertain terms its egalitarianism, to teach and to help its citizens to learn, accept, and nurture this ideology--because it’s right and good. 

If America does this at all, it’s only, IMO, in token form.

The more I think about, there is a disease of epidemic and probably catastrophic proportions in our country and it’s two-pronged-FEAR and IGNORANCE.

And, in the words of my hero, Forrest Gump, “I guess that’s about all I have to say about that.”

Maani, thanks for the link. Very interesting. 
I was just having a little fun.  I’m not the student that most of you others seem to be; I listen, think and make up my mind.  As for searching the web for info, I don’t have a lot of time nor do I put much credence in most of what I’ve come across.  Much of it is too politically biased, IMO; it’s difficult for me to sort out the truth.  People tend to believe what they want to believe.
I really don’t think badly of Obama.  I was highly impressed with his speech.  I agree wholeheartedly with Wright.  I’m not in the least offended by the venom.  The antidote, to my way of thinking, is to elect leaders, both WH and congress who understand and embrace Nader’s ideaology of giving this government back to the people--of all sizes and shapes and colors.  Whatever it was in the minds of our founding fathers was probably pretty good, not perfect, but worth striving for.  The reason we’ve gone 180 from it must be because the power/wealth people in this country believe they alone are entitled to the guarentees of our constitution and the people Wright was talking about are not.  Until they get educated, MLK’s Dream will be only that.  (I’m Caucasian)
One more thing, I used to say “What are the wealthy worried about?  There’s plenty to go around.”
Now, I’m not so sure. 
Sorry for running on.

Bert writes:

“This is very true. But so was Martin Luther King. Yet he never spoke like this. His speeches and work made us look inside ourselves and try to reach our higher angels.”

Bert, you OBVIOUSLY haven’t read or otherwise contemplated all of Dr. Kings speechs.

Yes, he was indeed a believer in non-violence, as was Gandhi. If you think (or choose to otherwise ignore) the many invocations of ANGER from either one of them, you simply continue your delusions, or your not so subtle smearing of any and everyone connected to Barack Obama.

Now, I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy studying the theory and practice of non-violent resistance, and those great men who have made it work. They did NOT refrain from expressing anger at the injustices.

Yes, Rev. Wright has also expressed anger in some of his sermons. He has NOT advocated violence, and so your remarks are simply more of your same attempted smear through nuance and innuendo.

It’s really despicable, and I will continue to call you out on it..every time it comes to my attention.

Maybe you should read some of Dr. Kings most studied works. Try his “Letter from A Birmingham Jail"…it’s quite accessible.

Meantime, you’re just about as far from any ‘higher angels’ as one could get. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds…

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, March 20: “Obama is a “Manchurian Candidate” in the form of a Commie.....  He attended a church for 20 years that GD’d the USA, something a real church in America would never do...”

I posted this in another topic but I’m repeating it here because it adds to your comments, Dr. K......

I didn’t go much on the sermon by Rev. Wright attacking Hillary Clinton for being white. What was worse, he went out of his way to smear her despite Obama having a white mother.

If the Rev. Wright is reading this, I would like to hear his homily about Barack Obama’s white mother or white grandmother, eh! Did she ever have to “miss being picked up by a taxi” because she wasn’t white enough?

It IS true that some of Wrights words WERE racist. Unfortunately, they were not the statements Obama was excusing in his speech. If every white person has to be made guilty, then there is a smear campaign going on.......

That has already been happening for some years with some members of the Jewish community and particularly with respect to the Israeli Zionists supporting AIPAC. Now, we have almost the same kind of movement within the African-American community.

Just like our Truthdig blogger, Mike Mid-City, the Rev. Wright is a bigoted and biased ex-marine who has developed some kind of personality disorder. One wonders then why Obama went along with that for the last 20 years if it didn’t accomodate his own personal agenda?

Jeremiah Wright - Hillary Clinton ain’t never been called… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

The again, we also know that Obama is NOT a genuine Christian anyway, uhh. He refers to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as “...a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful whether our own Defense Department would survive its application” !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35sGJrWKcmY&eurl=ht tp://prezvid.com/index.php?tag=religion

You can add that to “I don’t oppose all wars” and “the crucible of the sword” from his so-called anti-war speech of 2002 to make your own conclusions about how duplicitous this person really is........

That is the way our karma catches us all......

DKIA:

Funny you should mention the Manchurian Candidate thing.  You are not the first to have that thought; I’ve seen it on other blogs.

In this regard, for what its worth, you might find the following of interest.  Note that I take no stand on it, just things sent to me by others.  The second one is quite lengthy, and the title is more provocative than it need be.  It is actually more about Brzezinski, but is no less instructive for that.

http://www.rense.com/general81/emd.htm

http://www.rense.com/general80/obb.htm

Peace.

This dead horse issue is getting play night and day by the jewish dominated MSM.  Too bad they don’t report on the latest ‘cleansing” performed by Israel.

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m42203&hd;=&size=1&l=e

Maybe I don’t know what messianic means.

I’ve concluded, after all, that Obama is a “Manchurian Candidate” in the form of a Commie.  I mean, look at it.  He attended a church for 20 years that GD’d the USA, something a real church in America would never do.  Therefore, he’s unpatriotic and he doesn’t wear a lapel flag and he doesn’t put his hand on his heart when people are reciting the wonderful pledge of allegiance.  This is not fuzzy math.  Add it up and the answer is clear as poland spring water:

Obama must be a Commie.

Now, whether one can be a Commie Messiah seems a little far-fetched to me, but I admit I’ve been thrown a few political curves lately.  Things change.

All we have to do is try to figure out who is putting him up to this, how they’re funding it and, especially, just what is their agenda. This has the potential to make the war on terror look like child’s play.  The outcome could be very serious, indeed for those of us who care about and love America.

Always a pleasure to get well thought out responses from you Maani. 
Ny wifes reaction to Obama’s unsual speech was that she wanted to cheer and she added that she was sick and tired of listening ot “old, white, male talking heads”. 
I might add that someone pointed out that the media don’t really know what to make of his speech since it is so different from the usual muckraking which they engage in. He sure raised the level of presidential primary discourse to new level of abstraction. 
I remain apprehensive about the prospects of him becoming the president of the US since he is just a little too slick and too messianic in his approach.

My goodness cyrena you write so beautifully. I never have to question your agenda when you write, you open your soul. That’s a precious gift.

Some thoughts on your post in no real order.

1. Don’t forget Obama won Maine too! I’m ashamed to say this is one of THE least racially diverse states in our great union. My high school classmate and later roommate after college was the middle child of the ONLY AA family in our school district. Living with Paul for a few years gave me a tiny insight to the day to day bullshit that comes with having darker than average skin.

2. Obama won in Maine’s caucus because of the perfect storm of organized chaos. Combine a turnout 4-5 times what anyone in my sleepy little village expected with no organization by my state’s dem party officials and it left a vacuum of power that the Obama precinct captain was all too eager to fill. Before I knew what was happening I was separated from the herd because I refused to hold an Obama sign and put an Obama sticker on my shirt. Those special people were put in a group and the Obama captain took over our meeting, limiting the comments of Clinton supporters and locking out discussion after it became clear it was not in support of Obama. Stunning. I felt completely disenfranchised at my own caucus. This stranger I have not seen before or since bullied my weaker neighbors into switching groups until they had a majority then called for the vote. It was a fraud and a sham. In my heart I know that a primary would have yielded a different result. This story was common at the 400+ other sites around the state. If there had been a Clinton captain there to challenge the leadership or a stronger neutral party official, the result would have been different.

3. John Hagee is a whacko. It’s a weak argument to redirect the Wright preaching to a McCain supporter. Here’s the difference in my mind. John McCain received the endorsement of a guy he may or may not agree with. I’ll take him at his word that he doesn’t. He’s not (as far as I know) a member of Hagee’s church. He didn’t tithe to the tune of $20K a year to belong to his church. Now I believe he needs the support of the religious right and is willing to pander a bit to get it. I also believe that the critical political support may have a reason Obama joined Trinity. My brother who lived in the Park Ridge area believes this to be the case. He needed to kiss the Wright ring to be elected. OK I buy that. But when you regularly attend for 20 years and give more than tacit approval to ideas that most Americans in 2008 believe are controversial at best and radically dangerous at worst, there are going to be ramifications. Obama did his best to teach us ignorant white boys a lesson on race. I was moved, in part, because I was able to watch the speech. Most of my fellow Mainers have two regular jobs and cut firewood for beer money ;-> (They don’t give away 30-packs ‘round these parts!).

I have tried to make the point that while I am a Clinton supporter; I think Obama would be a much better president than John McCain. I’d love to see Obama gain more experience before being hired for the last job he’ll ever have. He believes in MLK’s visionary concept of the “fierce urgency of now.” and I applaud that. I am a democrat who believes in the fierce urgency of winning in November. This election is far too important to me than to risk my babies’ futures by supporting anyone that doesn’t give us the best chance to win back the White House. IMHO I believe HRC is that person.

Sorry so long. I write from my heart too!

You make a lot of good and valid pionts, Conservative Yankee.

You write:  “Jeremy Wright is from the generation where white’s only bathrooms, and back-of-the-bus seating were common features of USA life. He saw peaceful people killed for their thoughts and words, and he has reason to be angry with a country which during his younger years accepted him only as a second-class citizen, without a vote, or a place at the table.”

This is very true. But so was Martin Luther King. Yet he never spoke like this. His speeches and work made us look inside ourselves and try to reach our higher angels.

I guess I am more moved by the power of the non-violent confrontation of folks like Gahndi and and Martin Luther King.

^ conundrum and hypocritical.  We don’t like reality and your post pretty much summarizes our predicament.  We won’t be conquered from without; only from within.

Since we never really hear the truth from out government, the blunt truth is even more uncomfortable to accept.  From the newspeak of the Mass Media to the tripe fed us by our so called leaders, the twisted facts, we never really hear the real story.

Obama, provides something we have not seen in our government, integrity and a seemingly degree of caring about the people.  Our government managed by the wealthy for the wealthy is crumbling, from their greed.  The elite are just that because of wealth and not enlightenment. 

Our leaders are selected for us, it is my feeling the Pllutocracy may be getting second thoughts towards their selection of Obama. We cannot have this non Washington insider upstart, running around telling the truth in government.

Ted:

As the only self-proclaimed minister here (though others may have a right to do likewise), I completely agree with you.  I and some of my colleagues have actively campaigned for atheist candidates for local and state offices, and I would do so for an atheist presidential candidate, should a good one arise in the future.  Indeed, I have always been mortified by believers who do not understand and respect the reasons for the separation of church and state, and for having no religious test for the presidency.  [N.B. I am one of only half a dozen ministers in NYC to have signed the American Atheists petition for the absolute separation of church and state.] Unfortunately, since the vast majority of voters in the U.S. self-identify as “Christian,” it may be a while before an atheist (or perhaps even gnostic) candidate has a chance of getting elected.

Re “the intrinsically divisive nature of the mutually incompatible religions of this world,” I do entirely agree with this assessment.

First, none of the Abrahamic reilgions is PER SE divisive; they only become divisive if they are USED divisively.  And while this is certainly the case, it need not be in order for those religions to be practiced.

Second, and similarly, none of the Abrahamic religions is PER SE “mutually incompatible” within the contexts of the actual “strictures” that guide them.  That too many adherents either don’t know or understand those strictures, ignore them, or twist them to justify such “incompatibility” is also true - but also NEED NOT be the case in order for them to co-exist.

I am not suggesting that there are not ENORMOUS issues to deal with in these regards, even setting aside the MOST extreme “hijackings” of various religions throughout history, including the current hijacking of Islam by a relatively small minority of extreme fundamentalist clerics.

Throughout history, the adherents of the various religions lived, for the most part, cooperatively. Indeed, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-inhabited large parts of the Middle East with nary a problem for centuries.  Even today, the overwhelming majority of the ~1.1 billion Christians, ~1 billion Muslims and ~13.5 million Jews practice their faiths quietly and privately, and do NOT support, either directly or tacitly, the extremists who have co-opted or otherwise represent the “public voice” of their faiths.

Indeed, what seems to be missing in the current global geopolitik are the “moderate” voices of these faiths, of which there are some and, in some cases, a growing number.  Let us hope that number increases and that a new dialogue ensues.

Peace.

First of all the bad judgment that you speak of is assumed, and promoted as such by you, not I.  Sure the right wing will do the same, maybe worse, but the two pronged attacker from Hillary and McCain have been weathered quite well, I would say, only time will tell.

Hillary will get her time in the barrel soon enough.

Obama’s speeach was out of the park and very good, let’s see what happens now. 

Admittedly the blunt truth is impossible for some to take. Our country may not be ready for assuming its share of responsibility on anything, from the war to Katrina.  If we keep the old Washington crowd, status quo, it will be just more of the same.  Obama offers something different, unity and hope, instead of devisivness and hate.

You might have a point Joe, about the effect of the “God Damn America”.

I can’t really say how the reaction will be with the average...ex-military, pickup drivin’, etc, etc.

BUT, I DID live in Texas for 17 years, and as a female of color, native to the land, and native to California, it was one hell of a painful experience, exactly because of those rednecks that you mention.

On the OTHER hand, not ALL of it was painful. I DID learn a lot about people, and life, and all of that, and there were even a few rednecks that came of age.

I should ALSO say, that the mentality isn’t JUST restricted to rednecks. I received an email video today, of a BLACK preacher, somewhere in the South, who was preaching to his congregation, and dogging out Obama AND his mother, in a way that should make ANYBODY cringe. And, he was also full of praise for Hillary. BUT, his message was very much rejected by those within among the more progressive African-American communities. We call those types, Uncle Toms’ and sometimes worse.

So, what can I say? It’s not just about rednecks, unless we want to think of them in terms of a ‘mentality’ because there ARE the equivalent of them in the African-American and Latino, and Asian communities as well.

And, at the end of the day, I just honestly don’t believe that Obama’s pastor’s comment, is going to make that big of a difference.

So he doesn’t win Florida? It’s one state. He may not win Texas either, and I’ll admit that after my own experience there, I’m surprised that he did as well as he did.

He didn’t win Arkansas though, despite the fact that Arkansas has a considerable black population. (nearly all poor).

But then, let’s have a look at Iowa, Wyoming, Vermont…and I could go on. Those are ALL white states, and they probably have their own fair share of “rednecks” as well.

But at the end of the day, anyone who is going to continue to use the words of Obama’s pastor, to judge OBAMA’S fitness to lead the country, wasn’t gonna vote for him anyway, and that’s a matter of ingrained racism that simply won’t change, regardless. I mean, if it wasn’t what his pastor said, it would be something else, even if they had to make it up, just to justify what is a basic inability to conceive of the world in any other terms than what they know.  And, I would say that we have to accept that, as part of the reality.

In short, some people CAN’T change, and yet the rest of us still have to survive. So, I think it’ll work out. Despite my own Catholic upbringing, I’m unwilling to give much weight to rhetoric (or really anything) when it is taken out of context. But, I accept the fact that others will, and there’s little we can do to change that. It’s odd though, I’ve heard people say and do a whole lot worse than ‘God (should) damn America”, and with little reaction from the public or the media.

Have you ever listened to John Hagee as he goes on about Jews, Gays, Catholics, and pretty much everybody else? And, he’s been preaching that shit far more frequently, and to a far larger audience than has Rev. Wright. And, not only has John McCain embraced his endorsement, he actually SOLICITED it!! So, anyone who has a huge problem with the words of Rev Wright, and nothing to say about the connection between the radical John Hagee and Senator McCain, simply proves the depth of their own hypocrisy. Again, we can’t necessarily change that, but I do think we can expect those people to be in more and more in the minority, as ignorance is eventually overcome by what eventually leads to tolerance.

So yes, time will tell. I’m holding out hope for the reasonableness of the larger American population though.

Sure it was a good speech which stood out from the crowd and broke new ground but it failed entirely to address the issue of the intrinsically divisive nature of the mutually incompatible religions of this world. Let’s hope his mother’s atheism will break through to some extent in his attitude to those who—very sensibly—have no religious affiliation.
Those who think that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has nothing to do with religion are way off the mark. Ditto for the Sunni/Shia divide when it comes to the nascent civil war in Iraq.

Bert:

Don’t bother.  You can claim to be a Democrat ‘til you’re blue in the face.  But if your words and positions are not EXACTLY in line with those here who have defined “Democrat” (and “liberal” and “progressive") in their own way, they will not believe you.  I still continue to get accused of being on Hillary’s payroll, though that is not the case, and I have stated so numerous times.  I am not even actively campaigning for her (in the sense of tabling, canvassing, or other “physical” activities).

Just chalk it up to the inability or unwillingness of some people here to engage in a legitimate form of discussion and debate without resorting to unnecessary and uncalled-for name-calling, accusation, denigration and/or dismissiveness.

Peace.

My first reaction, without listening to the pundits spin is that it was a brilliant speech. Obama just put this subject away in my mind. Let’s move on to the important issues of the campaign. That’s what he needed to do. I predicted correctly his message but am left with the same questions. I commend Obama for pulling his pastor closer and at the same time distancing himself, even rising above the anti-white rhetoric of an old preacher, I have to wonder if the speech will resonate quite as loudly among those so completely turned off by the crazy talk of a pastor they could never relate to. It’s a tough job to erase the impassioned cries of, “God Damn America” in an electorate that secretly distrusts anyone with radical views. I guess only time will tell.

Thank you for taking the time to both read and comment on my posts Bert. I appreciate your feedback.

Maani, you write:  “Yet this time there is some evidence that it is Obama supporters who are engaged in this tactic.”

If you haven’t already, check out a previous post of mine. It is not just some evidence. There is a video of a TV ad that Obama is running currently in PA to do just that. And he has run simliar ads in other states. So it is a known fact now.It is a Obama campaign strategy.

I know you didn’t ask me, Outraged. But I have been a Democrat all my life. But ever since McGovern lost I have taken a decidedly PRAGMATIC view of how youu win elections. And I really want, and I think the country NEEDS to defeat the Republican Presidential candidate in this election becasue so much is at stake - the survival of the greatest experiment in self rule in the history of the world, the Constitution, and not least of all the Supremes. I WANT A WINNER, becasuse we cannot afford as a nation another Bush.

Joe in Maine - I really appreciate your level headed responses to posters. Your responses are gracious and level-headed. Thanks you.

Leefeller - you keep missing the point.

Tou state:  “Every one of Obamas controversy’s has been taken care of with swiftness, eloquence and admission, but it is never good enough for Hillary clowns.”

It is NOT Hillary supporters you need worry about. It is the general electorate that Joe in Maine named, “your average ex-military, pickup drivin’, Skoll-chewin’, deer-huntin’, country music listenin’ good-ol-boys from the back woods of Maine to the swamps of Florida.”

In the General election Obama needs to get a majority of ALL the voters, not just those who vote in the D primaries.

This is the best piece I have read so far (out of a dozen or so) on Obama’s situation and speech.  It is even-handed and incisive.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9095.html

Peace.

Cyrena:

“It is never to anyone’s advantage to remain ignorant in a 21st Century world, when it is imperative that we communicate with each other, and that means understanding all of the individual perspectives, based on individuals’ life experiences.”

I agree.  Strongly.  But “communicating with each other” and “understanding all of the individual perspectives” does not - or at least SHOULD not - include calling other people “morons,” engaging in unfounded accusations and name-calling, denigrating others’ intelligence, and/or dismissing others’ points of view - OR NOT SPEAKING UP WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DOES.  ("All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing")

You would do well to step back and consider whether you are living up to your own words here.

Peace.

This is, of course, exactly the way the GOP got Cynthia McKinney: having ~40,000 of its voters switch to the Democratic party so they could vote in the primary, and have them vote for McKinney’s opponent.  Then, switching back to vote in the general election, in which they roundly defeated same opponent.

Yet this time there is soe evidence that it is Obama supporters who are engaged in this tactic.

Peace.

Leefeller:

“Every one of Obamas controversy’s has been taken care of with swiftness, eloquence and admission, but it is never good enough for Hillary clowns.  Obama is setting a precedent of telling the truth and admitting when he is wrong.”

The problem is that he has been forced to do this FAR too often, especially in such a short span of time: Schiavo, Rezko (association), NAFTA/Canada, Wright (initial comment), Rezko again (campaign contributions), Wright again…

If he is wrong so often - if his judgment has failed him in such important ways (and Rezko and Wright ARE important ways) - then this is a serious liability, particularly vis-a-vis a general election campaign in which the right wing will use and re-use and beat to death any and every instance of bad judgment, no matter that he may have “explained” and even apologized for them.

Peace.

I think the Good Ole Boys will rally against anyone the dems put up against McCain. Obama’s negitive polling numbers are on the rise ever since the 3AM Phone call spot in Texas. There is some preliminary polling that show his pastor is hurting him badly with the “Cracker” vote. If Hillary is the nominee then I’m sure Ann Coulter will find a way to back John McCain and I am sure that Rush Addict will stop encouraging his listeners to vote for Hillary. The GOP hate machine is pretty good at this stuff guys. Don’t expect the Swift-Boaters to tip their cards before they play their hand. If it’s Obama you’ll see the picture of Obama with his hands at his sides during the national antham. You’ll see the photo of him with his arm around Rev. Wright and ‘Amen-ing’ in church. If it’s Hillary they’ll suggest she murdered Vince Foster and revisit Travel Gate and try to drag up all the old favorites about a certain blue dress and Bill’s DNA. Expect it, because your candidate has been planning for it. That’s why some pundits even theorize that Obama has been encouraging this story to break at this moment so he can have the national stage and hit a political home run when his opponant can’t say a word about race at any level without being boxed in as a biggot.

I see your point to some extent. There’s been an unsuccessful attempt to marginalize Obama as the unelectable black candidate, but that’s politics. Much in the same way Huckabilly and Ron Paul were marginalized in the debates with the reactionary chuckles of the other candidates on the stage after every comment. Did you see the way McCain and Thompson kept smiling whenever Ron Paul would go off on a tangent? same thing.

I do disagree that Clinton is at the root of the Rev. Wright problem. Pastor Disaster has been a problem for Obama since before he began his national campaign for the presidency. This part of the race issue is radioactive and is deadly for any opponent who touches it. A well understood political trueism is this. When your opponent is killing himself get the hell out of the way. This is Obama’s problem to either fix and benefit from or shrink away and die from.

Cyrena. You wrote two very thoughtful posts that I had to read twice because of my lack of caffeine this morning. Thank you for helping me to better understand your life experience. I needed the lesson because I do come from one of the least racially-diverse states in the country. My thinking about Obama’s Major Speech on Race this morning has changed somewhat overnight. I still believe that Obama will defend his pastor because he must. He has to draw closer to Rev. Wright, not push him away.  He will denounce the words but not the man. He can’t because Wright is too well known to be in Obama’s inner sanctum. You cannot distance yourself with any credibility the man you call your spiritual advisor. Now I see him denouncing the divisive language Wright uses and he will take this opportunity to teach the American voters more about the black experience. He has known he would be giving this speech for well over a year now. Rev. Wright is one of the three big weaknesses Obama had coming into this race. This speech has been written long ago, the language in the speech has been tested, revised and retested on multiple focus groups consisting mainly of white males.  This speech today is the baseball equivalent of an underhand toss to David Ortiz. If Obama whiffs on this pitch, then he doesn’t deserve to be our nominee and he won’t be. I don’t expect him to miss this opportunity to show what a leader he can be, given a chance to heal the racial wounds that still smart when you dig the scab. He must try to recapture the hope and magic and inspire us again. Something he hasn’t been able to do since before Texas and Ohio because he’s been forced into a purely defensive campaign. Many think he’s peaked and that his popularity has nowhere to go but down. Look for him to embrace the man, Wright, embrace the good works of his church and denounce the more radical views of the pastor. He must find a way to turn this into a teaching opportunity and raise awareness among white male voters. This “God Damn America” stuff is going to destroy any chance he had of a crossover voter block. It’s never going to attract your average ex-military, pickup drivin’, Skoll-chewin’, deer-huntin’, country music listenin’ good-ol-boys from the back woods of Maine to the swamps of Florida. You can’t alienate the redneck vote this year and expect to win.

Well Clinton Clowns, you keep on attacking, even more relentlessly than the Republicans. This topic is about his response to the Wright flap. 

So you keep piling on you piles of crap, when the worm turns, I may join the Republican side, because I am beginning to feel sorry for them. 

Obama is my first choice, Oh how about Samatha Powers, How about NAFTA gate, How about that ha-aw! 

Every one of Obamas controversy’s has been taken care of with swiftness, eloquence and admission, but it is never good enough for Hillary clowns.  Obama is setting a precedent of telling the truth and addmiting when he is wrong.  Something Hillary and her wreaking crew would never want or be able to.

Obama is not perfect but he is closer to it than the Washington established Hillary/McCain/Bush.

Bert, I couldn’t think of a word for Obamas solicitaion of Repubs and Inds but it is DIRTY POLITICS !!!!  That campaign has some slimy people working for them.

Hey Cyrena, shh..shh.  Now just keep this on the hush...hush between you and me,....do you think “bert” is one of those crooked Republicans I was speaking of....?  Just give me the “high” sign, I’ll know what you mean.......shh...shh..

Re: bert

Your quote: “I am outrageously dumbfounded by your lack of logic !!!!!!!”

Don’t worry “bert” when you grow up it will all become perfectly clear and then you won’t find yourself so “outrageously dumbfounded”.  You hang in there though sweetie.

As an after thought, just because the initial news report was on a FOX affliate does not make the story any less true. And it does not make the research any less invalid.

You and a few others here just seem to prefer ignorance and apple pie in the sky, touchy-feely gobbly gook.

Then you will help elect McCain and put him in the White House for four more years of Bush. Hope you can live with yourself for that.

I am outrageously dumbfounded by your lack of logic !!!!!!!

Just curious though. What do you call it when Obama has to run a PAID TV ad to seek Tepublican votes?

Oh let me search the data bank of my brain for a few seconds........I remenber, I think that is called prostituting one’s self.I am outrageously dumbfounded by your lack of logic !!!!!!!

Just curious though. What do you call it when Obama has to run a PAID TV ad to seek Republican votes?

Oh let me search the data bank of my brain for a few seconds........I remember, I think that is called prostituting one’s self.

THIS could be problematic according to Cyrena citing the editorial by Scott Hellman of the Boston Globe.

I read this earlier today and wrote Mr. Hellman charging him with hypocrsy and sexism IF he did not also report that Obama HIMSELF is actively seeking and running TV ads soliciting Republicans and Independents to register Demcratic for the PA Primary. (And oh, bu the way wink-wink - Vote for Change i.e. me - Obama.) Dems For a Day Campaign.

The PA primary is closed, which means to vote in it you must be a registerd Dem. He tells viewers how to do it, sign up right on line at HIS web site. And this is not the first time Obama has run ads like this and campaigns like this. He has done it in several states. HE IS SHAMELESS !!!!!!

For all you doubters out there here is a link to the ad from you tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI_m3UPpRRY&eurl=ht tp://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/16/obamas-choice-for-mic higan/

I have mentioned many times before on this blog that Obama has been winning primaries, especially of the caucus type, with R and I votes. In fact, WITHOUT those R & I voters he would not have won as many primaries and delegates as he has.

I have complained about this before, but have been critized by folks like cyrena, Mike Mid City and others about being too dependent on those pesky little things called facts.

Personally, I don’t think ANY R or I should be able to vote in the Dems primary. It destroys the integrity of the process . Dems should be electing their nominee for President, NOT Repugs and I’s.

Hillary cannot be held responsible for what conservative radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh say and or ask their crazy fans to do.

AND BE CAREFUL HERE FOLKS. YOU RISK BEING HYPOCRITES ON THIS IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE ALL DAY TODAY YOU HAVE BEEN WRITING AND TELLING ME THAT OBAMA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HIS MINISTER SAYS.

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.Well, with the Obama crew here they will certainly try.

It is one thing to be the recipent of Republican’s vote by a campaign run by conservative idiots VS actively going out and encouraging and seeking the support of those very same voters and receiving their votes, and WINNING the election because of them.

There is a name for that and it is called DIRTY POLITICS.

Hi Cyrena,

It’s definitely problematic, however I do think that it’ll only be the most crooked of Republicans who will utilize this tactic.  Many honest Republicans will view this as a reason TO vote for Obama in the general.  Somewhat of a “last straw” regarding the crooks who have overrun their party.

It will create a deep division in an already faltering party.  It was bad enough for honest Republicans to find their representatives so heavily involved in criminal activity, but to request that voters join in, will exemplify to these voters the rank disregard for ethics in the party.

It does show you who the “crooks” decided they don’t stand a chance against in the general election though doesn’t it?  The only other reason they could possibly endorse this tactic would be that a Clinton win is as good for them as is a McCain win.

bert:

Research...???  from MY FOX KC..??!!  What, are you trying to be funny here.  That is funny....LOL...thanks I needed that.

Gmonst:

“However bad it is, it needs to happen so we can actually make some progress, and I am not going to let myself be manipulated by fear of attacks into making any decisions, even voting for Hillary.”

Excellent point, because that is precisely what this is all about.  Hang tough.

This is interesting, but not connected to Rev, Wright, and not really new either. They’ve been writing this up since the Ohio/TX/Mississippi contests.

THIS could do Obama damage, but not the Wright thing.

Many Voting for Clinton to Boost GOP
By Scott Helman
The Boston Globe

Monday 17 March 2008

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

“It’s as simple as, I don’t think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice,” said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. “I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office.”

The rest at the link..

http://www.truthout.org/

I read this as well Bert. But ya know, for the life of me, I just can’t find anything that claims Obama is going on TV to ‘defend his pastor”, even though Joe in Maine said the same thing?

So, did you just copy/plagiarize that from Joe’s post, (that’s pretty much the way you professional character defamers do it, right?) or do you too have the ability to read Obamas mind, and know what he’s going to say before he says it?

He did do an interview with Gwen Ifill today, that probably gives an idea of what he’s going to cover, and it is supposed to be a talk on Race and Religion. So maybe at least some of America’s population can gain some insight or a little bit of knowledge from that.

In a country of the size and diversity of the US, it’s there are so many people who are simply never EXPOSED to other cultures or religions or differences in the ways of thinking about things, based on life experiences. Some people never really get any further than their own small surroundings. And, even though their environments might be comfortable enough, (even luxurious) it still doesn’t allow for any ‘on hand’ sort of understanding of other world views.

So, maybe some Americans will gain from his speech tomorrow. I don’t have any hope for you of course, because you’ve obviously got an entirely different agenda that can only be satisfied by the guy’s total destruction.

Thing is bert, you can quote numbers from fill-in-the-blank polls, but they don’t tally up with reality. There are something like 10 contests left in the primaries. If Hillary won every single one, she STILL couldn’t catch up, and that’s the reality.

But, feel free to keep making up poll numbers. Gives you something to do, and I guess it beats sticking pins in little dolls you’ve made into mini-Obamas.

Part 1
Joe in Maine,

I too read that Obama would be giving a speech tomorrow, and I’m just curious to know how you already know what he’s going to say, before he says it. Like, how do you know that he’s going to ‘defend’ Rev. Wright?

More importantly, why do so many of you believe that Rev. Wright NEEDS defending?

Too many folks (and maybe it is a younger generation than my own who are making these interpretations) seem to believe that there was something horribly unethical in all of Rev. Wright’s sermons of the past 20 years.  I’m having trouble comprehending that interpretation, even though I’ve admittedly only listened to the edited-out-of-context segments that the rest of you have seen.

Even if, as a middle-aged woman of color, I had not heard similar sermons on and off throughout my lifetime, I STILL wouldn’t have found anything particular ‘radical’ about those cut up segments that have been aired all over the media during the past several days.

And, I’ve watched (and read) a number of times. There is absolutely nothing the man says that first of all, isn’t TRUE, or at least, doesn’t resonate with the population that he is speaking to. If one is black in America, they KNOW racism. It’s that simple. Some have been more victimized by it than others, but the fact of the matter is that it DOES exist in the US, and it always HAS existed in the US, and for anyone to believe that it just shouldn’t be addressed or talked about in a church where most of the members happen to be black, is just plain stupid!

So, for anyone who happens to believe that the TRUTH is too radical, I’m not sure what to suggest. I CAN say that ignoring the truth, or continuing to maintain some sort of willful ignorance about race, is certainly not to ANYONE’S advantage, including the ignorant racist.

It is never to anyone’s advantage to remain ignorant in a 21st Century world, when it is imperative that we communicate with each other, and that means understanding all of the individual perspectives, based on individuals’ life experiences. And THAT would be required, no matter WHAT color a person is.

So, I don’t get these folks who immediately assume that something is ‘radical’ just because they fail to interpret what is being said, in the CONTEXT in which it is being addressed, based on the AUDIENCE to whom it is being addressed.

Now I don’t know what Barack Obama plans to say in his address tomorrow, but I don’t think it’s going to involve a ‘defense’ of Rev. Wright, since the congregation to whom Rev. Wright was speaking, obviously didn’t have a problem with the TRUTHS that he was preaching.

Now what Sen. Obama MAY attempt to do, is to wise up some of the most ignorant among us. I don’t know how much luck he’s gonna have with that, but I certainly respect him for trying.

Joe in Maine

Part 2
If I was Obama, (at least at this point) I’d figure enough was enough, and it was time to get on with the issues that matter to all Americans…TODAY. Now he DID say today, that the ECONOMY is in SHAMBLES, because….IT IS!! Hillary of course is being extra cautious on the subject of the US taxpayer bail out of the latest (and largest to date) corporate fall-out. McCain thinks it’s a great idea that the Feds, (that’s us) are gonna bail them out, and Bush is saying that the poor investors are losing out as well, so I guess we’re supposed to somehow believe that makes it OK for US to bail them out?

So, when are you accusing racists gonna let this stuff go with the religious guys? First it was Farrakhan, who admittedly DOES have a more radical view that he’s chosen to preach far more publically. (come on - Rev. Wright was giving a sermon in his own Church…to those church members).

But, aside from the fact that Obama and Farrakhan both live in Chicago, and both happen to be members of the African-American community, what the hell does that have to do with Barack? And how many times do ya’ll want him to repudiate the stuff that comes from Farrakhan, who certainly can’t be any crazier or more ‘radical’ than Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. (which the CIA has attempted by the way - twice).

And what about that other crazy dude…is it Jerry Falwell? (I can’t keep them all straight). And then there’s the one that just endorsed John McCain…that Hagee guy. And, he hates EVEYBODY…Check this out..

The McCain-Hagee Connection
Why is the press ignoring this hate-monger?
By Zachary Roth Fri 7 Mar 2008 02:27 PM

• “More than a week after John McCain’s endorsement by the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic pastor John Hagee, the media continues to give the GOP nominee a free pass. “

• “Consider the following pronouncements by Hagee, the man who McCain proudly introduced as an ally last week.”
On Jews:
• “It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.”
And:
• “How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.”

Then he starts up on the Catholics, but you’ll have to read the rest of this BS at the link:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_conne ction_1.php

And, McCain has actively SOLICITED this guy’s endorsement. Obama didn’t ask Farrakhan for an endorsement and he doesn’t hang out at the NOI.

So, let’s get a little perspective here folks. And when you do, then you should make an honest assessment of what it is that you REALLY don’t like about Barack Obama, and just admit it. The truth is better than you guys just spreading a lot of hate based on a created (in your own minds) association between Rev. Wright’s socio-theological ideology and Barack Obama’s political positions, and abilities to lead the American people back to some sort of recovery.

We’re already in a death spiral thanks to the thugs that have raping and exploiting us for over 7 years, so unless you want us all to crash and burn, you need to get beyond the piddly BS and the hate mongering.

Research Shows Obama Hurt

This is very interesting.

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?content Id=6055022&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TS TY&pageId=3.11.1

I just found this neat link. You should check it out just for the technology.

African Americans, Independents, Democrats, and Republicans we