Anyone who sacrifices moral or ethical principle for political expediency or personal gain is SUSPECT. Obama cowing to Israeli interests is a glaring example of what America does not need in its leaders! Let him go back to his momma, or, in this case to cyrena, and learn to behave like a good boy that his momma would be proud of!

#92411 by cyrena on 8/05 at 9:46 pm

And, I think a few of them might actually be doing that, or at least have people “assigned” to do that. And, that’s at least one of the reasons why I’m not convinced that Obama is supported by the same $$$$ that the rest of them are.

Even if a candidate didn’t know of these blogs,I am sure that a staffer or a volunteer would and might even mention how the comments are running.
As to Obama, it was noted a while back in an article that Obama had collected money from more individuals (or sources, if you will) than Clinton had.
To this untrained eye, that seems to indicate that more voter’s, as opposed to special interest groups, are backing him.
Too bad there isn’t a law restricting donations to voter’s eligible to vote for that candidate. But, that comes under the head of making sense and that can’t be allowed to interfere with the process.

#92374 by mackTN on 8/05 at 2:53 pm (10 comments total): “...Chalmers .....There are only 2 democrats who believe in abrupt withdrawal from Iraq and a shutdown of military action in the middle east—Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. .....Which one of those candidates are you supporting…?”

Somewhere in one of these topics, I said that Hillary would do better on a joint ticket with Kucinich as vice president than putting up with Obama any longer. I guesss I should stick with that .....and you could be a little more polite….

Ok Godsend,

I read the whole thing, and thanks for sharing the link. I admit that it wasn’t making any sense to me, (particularly from what I’ve known of him, and specifically BECAUSE of his historically close relationship to Palestinian-Americans, like the late Edward Said, whom I also greatly admired.)

However the piece is good in that it does go over the time frame, of what “seems” to be a change in his previous attitude, at least in finding Israel very much at fault over the long term occupation of the Palestinian territories, to whatever he’s saying now. And, that much at least, I have heard him speak on -myself-, and it was back around that same time. So, we’re talking 8 or 9 years ago for me, and that was before he was running for President, or even considered it.

So, yes, politics does corrupt, and it has always been my concern about Barak, once he decided to take it on. It’s the nastiness of the they play the game. And, the author of the piece sums it up nicely this way:

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama’s about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

(He really should have checked with me before he did these votes. I can’t imagine WHAT he was thinking!)

cyrena:

Lest there be any doubt where Obama stands (or lies - embedded) when it comes to Israel:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

#92395 by GodSend on 8/05 at 5:41 pm

You don’t really think these posts are read by the candidates, do you? We should be so lucky! These posts are meant for listeners and lurkers, not even other posters!

On this Godsend, you are probably right…the lurkers and listeners that is. . And no, I wasn’t thinking that the candidates read this stuff, that was being more or less facetious.

OTOH, they would be WISE to do a little bit of lurking and listening themselves. So, there may in fact be one or two that are. I would certainly want to pay some attention to these blogs if I were seriously running as a candidate.

And, I think a few of them might actually be doing that, or at least have people “assigned” to do that. And, that’s at least one of the reasons why I’m not convinced that Obama is supported by the same $$$$ that the rest of them are. Matter of fact, I’m confident on that. There’s no doubt he’s collecting money, because campaigns need it. But, if there was really time to follow his specific trail of money, (and I’m sure someone could do it if they felt like it)I think we’d find that it comes from common enough sources and donations, with a larger part of it from individuals. (and yeah, they could be Zionists if you want to call them that I suppose…but a lot of the Hollywooders).

And, he and his wife have probably even earned some of it themselves.

Meantime, I’ve also not been able to find any direct or indirect connections between Obama and this almighty Israel patronage. I mean I see it here of course, but when I look for these alledged connections between him and the long established U.S.-Israeli Twinship, I’m not finding anything. I don’t see it in any of his current policy, (as a Senator) and I haven’t seen any obvious signs of it in any campaign propaganda or planned policy/agenda. Neither has it come up in any speeches that he has made to various organizations in the weeks of his campaign.

So, I’m honestly not ready to put him in Israel’s pocket just yet.

I would like to question him on his war plans though.

I believe he needs to re-vant his position to one that makes it clear that we have to remove ALL MILITARY presence of ourselves in the Middle East, and today would be a good day to start.

So, since his own Mama has passed on, maybe I’ll just have to call him up and give him some maternal advice:).

cyrena:

The point is that Obama is supported by Zionism ($$$) and is, in fact, more rabid in his pro-Israel wars support than most of the other Zionist-supported candidates. Maybe he thinks he has to ‘kiss more (Israeli Lobby) ass’ because he’s Black. That’s understandable.

The ‘go back to your momma’ part was merely a poetic and philosophical invitation to return to more innocent times in his life. You don’t really think these posts are read by the candidates, do you? We should be so lucky! These posts are meant for listeners and lurkers, not even other posters!

#92379 by GodSend on 8/05 at 4:23 pm

Obama? - go back to your momma! (Shekels are not Legal Tender in America!)
+++++++++++++++++++
Godsend,

I doubt Barack is tuned in, so he probably won’t get this message. But, just FYI, his Mama was white, but she is now dead. So, what’s the point, even if he was reading it?

Americans have had more than enough Zionist candidates shoved down their throats! This time around (November, 2008), ‘They’ (Israel Lobby king makers) will be scrambling to get on an El Al flight with their 1-way ticket to the Promised Land, instead of installing their candidate in the WH.

America is a Sicko land! Is there a doctor in the House to excise the spreading cancer, before America becomes ‘terminal’?

You betcha!

Obama? - go back to your momma! (Shekels are not Legal Tender in America!)

Continued post

Example…when george bush stole the election in 2000, I was overwhelmingly depressed. I knew what to expect, because I’d lived under his “reign” (as well as cheney’s) when I was a long term resident of Texas. So, when he actually was appointed President by the Supreme Court, I nearly had a breakdown. My sister told me I was overreacting, because he wasn’t gonna be in charge of anything anyway, because he would have his cabinet, and we could at least hope that he was surrounding himself with knowledgeable folks.

Now for HER, (because she’s my sister) I would use the word “naive” just because it sounds a whole lot better than ignorant. (of course she would never suggest something as stupid as Obama not being black enough). Still, you see what we’ve got. She was naïve to think that even though george bush is a moron and an addict, his advisors would save us. That hasn’t happened, because his advisors have created a nightmare. So, I understand Rick’s father’s concerns. I would not want either Al Sharpton on a cabinet either. Could he be any worse than most of what we have now?
NO!

Meantime, I’m still not sure about the brainwashing thing, but that’s what I meant by ignorant. I’ll try to clean-up my language a bit. But, no promises.

#91929 by Chaseme on 8/03 at 6:10 am
•  Cyrena,
Maybe you misconstrued the point I was making. I simply used your phrase: “IGNORANCE, (which troubles me) and what amounts to a brainwashing” to describe rick’s father’s point that: Obama will “staff his cabinet with the likes of Jesse Jacksons and Sharptons and the like.”
Chaseme,

•  I could have misunderstood your point, so here’s what I said, and what I actually meant by ignorance, (I don’t think I used the term brainwashing…at least I don’t see anywhere in my comments, that I used that term, though I certainly see where it might fit on all ends of the spectrum. Anyway, this was what I said, in respect to Rick’s father’s comments.

Here’s my original comment
>>>But, there is no danger of Obama surrounding himself with the very people that have been claiming (publicly) that he isn’t “black enough”. That is really quite an ignorant sort of discourse that we have unfortunately come to expect from the likes of Sharpton and a few others.>>>

Now, when I said this, I was referring to the early discourse of Mr. Sharpton, when Obama first decided to run. He (Al Sharpton) was publicly critical of him, and his primary criticism was that “he wasn’t black enough”. (I’m sure Mr. Sharpton isn’t the only one who indulged in this slamming, but it was from him that I heard it the most).

It is clearly my OWN opinion, that this discourse, (on the part of Sharpton or anyone else) is….IGNORANT. If we wanna throw in “brainwashed” as well, I guess it would fit, but that was not my term. I suggested that this was IGNORANT discourse, (because if you look at Barak Obama, there isn’t a whole lot of question that he is black…at least not to the average person). Now I could see him making such a comment about a few of my OWN relatives, who either simply don’t “appear” to be black, (even though they are) but to suggest that about a fellow African-American, (who is running for president) that he isn’t “black enough”, is – in my opinion, BAD FORM. So, maybe I should have used that term instead of simply dismissing it as ignorant discourse.

Now from what I gather from your most recent post, your use of the word brainwashing must have been referencing Rick’s father, who said he had these concerns, about Obama appointing these people to his cabinet. Were you possibly suggesting that HE was brainwashed, because he had these worries about Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, winding up on Obama’s cabinet?

I don’t know if that’s what was meant by the idea of brainwashing, but I don’t see it as that. I actually see the gentleman’s concern as legitimate, especially after the past 7 years of really horrific government, as a result of the choices that the current person(s) in the office have made.

Chalmers

There are only 2 democrats who believe in abrupt withdrawal from Iraq and a shutdown of military action in the middle east—Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

Which one of those candidates are you supporting?

#91985 by atheo on 8/03 at 10:36 am: “...But bold Obama is not afraid to go where Bushists fear to tread .....In a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars—a venue named after the patron saint of “humanitarian intervention”—the young senator struck back at critics of his foreign policy inexperience by throwing gobs of red meat to the permanent war crowd….... Barack salted the red meat of Wednesday’s speech…..... establishing Obama’s Terror War bona fides. Repeatedly evoking 9/11, he declared that “when I am president, we will wage a war that has to be won….”

Oh, isn’t this the Democrats’ New World Order??? Support the military-industrial complex and forget the failing infrastructure at home? There was no bridge falling into the Missisippi this week!

What will he suprise us with next? A $$trillion budget for supporting Israeli expansion in the M.East??? Well, if that would please the Southern Baptists, why not??? This guy is America’s OSAMA!!!

Thanks for the well-written comments, ‘atheo’.....

Ending theoccupation in Iraq means initiating a deployment of troops according to a responsible plan.  I don’t think anyone believes that we can just make our troops disappear in Iraq overnight.  Of course, deployment requires planning—something that bush failed to do when he went there in the first place, totally trashed a country largely because of one person Saddam Hussein because….?  Saddam was the mastermind of 9/11 and we had to show that we wouldn’t let him get away with it.

Uh, sorry.  Our mistake.  Well, nothing we can do about it now.  We should have been after Osama, but now that we’re in Iraq and now that some alquaeda has come there because we neglected border security, we now have a really legitimate reason to stay there.  This occupation will cost us over a trillion dollars, but remember, we’ll be reimbursed by Iraq’s oil revenues. 

Maybe we should forget about Osama altogether.  Look at the investment we’ve made in Iraq and we’re completing a multi-billion dollar state of the art embassy there, too.  Sure, why it’s true noone there had anything to do with 9/11, why not let bygones be bygones?  Our position in Iraq will ensure we can protect Israel and that’s worth the devastation of this country, that’s worth every life that’s been terminated, that’s worth every penny.

Doncha think?

Chriss Floyd:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama boldly step across the partisan divide and embrace the policies of the Full Spectrum Dominators in his “major foreign policy speech” on Wednesday. Obama declared that if the Pakistani government did not start a wholesale slaughter of its own people in the tribal lands on the Afghan border, where no government writ has ever run, then when he is president he will send in American troops to do the job.

Of course, the Bush Administration is already carrying out military operations in the border region, with drone attacks, air strikes, and the presence of clandestine units in the area…

But bold Obama is not afraid to go where Bushists fear to tread. In a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars—a venue named after the patron saint of “humanitarian intervention”—the young senator struck back at critics of his foreign policy inexperience by throwing gobs of red meat to the permanent war crowd. Taking pains to “reassure Americans that his long-stated opposition to the war in Iraq would not make him hesitant to vigorously pursue extremists who threaten the United States,” as the Washington Post put it, Obama said he would “end” the war in Iraq, and some thousands of U.S. troops from there to “the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Of course, Obama’s bold plan to “end” the war, as outlined on his website, involves leaving a large contingent of US troops in Iraq to “engage in counter-terrorism”—which is what the entire 160,000-strong occupation force is ostensibly doing, and failing at, right now—and to “continue the training of Iraqi security forces,” i.e., keep arming and paying sectarian militias to kill each other and loot the government. This is the kind of “anti-war” stance that only a militarist could love. Indeed, as we said here the other day:

Any “withdrawal” plan that includes a “residual force” in Iraq is simply a perpetuation of the current war crime by other means…

Barack salted the red meat of Wednesday’s speech with some pleasing noises about prohibiting torture and closing what the Washington Post is pleased to call the “military prison” at Guantanamo Bay, where hundreds of non-combatants have been held, some of them for years. That would be nice for him to do, of course, but he seems strangely content to let these abuses continue unabated until he takes office in 2009. He is a United States senator, after all; nothing prevents him from introducing measures in Congress to start rolling back the authoritarian usurpations of the Bush Regime right now. He wouldn’t even sign on as co-sponsor of the now-stalled “Restoring the Constitution Act,” which would repeal some of the monstrosities in last year’s habeas corpus-killing “Military Commissions Act.”

But the bulk of the speech was given over to establishing Obama’s Terror War bona fides. Repeatedly evoking 9/11, he declared that “when I am president, we will wage a war that has to be won…The terrorists are at war with us…the threat is real.” So there will be more war in an Obama administration, just in case you weren’t sure about that, with Barack being so anti-war and all…

#91659 by Chaseme on 8/02 at 6:56 am

Chaseme,

I’m not entirely sure what troubles you, since I definitely don’t see Barack Obama ever staffing his cabinet with the likes of Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson, Sr. (Maybe the younger Jesse, not the elder).

And, unfortunately, I DO see at least Al Sharpton, as…IGNORANT. Sorry if it troubles you, but that’s just the way it is. Al Sharpton is….what? Has Al ever had a real job? Has Jesse Sr ever had a real job? In all honesty, they have not. I cannot see any benefit that either of them would be to an Administrative Cabinet, and it’s doubtful that Barack would either. Would either of them be any WORSE than what we have now? Of course not.

But, the “conflict posed” by the poster, suggested that while his or her 70 year old white father DID seem impressed with what Obama was saying, the guy has a “concern” or “fear” (legitimate or otherwise) that Obama would surround himself with (in MY words) the “likes” of a REV Al Sharpton or a REV Jesse Jackson as cabinet members. I don’t believe that would happen, since neither of them are qualified for Cabinet positions in an Administration.

And yep, I DO think Al comes across as real ignorant sometimes. It didn’t HELP my overall impression of him, when he started bad-mouthing Obama straight out of the gate.

Now of course over in Thailand, things are certainly different,(although for now, I prefer this side of that Ocean) But, back here at home, we still have the same old shit going, except that it’s become so much worse.

So, if there are old white guys who are comfortable enough voting for Obama, and their only concern is that he might bring less than savory people on board, then I want to help convince him, that isn’t likely to happen.

Last but not least, I’ve earned the right to call ‘em like I see ‘em. Such as it is.

In this 21st century, I am somewhat surprised that we still confuse race with culture. Race means nothing, in that it is not what differentiates one person from another.  My coming into this world black or chinese or white does not mean I will behave a certain way, learn a certain amount, or communicate in a certain style. 

We are taught and therefore assume a cultural mode that we ascribe to race.  Obama wasn’t born and raised on the south side of Chicago and so he didn’t spring from a traditional black culture.  But this is true of more blacks than ever.  And it confuses the hell out of white people who strain to fit others into a racial category.  And, yes, it even confuses a lot of black people—Obama suffers from the “brother from another planet” syndrome.  What the hell?

In this society so dominated by white culture, there are many brothers and sisters from another planet: some are from biracial families, others (like me) were raised away from that cultural thang.  The emphasis on one Race/culture just wasn’t taught, passed on, embedded in a daily environment. 

It disorients people.  An example:  I used to work as an acquisitions editor for a southern academic press whose mission was to publish the fruits of research from select disciplines.  Our work style required writing hundreds of letters to potential authors annually, talking to them by phone about their projects, meeting with them rarely—usually at academic conferences.  My first year, I forged many new contacts by mail & over the phone and I was eager to finally meet them during my travels.

Why would the color of my skin make such a difference?  After all, these people had gotten to know me very well, appreciated my editorial guidance, trusted me with their precious little drafts.  If anything, particularly to those who were acknowledged racists, they had to at the point of meeting me accept the fact that race has nothing to do with anything since they had spent almost a year just adoring me. 

Figuring the answer to this one is about as hard as providing a solution to a Bhuddist koan.  What do you think?

Cyrena,
By emailing his campaign, you acted upon the matter. They are confronted with the public’s reaction and disapointment with their stated position.
His campaign has to take these subservient pro-Israel stances to obtain financing from the elites that finance the polital process in the US. On one level it may seem stupid for candidates to take these aggressive militarist positions, but without doing so they would be branded as other than “major” candidates. Thus all the “major” candidates have quite similar positions. Interesting that they could all be so uniform. Note the media’s antagonism toward Ron Paul, the only candidate who proposes a complete termination of foreign aid which he (correctly in my estimation) characterises as corporate wellfare.

#91368 by atheo on 8/01 at 7:28 am

•  91306 Cerena,
I kid you not. That’s a real excerpt. I’m glad it got acted upon. Bravo!
Actually atheo,

I can’t say that it’s been “acted upon” because I’ve never been able to FIND this same thing, posted anywhere on Obama’s website, or in any other thing that appears to be “official”. It is NOT on his website.

So, the only “acting” I did, was to emai the person listed with the “document” and include the “excerpt” and ask if that was indeed Mr. Obama’s position on Israel, and why he had even felt compelled to make ANY statement on Israel. (This is why it’s very suspicious to me; there are no “political points” to be scored by Barack Obama for taking ANY position on Israel, if he could AVOID it…I think it’s really stupid for ANY political candidate to come out in open support of Israel. They just don’t have a good reputation these past 60 years).

Still, that doesn’t mean that many of them DON’T actively support the continuing reign of Israel’s terror, and if Obama was really one of them, I wanted to know.

But, so far…no response, and I would have expected one by now, since I get a bunch of other stuff from his campaign. So, we’ll give it a few days before we consider it “acted upon”. If I hear back, I’ll let you know. Otherwise, I’m taking it as the same type of propaganda that has been spilling into my email and on to these blogs for years.

I’ve read so much of it, I’m nearly a self-proclaimed pro at recognizing this stuff.

#91420 by rick on 8/01 at 10:53 am

•  My father (white, 70s) likes everything hears from Obama, but is concerned that Obama will staff his cabinet with the likes of Jesse Jacksons and Sharptons and the like.  I think this puts Obama in a fix - distance yourself from the potential (media created)’base’ black political leadership to get the white vote and possibly lose the black vote, or lose the white vote.
Rick,

Rest your dad’s fears. (although I’ll admit they might be expected). But, there is no danger of Obama surrounding himself with the very people that have been claiming (publicly) that he isn’t “black enough”. That is really quite an ignorant sort of discourse that we have unfortunately come to expect from the likes of Sharpton and a few others. Jesse’ is not as bad, but Jesse is old now, left over from a movement (of which he was really only on the fringes) that produced some great and less-than-great- leaders and events that changed history.

Sharpton and others like him, do not belong to that history, nor do they belong to the much more intellectually balanced ideology that Barack represents, or that the majority of other black people represent. Barack is about a totally new agenda, that is synchronized with real time, and not a bunch of old time rhetoric. (Especially that Bible connected stuff)

I see no reason why Obama cannot get both the black and white vote. And, I’m sure he won’t be taking on any associations with the likes of Al Sharpton, or even Jesse Jackson at this point, although Jesse has had the occasional dots connected.

So, don’t worry. We aren’t gonna let that happen.

#91425 by atheo on 8/01 at 11:20 am: “...Obama officially more militarist than the Bush regime: Obama warns he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan…”

From the LA Times: In the speech, Obama at some points used the terminology of the Bush administration in describing the problem of terrorism. He said that terrorists “are at war with us” and are “seeking to create a repressive caliphate in the Muslim world.”

As far as the loose-cannon talk of Obama is concerned, “caliphate” refers to “Hizb ut Tahrir” - the Global Islamic Political Party working for the reestablishment of Khilafah, Caliphate, Islamic state in the Muslim world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir

In other words, Obama and the Democrats already preparing to demonize the next imaginary Al Queda even if it is a peaceful organization. Of course, the fact that it is anti-Zionist should indicate something just as with Hezb’ullah.

Obama officially more militarist than the Bush regime:

Obama warns he would attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan
Wednesday August 1, 2007

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama warned Wednesday that if elected president he would be prepared to order military strikes against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, even if Islamabad objects…

[he goes on to engage in fearmongering]

“But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans ... if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

[the Bush regime is more reasonable]

Senior State Department official Nicholas Burns told a Senate committee the administration retained the option of targeting Osama bin Laden’s terror group in the region but was also keen to respect Pakistani sovereignty.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Obama_warns_he_would_attack_Al_Qaed_08012007.html

#91358 by Douglas Chalmers on 8/01 at 6:54 am
(440 comments total)

Quote: “...Are white Americans really, truly prepared to elect an African-American president…?’

Do you mean Condi Rice? Certainly, if she was put up as a contender by the Republicans, she would be the only really intelligent candidate they have. She would be their ‘de facto’ Hillary Clinton and Obama wouldn’t stand a chance either way. Both women are “the most experienced and the most qualified person” that their parties have to offer.

Good one, Douglas, I am glad to see such a refined sense of humor….wait a hold it, you werent serious were you?

Ms. Rice’s expertise was on the Cold War and the USSR, neither of which is existant today. Her only other quality is that she is the ultimate sycophant to her husband,...err her boss.

91306 Cerena,

I kid you not. That’s a real excerpt. I’m glad it got acted upon. Bravo!

Quote: “...Are white Americans really, truly prepared to elect an African-American president…?’

Do you mean Condi Rice? Certainly, if she was put up as a contender by the Republicans, she would be the only really intelligent candidate they have. She would be their ‘de facto’ Hillary Clinton and Obama wouldn’t stand a chance either way. Both women are “the most experienced and the most qualified person” that their parties have to offer.

#91231 by Enemy of State on 7/31 at 6:22 pm

•  So I think native blacks can see that Obama has not had the same cultural experience as they, so they don’t automatically identify with them. Whites (or at least liberal whites), can sense that the cultural chasm caused by centuries of racism doesn’t really exist between them and colored immigrants lkike Obama, so we are completely comfortable with them….”
EOS, I appreciate your post, but I wanted to say, (as a “native” African-American) that your assessment is close, but I’d be more inclined to say that this part of the black population simply has not had the same cultural exposure as Obama has, just as my own has been different from a substantial portion of the black community.

For the purposes of this discussion though, we’re talking about a population of black people in South Carolina, which isn’t necessarily representative of the entire black population. And, my own very rudimentary research tells me that there are far more black voters out there, who think exactly as you do. We have NO problems with him. Even the “experience” thing doesn’t bother me, because I think he has as much as anybody else that we’ve seen in an administration for a real long time.

So hell, I’m just delighted that he knows the laws, and that he would be inclined to protect the Constitution, (and put it back together, though we shouldn’t wait for him or anybody else to do that) and that he has a common goal that I share, which is to pass on a better place for the next generations, and we need to turn this operation around real fast, if that’s gonna happen. I think he’s up to the task.

So, I’d probably vote for him even if he WASN’T black. (wink, wink)

And, I’m convinced that a large percentage of other African-American voters feel that way as well.

#91149 by atheo on 7/31 at 1:22 pm

Atheo, this was on the posting you made that allegedly comes from Barack Obama’s website. I’m waiting on a response back from the address that was included.

Because….I’m not buying this. It reads very, very, very, “suspiciously” to me. It reads like planted rhetoric, as a matter of fact, and I’ve analyzed a whole bunch of it.

So, I’m gonna try to follow-up on this, and I don’t think it’s gonna lead me back to a bona fide Obama campaign.

I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t HAVE a position on Israel, but this isn’t it.

#91108 by atheo on 7/31 at 10:51 am
•  ...“Why not just vote for Condoleeza Rice?”..

Atheo, this is NOT funny…oh no, not one single bit.
Now, we just heard from Douglas Chalmers in another thread, that Condi has already threatened to beat Maliki’s brains out.

I would be tempted to do the same thing to you, if you should ever make such a suggestion or recommendation again. Heaven forbid!! You’ll give a middle-aged woman an irregular heat beat.

#91094 by mackTN on 7/31 at 9:44 am

MackTN, I feel your frustration. If it makes you feel any better, I know a few of those same black folks, and I don’t know that “fatalistic” is the way to describe it, though it “sounds” a lot better than my own analysis, which is IGNORANCE, (which troubles me)and what amounts to a brainwashing of those 200 plus years of slavery. So, maybe it’s partly fatalistic, but it’s also the same as it’s always been. There will always be “Uncle Toms” around.

And, the Civil Rights Movement, as much as it DID produce, (and I was marching as well) lost it’s steam somewhere along the road, and maybe we’ve missed some of the newer generation, even though I find these mentalities among black people, to be mostly concentrated in the boomer generation, and also -demographically- more so in the south, and in more rural communities.

That’s just the way it seems to have worked out. In the end, it will take more than the black community to elect Obama. Black folks still only represent 12% of the population, and we have to accept that proportionate to the numbers, fewer black people vote. (caging certainly eliminates more of them).

So in the final analysis, it will probably be the progressive white establishment, that ends up giving the brother a chance.

And, the people you described, will be saved in spite of their own ignorance.

So far, he’s the best candidate, but I’m actually MORE concerned right now, about saving the Republic so there will be SOMETHING left for them to assume in such a role.

It’s like…the constitutional crises is going down…NOW. Here’s a piece that is more than food for thought.

It’shttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/073107E.shtml food for action.

Personally this white former Independent voter would have no problem voting for Obama. While America certainly has many voters who would not vote for a black man, I think they are nearly all Republicans, who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat in any case. For me his race is a plus. I’m hoping that if he wins the spirital surge that American blacks will experience will help to lead them out of the underclass. That would be such a huge positive for our country, that I am willing to overlook a bit of inexperience.

  Now to the race issue. IMO children of immigrants (whatever their skincolor) have a quite different cultural perspective on American than the native African Americans. The latter have the cultural baggage of slavery, and a hundred years of serious discrimination, causing an unsurprising resentment.

  The immigrants came here for the opportunity America presents. While I’m sure that colored immigrants, and their offspring have experienced some discrimination, compared to the opportunities thay would have had in their home countries it doesn’t represent a major obstacle for them.

In fact colored immigrants, especially ones with well-to-do parents are benefiting disproportionately from affirmative action programs. Native blacks may in fact feel some resentment from the fact that these un-needy folks are taking a disproportionate share of the affirmative action slots.

  So I think native blacks can see that Obama has not had the same cultural experience as they, so they don’t automatically identify with them. Whites (or at least liberal whites), can sense that the cultural chasm caused by centuries of racism doesn’t really exist between them and colored immigrants lkike Obama, so we are completely comfortable with them.

Chaseme
For what it is worth, not all Whites will have to be drunk to vote for Barak Obama.
And his being in the final race will not insure a Republican victory, unless that candidate totally repudiates the Shrub and his lack of a clue.
There was a time just 40 years ago that a Catholic being elected meant that the Pope would run this country.
It is a given that many Whites would not consider voting for him.
Yes, it is a shame that a man is still judged by his color, or a woman by her body size/shape.
But those are facts of life for a lot of folks. Not as many as there used to be. And not as many in the next generations.

These responses are among the very best I have read at this site, and I thank each and every one of you for them.

One day, long after I have shuffled off this mortal coil, we will see a world in which the melanin content of one’s skin is hardly noticed and not remarked upon.

I would keep my critique of Barak Obama free of reference to the color of his skin and the criticisms of Hillary Clinton without reference to her gender. But I am such a dreamer…...

Robinson said “He still gets asked that question, but by now he has mostly put the question of his racial identity to rest. As he knew all along, he’s black.”

I really don’t understand this obsession with racial identity.  First of all Obama has two parents: one black and one white.  That means that he is mixed race.  Isn’t that an identity?  If anything the fact that mixed race marriages were outlawed in some states a mere fifty some years ago, says more than anything about how much progress has been made in civil rights in the last half century.

At times, over the years I have voted for blacks, Hispanics, and women.  I did this only because they happened to espouse policies that were in my best interests.  Won’t I be foolish to vote against my best interests, only because a candidate was a white male?

How does that fact that Obama has a black parent change the way he would govern?  Civil rights legislation was passed in the 60’s.  It is already against the law for government officials to discriminate based on race.  What kinds of things could he do, that would benefit black people that would not benefit white people.  If he were to turn his attention to poverty and that would be a good thing, there are still numerically more white than black people in poverty.  And on the issue of poverty, Edwards is speaking out about it more than either Obama or Clinton.

Eric Lynn
Middle East Policy Advisor
Obama for America

Subject: Barack Obama: A Strong Record of Supporting Israel

Attached and below is a Fact Sheet of Barack Obama’s record on
Israel.  We hope that you will pass this on to all interested in
his views.  Please feel free to contact me with any questions and
comments.

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STRENGTHEN THE U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP

Barack Obama has established a strong record as a true friend of
Israel, a stalwart defender of Israel’s security, and an effective
advocate of strengthening the steadfast U.S.-Israel relationship. 
He believes that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should
never be challenged.  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Obama has consistently emphasized his commitment to our
ally Israel, and has been an active supporter of legislation
helping to ensure the support and security of the Middle East’s
only established democracy.  Obama continually works with a number
of his colleagues in the Senate to promote a closer relationship
between the U.S. and Israel on a range of fronts – security, 
economic, political, and cultural.

ENSURE A STRONG U.S.-ISRAEL PARTNERSHIP:  Barack Obama strongly
supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, a bond that is mutually
beneficial to each country as we share common values, histories, 
and a dedication to democracy.  Senator Obama believes that our
first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to
the security of Israel…

SUPPORT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ISRAEL:  Barack Obama has
consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel.  He defends
and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both
military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated
increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding
priorities are met.  Additionally, he has called for sustaining the
unique U.S.-Israel defense relationship by fully funding military
assistance and continuing cooperative work on missile defense
programs, such as the Arrow.

Reply-To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Why the Democrats Are Acting This Way

By Dennis Loo

Many people say they wish the Democrats would “grow a spine” and “show some courage.” They also say things like: “Don’t the Democrats realize that they’re throwing away the chance to stand with the majority of Americans? Don’t they know that failing to do so is going to hurt them?” There are, of course, other variants on these themes, with some people saying: “Throw out the lot of them. Elect some people who will do the will of the people.” All of these responses, while understandable, miss the point.

The Democrats HAVE been showing a REMARKABLE amount of spine - it’s just that they are directing their strong backs AGAINST the will of the people.

Think about this: their approval ratings are even lower than those for Bush and Cheney (or at least Bush!) because they aren’t doing what people elected them to do in the 2006 election. Yet they won’t end the Iraq war, won’t stand up against Bush and Cheney’s plans to attack iran, and insist that impeachment is “off the table.”

They know that a large majority of Americans want Bush and Cheney gone.

They know that they are shamelessly and transparently lying when they say that they haven’t seen any impeachable offenses.

They know that they are violating the Constitution and international law through the bills they’ve passed (e.g., the Military Commissions Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act) and by allowing Bush’s hundreds of signing statements and executive orders that violate their acts and the law.

They know that their failing to act according to the law, Constitution and the will of the people runs a huge risk that they will be punished by the people.

They know that if they were to impeach and were to hold hearings in the course of impeachment that this White House’s crimes would come spilling out like an avalanche and that this would bury the GOP for a generation and the Democrats would thereby earn the gratitude of the vast majority of the people.

YET they are determined NOT to do these exceedingly popular things. They are showing tremendous fortitude in resisting doing the right thing and resisting the American people.

Why?

It’s quite simple. They don’t represent the people. The US is the biggest, strongest imperialist power to ever exist on this earth. Why would you expect that the two major political parties in the most powerful empire to ever exist would be ANYTHING ELSE but fundamentally representatives of the most wealthy elements and fundamentally representatives of the extraordinary power and wealth concentrated in a small number of transnational corporations?

What kind of leaders of corporations that make BILLIONS in QUARTERLY profits would you be if you allowed “the people,” poor and rich alike, to have one vote each? Would you turn over your power and wealth to “the people?” You’d be crazy to do so. You’d make sure the system worked in your interest. You’d make sure that elections turned out the way you wanted them to and that the people who get elected do what you want them to do.

Someone made a button once that I really like. It went something like this, “If elections meant anything they’d make them illegal.”

The truth is that elections don’t decide public policy. Democrats and Republicans are part of the same system. They have more in common with each than what distinguishes them. Even independents and third parties, should their people get elected, have to operate in the same structure. The only way that we can take on and defeat Bush and Cheney and everything they stand for and the whole direction that they are leading us down (and the Democrats are cooperating and colluding in) is through the people’s mass, independent actions in our millions.

The Declare It Now: Wear Orange campaign at http://worldcantwait.org offers a vehicle for the American people to act politically in our millions. Take part!

Why not just vote for Condoleeza Rice?

I am disappointed with my fellow black Americans, actually. Talking to some who are Clinton supporters, I am speechless at the reasoning and the concession to, well, fate.  I nearly kicked my plumber out of the house when he told me that he was voting for Hillary because of 1)Bill; 2)he admired the way she handled his adultery; 3)Obama wouldn’t get elected anyway.

These are people who witnessed or took part in the civil rights movement just as I did.  Perhaps this resignation and silly reasoning comes from the longtime void at the helm of leadership in our community.  Perhaps too many have succeeded in finally getting their own home and secure job and confuse that with a miraculous achievement considering their skin color. 

I recall working for Harold Washington during the final months of his campaign for mayor of Chicago. He and Obama share important traits—both are charismatic, both brilliant, both managed to form multiracial coalitions that got them elected. 

While I’m not saying that because Obama is black, we should vote for him.  But why not give the brother a chance?  Why lose before we’ve even run the race?  Why not be proud of the diversity in our community and of each other? 

As for Clinton—please!  Clinton was no civil rights president.  In fact, he is the primary reason we have Bush in office today.  He created the environment for it.  He moved the progressive Democratic party to the center, cleansed it of its liberal and progressive heart, and aped the Republicans in order to win power. When faced with controversy he abandoned his black cabinet candidates—Lani Guinier, Jocelyn Elders—as did Hillary with him.  The only visible black person around him was Vernon Jordan, fellow pussy hunter.

Are we so determined to lay down that we will bring everyone down with us?  Is there anything that Obama has campaigned on that makes him unsuitable for this office?  Name me the campaign promises of Hillary vs Obama, tell me, on that basis, why one is better suited for this office than the other, and I’ll listen.  But don’t give me this fatalistic bs that has nothing at all to do with reality.  Once you lose faith in your ability to effect change, you are nothing but a cog in a machine.

Not an unreasonable fear, all considered.
As a 62yo white male who gets his red neck from farming, I am tempted by Obamas’ ideas. Plus the fact that his money seems to come from citizen’s, rather than special interests.
I’m sure that some special interest money is in there, and if he seems a likely contender as time goes by, there will be more.
My biggest concern with him is his youth. ‘Course that is what folks said, among other things, about JFK.
But something we all have to bear in mind; regardless of who gets the Presidency, we will have to send a team that can work with that President.
This is assuming (and we know what happens when one does) that there will be elections, nay, even a country, after the Shootist does his secret branch of the Government number.
But, assuming that there are elections and that Democrat’s take a number of seats, it will be one long hard row to hoe to repair the damage that Shrub et al have inflicted upon this country. It’s going to take years, many years, to undo all that Shrub befouled.