posted on March 19, 2008 07:33:18 AM new
Talk about a study in contrasts! One a speech from an articulate speaker, the other a speech from. . .well, I'll be nice. He doesn't have much time left to entertain us with his speeches.
posted on March 19, 2008 08:32:47 AM new
Helen, The more I see of Hillary, the less respect I have for her. It is apparent she will say or do anything to get elected. If she is in the south, she speaks with a southern drawl. She is against the war when it is expedient, yet she voted for it and will not apologize or explain why. She slyly answers questions so that she covers both sides. She was asked about Obama being a Muslim and her answer was typical Hillary, "He is not a Muslim---as far as I know." This is why I find Obama so refreshing. He is the antithesis of the Hillary/Bush/Romney School of Politics.
[ edited by coach81938 on Mar 19, 2008 08:34 AM ]
posted on March 19, 2008 08:46:42 AM new
"With Hillary, I can't understand her vote for the war in 2002 and the vote last year for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which will be used as justification for attacking Iran."
Maybe because even though she's an opportunist political hack, she's not dumb and knows the area is of the most vital strategic and economic importance to this country.
"that she will bring the troops home? Who is she trying to fool?"
Nobody, in contrast to Obama whose mentioned 16 month timetable was classified by his staff as "overly optimistic", LOL. So I guess you could classify Obama's public statements as a "lie". But cheer up, you'll get used to it.
"Her failure to address the racist attempts to smear Obama"
So Hillary has to make speeches FOR Obama about HIS supporters??? What planet are you from?
These silly speeches about racism, etc, remind me of the Ross Perot "What would you do about...?" answers: "Well,... I'd fix it!"
Racism is not abated by speeches you've heard 50,000 times before by 50,000 people. It is an evolutionary process. The only problem is that after a generation or 2, Irish loose the brogue but people of color do not change their skin, so the process of assimilation takes longer. Flowery speeches and laws can yield a "feel good" attitude and force an external view of harmony, but cannot create instant change any more than prohibition prevented drinking.
posted on March 19, 2008 11:35:34 AM newHelen, The more I see of Hillary, the less respect I have for her. It is apparent she will say or do anything to get elected. If she is in the south, she speaks with a southern drawl.
I noticed that when she was campaigning in Ohio she dropped the "g" off the following: "I'm goin', thinkin', talkin', lookin' " etc. I wanted to reach through the tv and strangle her! How transparent!
I could almost sympathize with her when she was playing nicy-nice with Obama, but now that she has turned nasty, I am totally against her.
He, on the other hand has decently made no mention of Whitewater or Vince Foster.
-------------------------------------
posted on March 19, 2008 12:15:27 PM new
I know what you mean, Neglus. It is so obvious that she is a chameleon, but she must think the voters are dumb (and maybe some are) to fall for it. I support most of her policy positions, but cannot warm up to her, nor trust her.
Exactly, Coach. She talks about good policies but in sight of what she has done so far who can trust her to implement those policies.
She voted for war twice and after the recent vote in 2006 she claimed she is bringing the troops home. How duplicitous can she get?
posted on March 19, 2008 01:49:49 PM new
Hilarious you think there is some difference between them.
Hey, I've got a socko idea. Why don't you all make a list of "Obama predictions"? You know like bigpeepa. So if he gets elected you can say how farsighted you all were.
Oh, and if Congress remains Dem controlled there will be no "they conspired against him" excuses.
posted on March 19, 2008 03:02:37 PM new
More smears may be coming,cant just keep giving impressive speeches!
What ever happens to that photo of him dressed in Muslim garb they are circulating in cyberspace?
posted on March 19, 2008 06:02:26 PM new
I believe the "garb" you are speaking of was a traditional African robe that he wore while visiting Africa. It was a respectful thing to do. Much like the time when Barbara Walters wore a woman's Muslim outfit when she visited the Middle East.
I know what you mean, Neglus. It is so obvious that she is a chameleon, but she must think the voters are dumb (and maybe some are) to fall for it.
Cash - Don't forget that the people supporting Hillary are Democrats, too. Let's not try to do anything to divide the party. That will hand the election to the Republicans.
posted on March 19, 2008 06:41:04 PM new
I can blame Hillary for initially supporting the war but can't blame her for the flip-flop when she realized the war was based on false intelligence. Heck, even Oregon's own bible-thumping, right-wing, Bush-lover republican senator Gordon Smith did a flip-flop on the war in 2006 - calling it CRIMINAL - the solitary point I can respect him for. Honestly, although I don't see McCain and Clinton that far apart - and I'll even give McCain a few more points for charisma and integrity - the 2 national issues I care most about - ending the Iraq war and national health reform are only supported by Obama and Clinton. We can't afford to divide the party.
The Speech That Revealed So Much
Posted by Bobby Eberle
March 19, 2008 at 6:37 am
>> Printer-Friendly Version
It was touted as a "major" speech. Facing criticism over anti-American hate speech from his pastor of twenty years, Barack Obama was forced to the podium to address the comments of Jeremiah Wright. Obama has built his campaign around a message of "coming together" and "moving beyond race." However, his speech did nothing to show that he, the candidate of change, has done any moving at all. In fact, despite specific words in which he denounced some of Wright's comments, the overall message of his speech was that Wright's comments were OK and that we just need to "understand" why he made them. Sorry Barack... you had your chance to move "beyond race," and you blew it.
On many occasions, I have written about race in America. (See A Personal Look at Racial Preferences and Diversity Essay" is Not the Answer to Color Blind Admissions). Those on the liberal left have done more to perpetuate strife between the races than they will ever admit... from racial preferences to "hate" crimes laws, the dream of a color-blind society has been swept away in favor of "give me something just because I'm black" mentality.
Obama's pastor has taken to the pulpit on many occasions and delivered, not a Christian message of "love thy neighbor," but a militant political message of hate. By now, you have likely seen the videos or read the transcripts. Comments such as "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies." and others such as "We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye." are common place in Wright's rants.
However, what did Obama say about them in Tuesday's "major" speech? First, he made the following comments regarding Rev. Wright, a person Obama now refers to as his "former pastor":
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
Obama then added, "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." Rather than strongly come out in his "major" speech and draw a clear line in the sand between himself and Rev. Wright, Obama draped his denunciation around the comments made by others in an attempt to make the Wright comments on par with other statements of race. Nice try, but you failed Senator. Someone's (Geraldine Ferraro) personal comments on whether race had anything to do with your rapid rise in politics is completely different than a pastor's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jewish, non-Christian rants at the pulpit. Obama should have nothing to do with this person, but he is so political that he is not willing to risk his "ghetto" credentials to say what's right.
Instead of saying that he will not be associated with a church or person who promotes such anti-American views, Obama spent most of the speech trying to defend Rev. Wright. He mentioned all the good things that Wright has done. He then went on to say:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
Those are the comments that really made ME cringe. Those statements and others in his speech were not only offensive to me, but were so purely political. Time after time he tried to equate Wright to someone else or to someone else's actions to lessen the effect or to diminish the significance. Wright's comments needed to be addressed for what they are, but instead, Obama embraced Wright as a symbol of the "black community." In addition, equating Wright's comments delivered to a modern-day audience with those of his 86-year-old grandmother is insulting. His grandmother came from a different era and was not at the pulpit or on video delivering hate speech.
Obama goes on to explain the historical injustices perpetrated against blacks. He then adds:
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. ... This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
Obama then said, "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community." He goes on to give examples, but this is where his failure is complete. Yes, each racial culture in America has members who are angry, who feel cheated by "the man." And in the segments of angry people arise leaders to fan the flames of anger. However, those extremist leaders are denouncing by mainstream America, not embraced. Political leaders do not flock to side of David Duke, but rather they denounce his words and actions, and they separate themselves from everything Duke stands for.
What did Obama do regarding Wright? Well, Obama "can no more disown him" than he can "disown the black community." Wright may have grown up during racially charged times in America, but he is speaking to impressionable youngsters of the present. His words do nothing more than promote racial division.
Yet, we must "come together" and work for a color-blind society. We would be a better America for it. However, those who think Obama is the new leader of that movement need only listen to Tuesday's speech. Obama failed to be anything more than a politician trying to play the race card.
One final note... The really frustrating part of the speech, other than the words themselves, was some of the analysis that followed. All of the analysts on FOX News seemed to be like deer caught in the headlights of a "racial police" Hummer. They seemed afraid to say anything that could be perceived as offensive. HELLO!!!! The speech was so blatantly political and so easy to dissect and yet they let it pass. Obama made excuses for Wright and continued to play the race card. Yet he got a pass. That is pathetic.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on March 19, 2008 07:14:03 PM new
Cheryl and Pixia--The one thing I do not want to do is hand the election to the Republicans. I will vote for either Democrat over McCain, but I do much prefer Obama.
I do not have a problem with Hillary changing her mind on the war--a good flip-flop. Just wonder why she won't say what changed her mind. Many other liberal Democrats who did vote for the war, have since strongly repudiated their vote. She seems to vascilate in her opinion on this.
posted on March 19, 2008 10:32:09 PM new
You're the one supporting someone who is fawned over and yet says absolutely nothing to the point where it is a running joke on Sat Night Live, and a critic??
posted on March 20, 2008 07:24:14 AM new
No more bickering among the Democrats! I will support the nominee be it Obama or Clinton. However, I suspect that if the Democrats can't realign themselves, more and more people will simply choose not to vote. That will be handing the election over to McCain.
If you put McCain on TV along side Bush and you close your eyes while they are speaking you simply cannot tell them apart. I have confidence that the people in this country will not elect to have four more years of a Bush-like administration.
When I look at McCain's age, it amazes me that he would even be considered. Mental capacity does not increase as we age. It decreases. I have my doubts that he'd be able to lead for the entire four years and I suspect we'd have to largely rely on whomever the VP would be. If I were a Republican, this wouldn't make me feel very easy at all. Neither would the fact that he plans on keeping us in the Middle East for "100 years" or more.
This could turn out to be the most important election in US history and I, for one, am excited about being a part of it.
posted on March 20, 2008 09:08:35 AM new
Prof, I believe you were right when you said it's going to be another hair splitting election. And I was wrong to express such optimism for an easy Democratic win.
" When the Democrats finally choose a candidate for president in August, the winner of this internecine party battle will have to go up against all the same accusations from a Republican opponent -- but ten times worse. Indeed, what's uttered now will be fired from a cannon later. With every day that passes, it grows clearer that the winner will hardly be able to savor his victory."
posted on March 20, 2008 10:17:58 AM new
Helen - I agree. Perhaps it is best to get the dirty laundry out now in a preemptive strike so that folks will be tired of all of it before Karl Rove gets a chance at the Democratic Candidate. It's going to be very ugly then. He is despicable and if I didn't dislike McCain before, the fact that he has accepted Rove's support and advice (after being smeared by him last go 'round), makes me REALLY dislike him now.
-------------------------------------
posted on March 20, 2008 12:00:02 PM new
Of course, it depends on the definition of a "lie". If 200 peoples' testimony vs 5 others can be classified as a "lie", anything is possible. But in any case, report it and let it find its level.
posted on March 20, 2008 01:49:15 PM new
Yup helen, it's going to be real close. I just wonder if McCain continues to act dotty and forgetful how much that will impact him. He's too old and it's starting to show. If the campaign wears on him as much as it seems to be, I can't imagine what the presidency would do to him.
I believe Obama can beat him, assuming he can get past this preacher nonsense. I have doubts Hillary can. My hope is that the bounce she has received in the polls is momentary reaction to all the hoo-haw about his former pastor and will fade away.
I have horse business in his zipcode this weekend. It will be interesting to see what the locals there are talking about. It's a heavily Rep. area like most of the state, but many where I am are unhappy with what they describe as his "liberal" positions. I keep telling them not to worry, if he's president NOTHING will change.
posted on March 20, 2008 02:14:42 PM new
This is a great column that was in today's Plain Dealer. The columnist is Phillip Morris, an African American democrat. His columns are insightful and to the point. I think he said it all here:
Barack Obama did not go far enough in speech - Phillip Morris
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Phillip Morris
Plain Dealer Columnist
It was a great civil rights speech.
"Just the wrong presidential speech," I said to Beatrice, shortly after Sen. Barack Obama finished explaining his problematic spiritual adviser Tuesday afternoon.
"Obama seems to have tripped onto the wrong side of his hyphen for the first time. He sounded like a defensive African-American trying to simultaneously explain and denounce racism. Not the heralded All-American unifier, who transcends race."
"What are you talking about?" Beatrice practically yelled into the phone.
She used that old, Southern black woman voice she adopts whenever she pulls rank. It's the voice designed to inform that she knows more about the nefarious ways of white folks than I do.
It's the voice within a voice that says: "Young man, you write about lynchings. I've witnessed them. Watch what you say."
"Well, I thought he gave a powerful speech. But it didn't go far enough," I said, choosing my words a bit more carefully.
I didn't want Beatrice to start cussing. People sometimes mistake her sunny disposition for passiveness. Sometimes they get cussed out.
"I thought he sounded like a black man trying to explain the racist rants of his former pastor. That was good. He highlighted some continuing racial challenges.
"But he did not sound like a morally outraged American incensed by his spiritual adviser's apparent hatred for America. He didn't convincingly sound like a man who knows how to put a nation ahead of a really close friendship.
"He didn't create clear separation from Rev. Jeremiah Wright."
"You're not making any sense. He said the man was wrong. He said he rejected the language the reverend used," Beatrice hissed. "What did you want: A crucifixion? Did you want him to pledge never to speak to him again?
"I hope you never have to defend our friendship. You're about to make me mad, you Republican."
Beatrice is 75. She knows me well. She picks my daughter up from school and holds her until we get off work. She has done it for years.
She calls me a Republican whenever she's trying to throw me off stride. Sometimes I make believe it works. Not this time.
"I just think Obama missed a unique commander-in-chief opportunity. He squarely addressed his minister's racism. That was a no-brainer. But he didn't strongly address his anti-patriotism. You can't explain that away when you're one of three vying to become president. Assaults on the flag should be met with brass knuckles, not Harvard debate team soliloquies.
"Yes, the clergyman led Obama to Jesus. But when the same clergyman used his pulpit to say, 'God damn America,' Obama had the obligation to send him back to Jesus.
"He had to throw him under the bus."
"You're wrong. And you must not have good friends," Beatrice said with a tone that signaled the conversation was over.
"I respect Obama even more for sticking with his minister. He's loyal."
"Or maybe he's just keeping his enemies closer," I said into the dial tone, as Beatrice went to pick up my 9-year-old, who has recently taken to identifying herself as Mrs. Obama.
