Obama delivers major speech on race

Good and bad, HRC will twist every word he says, along with her man, and, use it as a fear tactic. O knows that ace is the third grail of US Politics, so, hopefully, his eloquence will flow to the point that its a speech that racism can be ended, not that I think it ever will though. And he has to stick to the issue and how it can be fixed not sway onto others and their guilt about their issues with race, because if he does they, HRC and McCain will be able to use it against them especially HRC in a state like Pennsylvania who has done to her credit a great job at race baiting and making sure everyone knows he's the "black" candidate.

Here we are in 2008 still dealing with race issues in a time when our entire society must move forward because of the inevitable changes that are taking place in the world. Be it Obama or Clinton, change is coming.

"Obama's chickens have come home to roost."

Obama is TOAST!

Obama may very well be "toast" thanks to the smear tactics of HRC who is burnt toast at this point of her trying to steal the nomination, but, before he gleefulness cheers, get ready to welcome McCain to the office, LOL!4 more years of ineptness of the GOP and a war that is bankrupting he country that can't ever be won, no matter how many trillions the GOP wants to dump into it, bleech.

I SWEAR TO GOD, AND I SAY THIS AS A PASTOR, I PRAY THAT WE DON'T DEMOCRAP THE REPUBLICANS BACK INTO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

Barack has to do a speech on his pastors "perceived racial remarks"

But no one is asking John Mccain to explain why his coalition is made up entirely of WHITE AMERICANS when clearly this country is made up of more than whites. Hmm..

Once again the black man has to burden the "Race issue"

John Hagee? Billy Graham?
Never.

THE SPEECH WAS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE!!!! BARACK OBAMA HAS PROVEN THAT HE IS READY TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY, IF NOT THE WORLD............................................

I must say that Obama struck a perfect balance in that speech without compromising any of the great truths about Americans, regardless of ethnicity.

I sincerely hope that we can be intelligent enough, progressive enough, loving enough, hopeful enough even, to understand what that speech means, what it makes an effort to reconcile, how it attempts to get us to think of each other as citizens and human beings.

I hope that we don't get so caught up in our own, sometimes selfish, worldviews and personal politics that we fail to see the forest for the trees--and we have so for very long now.

We have an opportunity to step towards perfection. Let's not destroy it.

That speech was indeed incredible!

What I most appreciate about Obama's speech is his truthful clarity and his refusal to let either blacks or whites off the hook in regard to the state of racial politics. He realizes, as any intelligent person does, that the race problem in America is a complex one in which both parties have fault. And he recognizes that it is a problem that will require participation from both in order to be resolved.

A more perfect union is possible. Perfection may not be. But it can continue to be perfected.

Barack did an excellent job of breaking it down. We can continue to talk about campaign surrogates, minor and major people from the candidates past, present, future. We can continue to be split among race and gender. And whos had it worse than the other.

OR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can talk about the issues! The war in iraq, the failing economy, terrible schools, uniting this country.

Or we can pick apart every sermon reverend wright ever preached!

PS: Barack isnt only black, nor is he only white, Last time I checked his mother was white and his father was black. And that one drop rule thing didnt work in either direction.

Now, when Fox News was all over this in March of 2007, why wasn't this handled then? Shoot, if nothing else, the Obama campaign could have bought up all the DVDs of Wright's sermons -- it's not that hard to have put a lid on this.

And what, for God's sake, does Hillary Clinton have to do with this? Is she to be blamed for what ends up, quite honestly, as a stupid mistake? Obama did this to himself -- no one else.

Now, when Fox News was all over this in March of 2007, why wasn't this handled then? Shoot, if nothing else, the Obama campaign could have bought up all the DVDs of Wright's sermons -- it's not that hard to have put a lid on this.

And what, for God's sake, does Hillary Clinton have to do with this? Is she to be blamed for what ends up, quite honestly, as a stupid mistake? Obama did this to himself -- no one else.

Now, when Fox News was all over this in March of 2007, why wasn't this handled then? Shoot, if nothing else, the Obama campaign could have bought up all the DVDs of Wright's sermons -- it's not that hard to have put a lid on this. As much as the news media loves Obama, they wouldn't have searched for this.

And what, for God's sake, does Hillary Clinton have to do with this? Is she to be blamed for what ends up, quite honestly, as a stupid mistake? Obama did this to himself -- no one else.

Edith, Hillary has something to do with by virtue of her and her husband dealing a "Price is Right" size deck of race cards into the race when there should have been no need with all her so called "experience." Down to the trollish Gerri Ferrerro and her nasty comments about race.

And, since when has the media and, your Fox Noise been in love with Obama??? They have been calling him every name in the book, other than the one he goes by, Barack Obama, just keeping it real for ya and all the rest of the HRC/GOP posters, which pretty much are one and the same. Not everyone believes Fox Noise or any of the other so called mainstream outlets as fair and impartial, and, that goes for all 3 candidates, most can read and figure things out for themselves.

Good job Obama.

I was undecided before the speech. Now that I've heard what he stand for and who he is as a person, its a direct reflection of who I am.

I believe that he is what we need to lead our country. The past two elections have been decided based upon institutionalised religion and manipulation. Religious groups want to up hold some wrong doing and turn around and condem others. I have totally lost respect for the republican party and "institutionalised religion" as a whole.

I finally have a candidate to vote for who can actually work for the people not some special groups.

Rupert, you still didn't answer the fundamental question that I asked: Why was this not handled before? The Obama campaign has been so savvy in fundraising, obtaining the best political advisors (especially Samantha Power -- am not being facetious, I DO think she's wonderful -- have you read any of her books? I do hope she rethinks her decision when the General comes around, she's needed), yet they couldn't have seen this coming? David Axelrod especially?
The reason I brought up Fox News was because they were the first to cover this, but it's not rocket science -- this could have very easily been quashed long ago. The fact that this comes up now is only poor planning. And yes, it worries me: McCain is quite a formidable opponent.

And incidentally, Ferraro has done amazing things, broken many boundaries for women in this country, as well as being a champion for the poor and disenfranchised, especially children. I do find it interesting that she gets called a troll by you. I don't recall calling Reverend Wright anything, other than what I think he is: an impassioned black man. I will agree to disagree with you on what happened in South Carolina, but that's neither here nor there, really. The fact is, South Carolina worked for Obama. Ferarro worked for Obama. This is not working for Obama, and by no stretch can you say it's something the Clintons have done.

@Edith,

Your wrong...You have no legs to stand on in this argument.......The fact that you watch Fox Noise Channel even proves more that instead of researching the facts for yourself, you buy into all of the propaganda that they spew......If anything, Barack has united MORE black folks behind him and it wasn't until Hillary started crying about the media being unfair that this nonsense started.......This is about the white media trying to silence not only Obama, but the black church period........Obama should not have had to make this speech in the first place, but I 'm glad he did, because if black or white, this speech didn't make us all look at ourselves and confront our own prejudices, then we are truly lost.......And in fact, I've been watching the cable news networks since the speech, and WOW, the constant replays of Pastor Wright's comments, are almost non-existent now..........I think Obama without question has told the media and his critics to "put up or shut up"..........Well done Barack....

Edith,

My guess is that this wasn't addressed before because Obama and his team didn't realize that the American people would actually think that Obama shared his pastor's opinion on the issues of race and country, particularly because Obama's message has been the polar opposite of what his pastor said in the sermons in question.

I don't think Obama and team imagined that a segment of the American populace would be as unthoughtful, unintelligent and unimaginative as to believe that Obama held those beliefs, given his OWN very diverse American background, given what he's been saying over and over and over again since the beginning of his campaign, given what we know to be true about him since the very beginning of his political career.

Once Obama and team realized that cyncism and ignorance holds a firm place in the heart of some Americans and that they were apt to neglect doing any research or analysis to verify the veracity of Obama's true stance, Obama and team understood that it was necessary to address the situation with truth, honesty, hope and love--which they did superbly in my humble opinion.

(laugh) For the record, I watch MSNBC, every night. (Rachel Maddow has become my favorite commentator.) McLaughlin Group and Tim Russert on Sundays. Really can't wait to get home and see what Chris Matthews has to say about all of this today. Incidentally, they (Chris Matthews, two days ago) actually directed me to the fact that Fox reported on this story a year ago. Ultimately ABC picked it up, but there you go. The pundits on MSNBC are basically in love with Barack Obama (all except Dan Abrams), so it probably galled them to have to mention it. I don't quite understand what you mean when you say the "white media" doesn't like him. Surely you watch MSNBC, as an Obama supporter? If not, turn to it -- they praise him almost daily. It's a wonderful thing to see, considering that most politicians of color don't get this kind of coverage.

As far as the coverage is concerned, wait till tonight: it's 3 in the afternoon, the major news shows aren't on yet. It'll get plenty of coverage. Which is why he (in an astute move) made sure to do the speech at 10:30 in the morning, in case there were any gaffes. Can't say he's not politically savvy. (smile)It'll get great coverage; it was a marvelous speech.

Still, I wonder why it is every time someone tries to ask a question or make a criticism about Obama, it becomes a judgment about that person, or disintegrates into namecalling, instead of addressing the actual issue up for question? You know nothing about me, my research abilities, or whether or not I watch Fox News. I said they reported it, not that I watched it.

I'm not talking about right or wrong, or having an argument with anyone: I'm simply asking a question. Again: why this wasn't picked up by the Obama campaign, considering the astute team that Obama has put together? Hell, David Axelrod used to work for the Clintons.

SonofBaldwin, you were typing while I was. (laugh) Thanks for your answer. I do get your point...the problem might be that while you know Obama, and have listened to his speeches, and while I might know Obama (through his books and speeches), he still is not as known a quantity in the U.S. as we would like to believe. And the Republican Party would love to market that -- get a jump on it, so to speak. It does surprise me that this campaign would think that their message is just "known," to the extent to which Obama would not be questioned. It is to be remembered that, before two years ago, most of America (with the exception of Illinois and those of us who follow black politics) really didn't know who Obama was. And Americans, as a whole are skeptics, yes? We love to see people fall, just to see them rise again. It's evident in our public figures, our heroes, who we choose to watch and support on television. Why would this be a surprise when the number one story last year was Britney Spears? Why would they not be on the lookout for easy gets like this? Optimism and idealism is wonderful, but the man is running for President of the United States. His MTV generation is watching Paris Hilton and "American Idol" for entertainment. Why would they think this wouldn't be a story?

Mistakes of this magnitude do scare me, as a Democrat, as a woman of color who is hoping this might happen for us globally, and as a staunch voter. This was easy. He especially can't make these sorts of mistakes -- we have to be better, we have to do better, because we're always coming from a position that can and will be criticized in this country.

Reading comprehension and hearing really must be major issues in this country, as its amazing that anyone, other than the rabid HRC votes think the media is in love with Obama. I know that some really think that, but, good grief, John McCain can't get in the news, and, no one cares what lie HRC is telling on any given day of the week, so, its bash Obama, day in and day out, but, as I have said, the American voter is one of the most misinformed on earth, they take sound bites from paid pundits as fact and truth, which, is how the country ended up with Bush and his war. And, are ready to commit to McCain's 100 year Iraq war/folly.

But, anybody is better than Hillary Clinton, and if she steals this nomination as her crooked, race baitng staff is trying to do, as much as I loathe McCain, I'll put a sign in my yard for him and vite for him as well, and, would NEVER vote for Clinton.

THANK YOU EDITH! VERY WELL SAID!!!

@ Edith.

They already knew this would be a problem eventually, THEY SAID IT ALREADY, and Sean Hannity has been harping on it for a year now, (that is what I mean by do your RESEARCH before you comment), I think the Obama campaign was smart to NOT tackle this until he had a sufficient lead in delegates and votes..........Your right, I watch MSNBC for Kieth Olbermann , but I'm about sick of that racist Pat Buchanan, who constantly finds something negative to say about Obama every chance he gets, so does Tucker (who is a closet racist) and Joe Scarborough, so I dont think they necessarily "praise" him all the time...........At least they're better than fox in so much as they don't have as many uncle tom negroes on there to speak against Obama....... And what, you don't think the media is controlled by whites? You don't think that its they're total ignorance of blacks and the black church that is part of the reason they are blowing this whole thing out of context?? You don't think Pat Buchanon, Tucker and Joe Scarborough don't want Obama to lose??? They are hard righters, and want Hillary to run against Mccain, just as much as Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the neo-con right does....Besides, nothing Wright said was actually wrong, just that whites don't like the truth told to them, without painting it out to be "unpatriotic"..... I disagree that this issue is a mistake on Obama'a part somehow........I mean, this was going to come out regardless......But when Obama becomes the nominee the right is not going to press this issue, because John Mccain would have to answer about his spiritual leaders as well, and thats a fight that I doubt they really want to have.......

Good stuff streightdope, good stuff, thanks for keeping it real. Its just too funny that these posters claim the media is in love with Obama, if they are it's only when they can find some dirt on him, usually provided by team Hillary to boost ratings.

And, they want Hillary, they know that will be the best fight they have ever had, her and her husband would get shredded by the RNC and Fox Noise. And, I for one would sit back and love it.

Hannity and Colmes? My, who's been watching Fox News? (smile)

This is what you said:

"The fact that you watch Fox Noise Channel even proves more that instead of researching the facts for yourself, you buy into all of the propaganda that they spew......"

Glad you cleared up what you meant. (smile)

Well, Tucker's off the air, so that's sort of a moot point. And of course, "Morning Joe" and the boys want Barack Obama to lose. But they're not balanced out by Chris "I felt a something run down my leg" Matthews? Or Keith "Special Comment" Olbermann? Especially when Keith and Chris are given the debates? Joe and Pat basically offer that little bit of flavor as evening commentators to keep things spicy. And, now, tucker is regaled to that position, poor thing.

I'm also curious...I'm a longtime follower of the Obama campaign. In what document or news report, or where do I go on his website where they've said "They already knew this would be a problem eventually, THEY SAID IT ALREADY." Really? Where and when? I'd like to know...I've followed his campaign very closely, and haven't read that sort of statement at all. Is it in the Chicago papers?

Incidentally, no, I don't think the media is in total ignorance of blacks or black churches. I think they know a lot about black churches. Journalists all. I think it's easy and convenient to feign ignorance, and to act appalled. I've read several blogs where longtime politicos are reaching for their Tums because of the media coverage on this...I feel the same way. This is a foul story, from any way you look at it, but the media will do what the media will do -- and part of what they do these days is express outrage. For the media, what this is is a GREAT news story. (laugh) Sad, but true.
Believe me, I know my part: as I said, I'm running home to watch Chris Matthews. Because honestly? I'm a Democrat: I just want us to WIN. And this worries me, because it's late in the game. I don't worry about Obama beating Hillary, I worry about him beating John "I cross the Senate line every day" McCain. And he's awfully concilliatory these days: he's inclusive of everyone, and defending everyone. That's a warning: for us.

Incidentally, since we were talking about all the negative news coverage Obama has gotten... positive news coverage...the pundits have written commentary (Wolf Blitzer Roland Martin and company) on CNN. It's all positive, all about moving on. Check it out. (smile)

Edith, you have taken the words right out of my mouth. I've been screaming the same message from day one. I too just want us to WIN this November. This journey to the White House is more than just defeating Hillary Clinton. I feel the attacks he's experiencing now, will only make him STRONGER when battling John McCain for the White House. I am so sick of the fighting within the democratic party. It's getting us no where fast.

@ Edith

Axelrod and the Obama campaign have said several times that they knew this would be an issue eventually.. They've said it on every cable network.....As I said before, Sean Hannity has been trying to get attention drawn to it for over a year now.......( And NO, I hate Sean Hannity and the spineless Colmes who never stands up to him, so I only watch if there is a guest on that I want to see, but I have seen him talk about Pastor Wright several times)...... Also, the media surely exploits, but still remains ignorant of the black church and the struggle that it respresents.........I know Tucker's show is gone (thank god), but that doesn't change the fact that he is a closet racist does it???? Point eun-mooted....Joe and Pat add spice??? uuummmmm ok..... I watch Morning Joe every morning, and ever since your candidate, started crying about Obama getting treated nicely by the press, and the fact that she cannot win, especially since now it looks like there will be no re-do's in Fl, or Mi, Joe has increasingly become more biased against Obama, and his right wing agenda has shown thru.......Pat Buchanan is a straight racist who tries to mask himself as a political commentator, and thats all I'm going to say about him...... I do like Chris Mathews most of the time as he is truly the most balanced of them all with the exception of my man Kieth O. who is definetely an Obama supporter...........And yes I know the evening talk shows will revisit the issue, but the tone will definitely be different.......................Just give the man his due.....The speech was brilliant and you, HRC, nor anyone else can take that away from him today...........

well Jojo, it's interesting to note that you are ready to commit to McCain,(who you claim to loathe), and his 100 year Iraq war/folly because you loathe HRC even more...very interesting...let me just state for the record there are those of us who will be voting for BO OR HRC, whichever gets the nomination, because they are both great candidates with similar positions, platforms and voting records, both poised to make history...and all those sound bites from paid pundits, campaigner's, pastors and MSM, (largely opinions put forth as fact aimed to pitt BO and HRC supporters at one another's throats, which seems to be paying off quite nicely I might add), to create conflict for TV ratings will not sway me...so, go ahead then Jojo, be a reactionary and join the McCainiacs, it's your right, I hope you'll be very happy with whom he will appoint to the supreme court since I'm so sure his first order of business will be to outlaw all the rampant "race baiting" you so dispise...peace...

signed YEAHISAIDIT

@ Edith...

Good responses indeed. I think some posters (Black/white, Dem/reb) get a little anxious and lose track of original statements. Nevertheless, I agree that this issue should have been addressed sooner, as to help keep it from getting completely out of control like it did. (And for the record, I watch FOX, as I believe in watching the enemy so there are no sneak attacks.)

I don't believe Obama is at fault for anything, but I do wish he would have attacked this sooner. In fact, I thought it would be something else regarding Trinity that would've raised eyebrows (which it really shouldn't be an issue but I know how small-minded some folks are).

I believe that folks are blaming Clinton because they believe it was her camp that leaked the clips. I don't know what to believe for sure, but as much as I do not want her as POTUS, I still credit her intelligence. (I mean hey -- let's call a spade, a spade.) I don't think that Clinton's people would do something this stupid. IMHO, I think it could have be a lone republican trying to stir the Democratic pot. I say this because if, by a snowball's chance in hell, Clinton wins the Dem nomination, she wants and needs Obama as a running mate in order to beat McCain. She knows she can't beat McCain flat out. Putting these clips out would not behoove her in any way. Who knows, maybe Sean Hannity did it, since he has been riding this for a year now. (I put nothing past that...that...man.)

Another note, I wonder why is it that some folks seem so intolerant of everyone that belongs to opposing political parties. I like Joe Scarborough, but don't agree with all of his politics. Me liking him makes Me no less dedicated to My Black brothers and sisters or less likely for Me to vote for Obama (which I am). When did becoming an independent thinker become such a bad thing? How petty, childish and small-minded.

It's great being White, and a White woman like Hillary. All the world is focused on Barack Obama for sitting in a church and listening to the big bad pastor that said what all Black people here on the regular.

Meanwhile in the real world? Hillary Clinton sits and listens to PLO / Arafat's wife in a speech ripping Israel, she gets up, hugs and kisses Arafats wife.

Yet no one is asking Hillary Clinton to be held responsible for this in this electon - yet Obama is the first politician in history expected to be held responsible for his minister.

When the Clintons steal this - where do Blacks with money sign up to send it to McCain?

i was not at all impressed

he did not address his hypocrisy regarding geraldine f

both his pastor and gf simply told uncensored truths about racism in america

and obama far more strongly and swiftly denounced her...

yet another weak and sexist move by obama

fyi
alicia banks
aliciabanks.blogspot.com

I would never vote for any person who has to use race bait to get a vote, and, its so odd that all the HRC supporters claim she hasn't done so, I don't care if its Hillary, Bill, McCain or Obama or their minions, sorry, that shows a person with no morals. As far as the Supreme Court, all people who watch the court knows, it is already so far to the right, that the laws on the books are set for the next 50 years, and, you will never get any justice with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and that other right winger Alitio, so, that means nothing in the context of this election.

But, its so nice to see someone who said they will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, I just read in Newsweek, that most HRC supporters said they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and, yet, most Obama supporters say they will go with her if she is the nominee, so, all in all her smear tactics and cronies have done more to make sure that McCain is in the WH that one single vote like mine. So, waste a vote, because, Hillary is never going to win, and, I for one will take my chances with McCain over her and her sleazy tactics.

I just don't get why folks are so annoyed when someone says they can't support anyone who stoops to using race, with her husband doing it or shrewish old women Like Fererro who knew full and well that when she put race into it, it would do exactly what HRC wanted.

Don't, thank me for McCain in the White House, thank Hillary and her Karl Rove attack mode and not having any sort of message to resonate with the public, since, if no Obama on the ticket, I really don't care since who wins, since it will mean that HRC did one thing, steal the nomination, and I refuse to vote for a female George Wallace, especially one who isn't qualified for the job to begin with.

i was not at all impressed

he did not address his hypocrisy regarding geraldine f

both his pastor and gf simply told uncensored truths about racism in america

and obama far more strongly and swiftly denounced her...

yet another weak and sexist move by obama

fyi
alicia banks
aliciabanks.blogspot.com

Alicia Banks, of course you weren't impressed, it was a black man giving a speech, and, we all know how you feel about them, duh. The only one who has impressed you is the white "woman." You lavished praise on Ferrro, so, of course, you would not be impressed, but, I bet you will be with McCain when he beats your sainted Hillary, if by hook or crook, she can steal the nod!

Funny, you are always going off about sexism, and, yet condone racism, things that really make you not go hmmmm. Both are wrong, no matter who is doing the spewing, real women know this.

@ alicia...

Is it just that you are completely anti-male?

@ Verb

Just in case your Joe Scarborough rhetoric was directed at me, I never said I didn't like him, nor did I say anyone is less black for liking him, so if anyone's small minded and petty, look in the mirror...However it is what it is.....He's been somewhat fair since the race began, but now his hard right views are tainting everything he says concerning Obama...You know the issue is this....Why do black folks always have to apologize for other blacks, or for offending whites??? I can't believe Obama had to make a speech, as brilliant as it was, because whites are in a hissy about what his pastor said.....I didn't see HRC making speeches about Bill or Geraldine Ferraro....I didn't see Mccain apologizing for his pastors racist views......But when it comes to us, all hell brakes loose to these white folks and any black person who sees america without lilly white glasses on is unpatriotic, and deemed the worst kind of demigod.... When that hispanic lady who supports HRC, said that hispanics won't vote for a black president because blacks have never done anything for hispanics and other racially divisive remarks, HRC's response was that she can't control what her supporters say and that was the end of it and the media didn't even cover it except a couple of times, talk about hypocrisy... This is not about blaming HRC for anything, its the fact that whites and the media, hold blacks to a different standard than themselves, and thats whats disgusting about this whole issue.....Lets be real, we know that its because Obama is black that this whole thing was blown out of context....Agree or not, what Wright said was absolutely true, its just that white america can't accept the truth about themselves, especially coming from a black preacher......This is not only an attack on Obama, its an attack on the black church as a whole........... Obama did what he had to do for sure, but its a damn shame he had to do it in this way.........................

@ Straightdope...

Calm down, My friend. Are you hearing voices or something? (snicker) Don't be so paranoid. The comment was for anyone ("you must thing this song is about you") that held the view that because a person is affiliated with another party, they cannot be liked outside of that fact. I'm fully able to address you directly when necessary. Moving on...

Regarding this Obama-Wright situation, Joe's right-wing rhetoric is fully expected, but it doesn't make Me dislike the guy. I know he's ignorant in regard to the Black American experience, and doesn't even know it.

I feel your frustration about Obama even having to make that speech. The conservative chatter is now that Obama still can't be trusted because he won't do the dance that so many white people want him to do. It's funny because this evening Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich were still not satisfied (they never are), and had the nerve to ask why Obama's speech was about race, after everyone made this whole issue about Wright being a racist. All they wanted was Obama to do is publicly kick Wright to the curb, as if he has meant nothing to him. I'm glad Obama did no such thing. It shows that he has a spine, something most Democrats lack.

OK, this is directed to you only:
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but is it possible to use paragraphs versus so many ellipses? It's makes your posts difficult to read. Thanks.

It's obvious that Alicia Banks doesn't like Obama---and for dumb reasons.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Alicia represents those black women who have issues with black men because they don't know how to pick a good black man. Instead of focusing on character and heart, she (and others like her) chose black men based on "slick and shallow" traits like looks, money, image...etc, and they have paid a price in heartache and loneliness.

She is they type of sista who would have passed right by Obama (when he was younger) because he doesn't have that stupid, b-boy flare in looks and style. But, of course, those very guys turn into princes in the end.

I tell my little female cousins that I love nerds and when it's time to find a mate---go to the library on a Saturday night. That's the man (black or whatever color) who, more than not, has the traits that make for a good husband or father. It's not a 100%, but you increase your chances, as opposed to the brotha on the corner, in the club or riding in a flashy (unpaid) car.

As far as Americans responding to his speech, if they want to be stupid about this matter and feel that it's more important than the current issues that plague us---then they deserve everything that happens to them. And I hope that they (and, sadly, we) get more of what they've gotten: unemployment, low salaries, unaffordable heathcare, rising war cost, foreclosures , lost pensions and plunging dollar.

@ Verb

I agree with your statement about the Obama-Wright situation, and the way Obama handled it.

@ Verb......

Is

this

better

for

you?

everyone spending all this time talking about obama and his ex-pastor, who, by the way isn't running for office last i checked...and meanwhile, mccain is overseas making an ass of himself. he doesn't even know who the key players are in a war he's committed to "winning."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639

Hunter, you can't be serious?

There are those of us who truly believe Obama isn't the best candidate. It's not because he's a black male. For it's because he hasn't completed his first term in Congress. He trying to become president and he hasn't done the job he was sent to do.

For me, I wouldn't vote for Obama if he was a white candidate. Voting for someone just because they are black doesn't make sense to me. Look at the leader. Right now the country needs someone who is practical.

None of them is technically capable or really even qualified of being President, but, they are all we have got to chose from at this point in time, and, I think Obama is the better candidate as he brings in fresh, new ideas to a system that is flawed by people who have been in DC for decades and are totally beholden to one group, the lobbyist. You've got McCain harping about a 100 year war in Iraq. Hillary and her buddies talking about Obama being a lucky black man, and, he is so busy having to deal with that nonsense, that his message on real issues are being overlooked by the media which only wants the sensationalism that they know the race card will bring.

And, for Alicia, girl, you have every right to hate up on men, I guess some man did you wrong somewhere in life, and vote for whom you feel is the best candidate, but, child, enough of the man bashing, it really looks ridiculous and pathetic, since, in all the posts I've read from you, not once have you espoused a reason to vote for Hillary, other than she is a woman.

Lele,

Thank you for articulating your opposition to Obama in clear terms. I often have a hard time trying to get to the heart of the opposition's problem with Obama.

But it's a argument that is rooted in a profound misunderstanding of the history of the American presdiency.

For example, how many people here are aware of the FACT that Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan each had less experience in politics or elected government than Senator Barack Obama has currently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html

http://media.www.beaconnewspaper.com/media/storage/paper540/news/2008/03/13/Opinion/Obama.Has.More.Experience.Than.Some.Past.Leaders-3266288.shtml

The selective memory of Obama's opposition is highly questionable given the achievements (whether liberal or conservative) of the presidents who had less experience than he when they entered the oval office.

I wonder what's truly at the root of that failing memory.

Wow. A girl goes to sleep and wakes up to see all these comments. (smile)

Can I just say something, though? Can we not attack one another? This is part of what I meant when I said that it feels like anyone who has anything critical to say about Obama gets slammed. (Read tavis smiley in here as well, for that.) It seems apparent to me that people feel the same way about Clinton, in that they get attacked for criticizing her.
All the "not knowing a good man" comments are hitting below the belt, I think. I don't know who Alicia Banks is, but posts about her seem to get away from the general argument, which I thought was about how good was the speech? Say what you want, I don't know what she's said in other venues, but she attacked Obama for being sexist -- she didn't attack anyone posting. Yet she got attacked. "Real women?" Sheesh.

Streightdope, if you recall, I DID say that I thought the speech was marvelous. The man can speak. And, for the record, you also don't know who my candidate is, other than I'm for the Democratic party -- as I've stated. I'm a woman, and I'm a black woman of decidedly mixed heritage; I'm enjoying the hell out of this election, because I can't go wrong. (laugh) But what's so scary about McCain is that he's not an idiot; he's intelligent as hell, and he has a strong record of "crossing that aisle." Yeah, he makes blunders, but all candidates do that -- it's what makes SNL so entertaining. :) The fact is, he seems rational to a lot of people, and I'm scared to death of him, to be honest -- he doesn't really waver from his ideas. Match that with polls generally saying that Americans have no idea how many people have died in the Iraq War, well, we have a problem, as Democrats. I don't think people honestly care much in middle America -- seems McCain might seem more human, in the mistake he made over the past couple of days, especially since few of us over here seem to know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. His biggest problem is his lack of knowledge over the economy, and all he really needs there is a good VP. (Ya think Romney will be back in play, maybe?)

So, yeah, is there frustration with the idea of "Oh, we knew about this all this time, and we were just waiting for the time to be ripe" argument? Sure. Do I think Obama would have addressed race at all otherwise? No -- because he couldn't win with it. It's very pragmatic, and as I said, it was a good speech. But I'm not going to call it Lincolnesque or anything else. (That it got compared to "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" I'm still reeling over.) For folks that will take it apart, two main points still stand: one, why would you say that you didn't know or hadn't heard his "inflammatory comments" before a few weeks ago, when that simply wasn't true, and two, what's the judgment call on this?
Now, we can rail about how things aren't fair in the black and white communities on this issue (Pat Buchanan being the perfect example: my my, a commentator on MSNBC, and after his history -- wonder if Farrakhan could get the same deal), but the fact still remains that we have to DEAL with it. I just think it was dealt with poorly.

Moreover, the real issue is, with the economy being what it is, and us being in a war and another one on the brink, are white voters (the ethnic white voter -- man, I love that term!)going to want to talk about race with this election? Or are they probably going to think that this is the wrong time and place for that discussion? Yes, it'll be a rationalization (it has been my experience that it's primarily black people, brown people, and liberal whites who will discuss race, anytime, anywhere), but that's neither here nor there -- is this really something that can be considered a smart move, especially when it could have been dealt with a year ago, or longer?
And for the record, "Morning Joe" did say something interesting, and something to think about: the dems are still focused on winning the battle, but they might lose the war. This is an issue that transcends the race we're in. Traditionally, do Repubs ever really cross the aisle and vote for a liberal candidate? And once you bring up race, it becomes about him being liberal; it's a wrong assessment, but it doesn't mean that people won't see him that way.

One more thing, on a personal note: the reason I, and so many others, are frustrated off of this is because we really DO have the most intelligent, savvy, with-it-globally candidates, and we might lose it, or implode, as Democrats are wont to do. I think Obama is lovely -- I really do. But this worries me, in his ability to pull this out.

I want to echo Edith's concillatory comments. Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are NOT enemies, even though certain forces, in the media and in politics, have framed the narrative that way. Our in-fighting and ill-will toward one another can ONLY BENEFIT McCain. In other words, let's not cut our noses to spite our faces; it's not a good look.

I wish we could keep that in mind as we debate the benefits of the candidates we support or the detriments of the candidates we'd rather not support.

Well, Edith, Obama is the best person for the job, but, Hillary has made sure that he won't get it with her sleazy campaign. And, for the life of me, I still I don't see how anyone thinks that she has a chance with the general public, she doesn't even have the lead with primary voters, when just about every opinion poll out there shows she is one of the most disliked politicians in the USA, right up there with Bush and company. And, her angry passive-aggressive style of running this race shows, she is not the person for the job.

If, the GOP wins the job with someone as inept as McCain, no one to blame but Hillary, she is scorned, angry and just mad that she didn't get the crown like she thought she would because a better opponent is in the race, and, that would be Obama, who refuses to go down with her smear tactics and mud slinging and behind the door trickery that she is up to now to get the nod.

Aaaandddd...we go straight back to partisan politics. (laugh)

I for the life of me would love to know what Hillary Clinton did to the Democrats that was so terrible to have people call her the things that they do. Like or dislike, honestly? I'm not going to sit up here and disparage Bush in that way. Shoot, a man who can work his way into the White House for eight years tells me something. He might have been a "C" student, but someone taught him something about finding those smart and savvy people to work for him. I think he's dangerous, thought it for a long time, and am glad he won't be able to do too much more damage. But it's also why McCain is a problem -- because he's not dumb, and will also have marvelously intelligent people working for him, and I think the American people will actually buy that.
But come on...you REALLY think Hillary is in that same camp? Really.
I do understand not everyone being happy with the Clinton presidency (between don't-ask-don't-tell, Rwanda, and a few other choice directives), but one thing that seems to be enormously appealing to voters is that he not only balanced the budget, he left a surplus. Might be a knee-jerk reaction, but I think people who vote for Hillary are reminded of those times, where economically we actually did pretty good.
As far as being passive-aggressive, as I understand the definition, that actually fits the Obama campaign a little better. One thing he was known for in Chicago (and it's smart as hell for a politician to do this) is staying above the fray, and letting other folks wage a fight for him. Honestly, McCain is doing that now, and it's working for him. While I won't call him Kennedy (which, honestly, in my mind, is not flattering, considering Kennedy's mistakes)I think that he would do a wonderful job. But let's remember that both Democratic candidates' voting records are almost identical. And that Clinton hosted fundraisers and gave money to get Obama elected in the Senate. Not everything is what it seems, you know?
Incidentally, if there's one thing the Clinton campaign is about, it's aggression. (laugh) I sometimes wonder if that's the problem: she's not passive at all. Other than black women, most American women are not really viewed that way -- it's an anomaly, you know?

Funny, during a black history month event hosted by the Department of Defense at Fayetteville, NC, I encountered a retired Marine officer who was about Rev. Wright's age; unfortunately, he also was about as bitter and angry at America as the Rev. Wright. That was really too bad, because the gentleman in North Carolina, like Rev. Wright, also served his country as a Marine. In fact, the wonderful things that the Marine did (under circumstances and racial intolerances I cannot imagine), were overshadowed by his mean-spiritness and blatant anti-Americanism.

The two aforementioned men, who are still living in the 1960s, are passing their poison down to other generations. Granted, I accepted the signed photo the retired Marine officer gave me of himself (because he was the first black Marine ever featured on a Marine Corps poster) - but I could not bear to bring such negativity into my home.

I don't know what similar compromise Senator Obama will have to make... but we have got to let those on whose shoulders we stand know that we are experiencing America a lot differently than they did. And, as one who serves her nation, I find anti-American hatred completely unacceptable.

Well, it appears now that race is in the race, HRC has closed the gap. And, in the latest Zogby poll, many of the whites said they were rethinking voting for a black person. And, to top it off, McCain leads both Obama and HRC h2h in November, so, all this in fighting did just what the RNC wanted, make McCain look better, and, they can retain the WH, which, sadly, I think they will do, since once racial issues are in the mix, we all know the outcome. Thanks Geraldine, Bill, Maggie and Hillary for messing up a golden opportuinty to rid the country of 4 more years of GOP foolishness to fulfill your selfish egos.

The passive-aggresive nature of HRC? I have read it in magazines as the best way to describe her as well.

Edith,

Do you know that I began this political situation as a Clinton supporter? I swear, when the candidates for the democratic primaries threw their hats into the ring, I was pretty sure that Hilary Clinton was going to receive my vote. I had always found her to be intelligent and strong. And I had always believed that what America needed was a woman as its leader to offset the horribly misogynist and terribly imperial practices this country has engaged in of late. But then something changed.

The MLK statements and South Carolina happened. And while I couldn't say that it was overt, The Clintons, though primarily Bill Clinton, engaged in a surreptitious game of racism--which, in my opinion is the most insidious kind because, like a virus, it can hide in the body and pretend not to be there and not make it self known until the body itself has begun to deteriorate. And this from the president we had once called "the first black president."

It eerily recalled his dance around the definition of the words "genocide" and "holocaust" while hundreds of thousands of Rwandans where being hacked to death in African streets. It made me remember that Clinton was the president who, after all, signed NAFTA into law. It made me remember that he was the president who went back on his word to the GLBT community with "Don't ask, don't tell."

But what it made me see most clearly was that on each of those issues, Hilary Clinton presented a united front with her husband, often supporting and even defending his position. She had since denounced some of those previous stances, but (and maybe this is an example of my own cynicism with American politics) I found those new denouncements a trifle convenient--especially when I consider that she initially supported the Bush-sponsored, fear-based, erroneous war on terrorism. Yes, hindsight is often 20/20, but Hilary has relied a bit too much on hindsight.

Further, when Hilary engaged in the same fear-baiting tactics she has criticized Bush/Cheney/Rove for, in regard to the 3am call commerical, with its precious white woman and adorable white child needed to be protected from, I suppose, the racially ambiguous, I all but fell out of my chair. This was NOT the Hilary Clinton I had known or admired.

It made my heart heavy and it made me uncomfortable, but I knew then, right then, that I could no longer support Hilary. I like her still, and it would have been wonderful for her to win, but not this way, not by mining the depths of American fears, not with typical Washington tactics, not by acting like a republican.

If I had no other choice, if it was between Clinton and McCain, perhaps (yes, PERHAPS) Hilary will receive my support--simply as the lesser of two "evils." The lesser of two evils. Ha. I'm still scratching my head: I remember that at the beginning of this presidential primary campaign I was excited about finally having the problem of choosing the greater of two goods.

Taryn,

Isn't that precisely what Obama did when he said:

"The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change."

Or when he said:

"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."

Or especially when he said:

"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."

?

@Edith

Great response, and I too am of mixed heritage, so I can also greatly relate to the challenges and issues that face Obama and us as a whole.......

Now I agree with you on whites and the discussion of race, but lets not forget that Obama was forced into this situation, so I cannot blame him for tackling this issue of race head on.............But what I don't like, as I said earlier, is blacks having to constantly apologize for other blacks or offending whites............

Its funny because Mitt Romney's association with the Mormon church and its former racist theology was never made an issue of by the media.....Sure it was brought up, but never in-depth.....The fact that blacks could not hold priesthood, or that they believed that black skin was a curse by god, or that if a black person made it to heaven, it would be as a servant........So the white hypocrisy is what I have issue with, especially when knowing this, Romney still joined and remained a member of this religion........

I have to disagree with you on the significance of the speech however.....It was factually correct, it was fair and balanced, and it was obviously written by Obama himself, with a sense of passion, truth and spirituality that could only come from oneself...It was not a pandering speech, like what HRC is known for, yet it was crafted to not offend, yet be plainly blunt as well, and most of all, it moved me, it moved many, some even to tears, but not because of its content, but because it said to millions what millions have not said to each other, and that in my opinion, does put it in the circle of historic speech and rhetorical achievements..

Now, Obama said he did not hear any of the remarks being played over and over and over, by the media while in the pews.......He NEVER said he didn't hear anything controversial ever by his pastor.......Besides thats like saying Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq BEFORE we invaded and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, both of which are true, yet I don't see moves towards impeachment of Bush........This whole thing really smells of neo-con tactics of taking an issue and feeding it back as if the victim is the culprit......

My problem with HRC is that she is using tactics that only she being white could get away with....She lies and panders to whatever crowd she is in front of, her whole presence stinks of deception... I mean come on, she looks about as sincere as Bush does these days anytime they open there mouths....And the fact that she is willing to try and cheat and change rules to benefit her, when she has clearly lost, proves that she is just as power hungry and untrustworthy as the neo-cons she claims to be against..............But she is definetely trying to use race as a tactic which is why she has remained silent about this whole issue..... I mean, as many times as she has used the "I can't control what my supporters say" excuse, yet she doesn't come to the defense of Obama??? And competition be damned, it would have been the right thing to do, but its because she would be call a "N" lover by some whites and she knows that, so again, the hypocrisy rears its head............................

SonofBaldwin, I get where you're coming from...don't agree, but I get it. (smile)

And I KNOW I'm going to hear it, but I'm gonna say it anyway...(laugh) Ya know what Bill's remarks reminded me of? STILL remind me of? White people who think they are so cool in the black community, until they say the wrong thing. I, honestly, still think Bill can't believe he might have said the wrong thing, because we DID support him, and loved him, as a whole. I don't think he can believe that we "turned on him" the way that we did. I actually have a different take on it -- I do believe that he thought Obama was unelectable, and basically was saying, "now you know we're always in your corner -- and we can win. Remember that Jackson was unelectable." At the time, Edwards was also in the race, as a SC native son, and lord knows he was supposed to be electable in the General. Again, I'm not saying that I believe that, but I do believe HE thinks that. If you look at him in interviews, he seems like a man betrayed. To that, I really have to just shake my head and say, "Bill. Really."

As far as Hillary supporting her hubby while he was in office, honestly, I have no fault with that. In a land where more than 60% of us divorce, their united front scares a lot of people, I think. And, even more honestly, I might not agree with everything my spouse says, but ya know what? I'll go down in flames before I don't support him in public. So I don't have a problem with that; I do have a problem in her trying to backslide with it, but that's politics. She's trying to win an election, and get votes from folks who don't necessarily care about what happened, other than the economy, with Bill was in office. Balancing the budget is a BIG monster -- and the fact that he did it says a lot for him. I think that's what folks remember.

I don't understand Rwanda, just as I don't understand Darfur. I really don't understand why we're not more up in arms about it, not just the president, but the House, the Senate, our local congressmen...we're in almost the same situation. I'd really hate to think that, gee, race might STILL matter. (smile)Or is it money?

The 3 AM ad? Why do we, as liberals, not remember that there were TWO children in the ad? Why are we focused on the one? The other one was not white. I don't agree with this, simply because I believe sometimes we take things apart a bit too much. But, wow, if THIS is hard politics, do we not remember the battles of 2000 and 2004? Hell, for that matter, when Clinton was vying for the White House, and before him, Bush, and before HIM, Reagan...remember THOSE ads? This isn't politics of yesteryear, it's going to happen. I just wish we could get over the idea that this is so bad, so that when we get hit this fall, we won't crumble under the pressure. I really don't understand -- what has made us so sensitive? I mean, really, have you seen local races for mayor of cities like Philadelphia or Newark? You'd think they were waging war.

What I do concern myself with are candidates voting records; the fact that Obama and Clinton have almost identical records is heartening for me. Those are actions, as well, and for their constituents. Please don't forget that, while we're embroiled in this mess that seems to be bringing out the worst in everybody. (smile)

On that note, while we're talking about evil, McCain has been for stem cell research, pro-choice (in the past), an updated GI bill, sensible immigration reform. On an objective note, for a Republican, we could do a lot worse, so this election, from any view, really isn't a bad thing.

Edith,

Can I just say, as an aside, that I love that we can have this debate in a respectful tone and manner? That thrills me to no end. Really, it does. Thank you for that.

I have to ask...(laugh) Why is it that Clinton must come to the defense of Obama here? This is an election, yes?

When she doesn't say anything, she's wrong. When she does say something, the story becomes about her.

This IS an election...Why would she say anything? Really?

Of COURSE she's using tactics that work because she's white. On the other side, Clinton supporters will say that Obama is using every advantage he possibly can in being multi-cultural. And young. And jazzy -- the man IS jazzy. (smile) Charisma for days.
That's how it works -- it's unfair as HELL, because of course, we have to do better; we always do. All the charisma in the world can't get him elected. The state of affairs being what it is -- we ALL know it's unfair, that's sort of what sparks comments like Wright's. But what do we DO about it, to win a seat in the most powerful chair in the nation? He has run his campaign so intelligently, for the most part, in a way that can win. I'm not talking about the nomination, I'm talking the White House.

Incidentally, we DO know that it's the rules that are screwed up here, right? Does anybody remember when the superdelegates were put in place, or am I dating myself? (smile)Also, Mondale got the nomination through this process...and no one yelled then. Gary Hart was ahead. So somewhere along the lines, we thought it was fair.

Also, I wonder about our desire for fairness...(laugh) If we did things the way the Repubs did, Clinton would have had it, because it's winner take all per state in the Republican Party. Because of NY, Cali, and NJ, way back when, that pretty much would have been it, which is interesting. On the other hand, McCain would not have had his party's nomination, if they did things the way Dems do. I wonder which system is better, cleaner, and fairer, ultimately?

Thank you, SonofBaldwin. (smile) That was nice. Me too...especially since my favorite story is "Giovanni's Room."

@ Edith

I'm jumping in your other convo, but sorry I have too........LOL..

I don't know if you watched Tavis Smiley's SOTBU, a few weeks back, but the great Dick Gregory said it best about Bill Clinton and his black pass and being the "first black president"........ He said "Its ok when you joke about it, but when you start to use it as your address.............." And that was a lesson Bill had to learn the hard way in S.C.... So did blacks turn on him, thats debatable, but we did say to him, you ain't REALLY black, we were just playing, so don't get it twisted Bill........

Now about Darfur, its race and money.......Put it this way, we went into Iraq under the guise of liberation from a sadistic tyrant who had wmd's, when all we really wanted was the oil........Thousand of blacks are being subjected to genocide and we sit back and watch, with the attitude of, what can we steal from them?? Nothing comes to mind, besides, it only blacks being massacred so no rush.....I think you can figure it out from there............

@ Edith

That a great question you pose in terms of fairness, and there really is no easy answer.... Like you said, under the republican way, HRC would have probably won, however under a straight popular vote, Obama would have won............Without a lot of research, it seems that the Dems, way is the most fair in terms of representing the votes for both candidates based on a proportional division of the delegates.........

You bring up superdelegates, which is interesting because although created in '82, the superdelegates were not implemented until '84, which was also the year that (ahemm coughing) Jesse Jackson ran for president, with a better showing than many thought... So call it what you want, coincidence or conspiracy, its interesting in the least....... :)

Darfur? Same place as her husband was on Rwanda? Rush into save the Balkans, and, let millions perish in Rwanda and now Darfur, and, not to mention the hopeless streets of America where young black men seem to have two options, jail or death. Funny how she fell into Bush's lie on Iraq, the same country that had a dictator that a few years prior Cheney was buddies with, and, billions have been wasted. What it costs to keep this silly war/invasion/occupation going in Iraq, the city of New Orleans could have had the levees built to withstand a hurricane of 5 force, but, then again, like most things, who cares about the plight of the poor, and, especially the poor ho are black, no one.

So, that said, keep it real sterightdope, and, some of those who think that the election is still wide open need to look at some of the polls, we are headed for 4 more years of GOP, no matter how longwinded the Hillary supporters are in saying she can save the world and universe.

I have no problem with her doing whatever it takes to win an election, since she is as crooked as all the rest of the ones in DC, none of them got their by being a nice guy or gal, but, when she allows bigotry and racism to be injected with or witout her permission, which I doubt she didn't know or allow, sorry, not a person I could vote for.

@Edith, while, I can't find anything in your posts to agree with, I must admit, it is refreshing to see someone post in a civil tone and get their point across in such a nice manner.

I think it's fascinating. (smile) Coincidences abound...I believe that's the pc way of saying it, yes?
And Bill's problem has always been that he's been loved too much. When you get to assume that it should be the natural state, you have trouble.(laugh) It's actually why I always thought Hillary was a good foil, because if ANYONE can bring him down to earth, it should be her. But maybe Bill needed this, maybe he'll learn something. He is quite intelligent his own self.

Darfur is the most depressing, disappointing human rights struggle in the world today. I don't even know what to say about it -- even the idea that boycotting China and the Olympics is up for question, is beyond me.

It's why, from a selfish point of view, it'd be lovely if Obama were the man. Besides the charisma, the intelligence, the logic and civility, there's also a viceral reaction that I think world leaders would have to him. Globally, that is needed. It'd be nice to be able to say, "hey, I'm from the U.S., and I'm not an ex-pat!" (laugh)

@ Edith

Thank you for bringing up the excellent points about McCain. McCain as the Republican nominee doesn't strike Me as doom and gloom.

Well, Luther, I can agree with you on something...the state of black men should be considered a national crisis. Or am I overreaching here?

But by the same token, the fact that one out of four young ladies has an STD (I hope I didn't mess that up)is crucial as well. Yet we seem to not discuss these things in elections. Not sexy, I guess.

As far as the state of black people in general, I must admit that while I was watching all the coverage last night (yes, MSNBC, CNN, and, ick, the Fox monster), and hearing about how white people were shocked (always amusing) I had to pause in my thoughts, as I'm thinking of moving to the New Orleans area. If there was ever any doubt on what the government (local and federal) thought of black people, there was our image. Does provide for lots of anger. Yet something which we've been marvelous at, and I do believe it might even be in our DNA by now, is that one does not show one's anger towards white people; for self-preservation, if nothing else.

Oddly enough VERB, McCain's Mother is far more interesting than he is, straight shooter who does not mince words, and, I think she's in her 90's. McCain is not Mr gloom and doom, just like he really isn't a maverick as he now has to veer as far to the right as possible to win the party bases vote which will show his true colors, he sure isn't for civil rights and fairness for ALL citizens, just another one of those so called "compassionate" Republicans who has been running for President for the past 12 years, and, we all saw how far that got us with Bush, LOL! If he wins, same old same, more money and less taxes for the rich, and, the rest will have to try to figure out how to deal with a sinking dollar,no health care for millions, homes lost to forclourse and, an economy that is going to have a harder and harder time to compete on the world stage, a world stage that has come to loathe all things American after the past 8 years.

please...the man hating slurs are really flattering me far too much...but thanks!!!

not one person above dared to address obama's HYPOCRISY regarding his failure to mention one iota about GF v. HIS PASTOR!!!...which was so glaring as to absolutely ruin his speech

fyi:
obama's pastor is just one of many men i adore..
i share my platonic life with many wonderful men and pen tributes to real men daily...

how clueless all you blind obama fanatics are herein!!!!!!!

re: passing over men
well...yes...all proud lesbians do that
i have been out and proud for decades
and
my lover was very amused by your dime store psycho babble today..we both thank you for the guffaws...you made our day!!!

all of these boring personal attacks are only
further proof that all of you are intellectually incapable of addressing a single valid point i make about OBAMA herein

the republikkkans adore your mindlessness...it makes you easy prey...and seals the deal for mccain in nov

u r all so very waaaaay off base
but most of all
you are doing nothng to convince me that obama is worthy of my vote

go hillary!!!
alicia banks
aliciabanks.blogspot.com

please...the man hating slurs are really flattering me far too much...but thanks!!!

not one person above dared to address obama's HYPOCRISY regarding his failure to mention one iota about GF v. HIS PASTOR!!!...which was so glaring as to absolutely ruin his speech

fyi:
obama's pastor is just one of many men i adore..
i share my platonic life with many wonderful men and pen tributes to real men daily...

how clueless all you blind obama fanatics are herein!!!!!!!

re: passing over men
well...yes...all proud lesbians do that
i have been out and proud for decades
and
my lover was very amused by your dime store psycho babble today..we both thank you for the guffaws...you made our day!!!

all of these boring personal attacks are only
further proof that all of you are intellectually incapable of addressing a single valid point i make about OBAMA herein

the republikkkans adore your mindlessness...it makes you easy prey...and seals the deal for mccain in nov

u r all so very waaaaay off base
but most of all
you are doing nothing to convince me that obama is worthy of my vote

go hillary!!!
alicia banks
aliciabanks.blogspot.com

Just words. Words. Words. Words. Words. Reverend Wright is a perfect example of how religion in politics is poison in the well and even Barack Obama carries the legacy of Jim Crow and marches it into the public square along with his preacher. When will journalists have the courage to tell the truth? Obama has been marching his preacher into the public square and onto the political platform from the beginning and now it has come back to haunt him. Get a clue folks. Barack Obama is, in fact, the only Democratic candidate who has consistently promised to deny the ‘fundamental’ civil right of secular marriage to same-sex couples solely for reasons of religion. Religion is the only reason this so called ‘civil rights lawyer’ has given for such invidious discrimination. It’s his “deep faith” you see and the “religious connotations” to marriage. Ergo Obama promises to violate the 1st amendment (church and state) for the nefarious purpose of denying civil rights guaranteed under the 14th amendment (due process and equal protection). That is not one constitutional violation but two! Just how dumbed-down has education become when a smooth talking politician can propose to deny civil rights in the name of religion and get away with it? One must wonder: just how many children have been left behind?

"If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for metaphysical reasons [religion] one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama's position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!" (See http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73.)

And the LGBT comunity marches in lockstep on two left club feet.

In his famous “Just words” speech Obama said, “don’t tell me words don’t matter...”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

But when it comes to full marriage equality over civil unions he tells us that is just a matter of “semantics” – suddenly words don’t matter when it comes to OUR rights. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902331.html

After all what’s the problem? All water fountains are equal right? Front of the bus, back of the bus, so what, as long as you are on the bus? Negro classroom white class room? Just semantics right? Why all the fuss? Isn’t one water fountain just as good as any other. Senator Obama, eat crow.

ps:

hunter:
(i am still laughing!)
fyi
i love ALL nerds!!!
male and female
that is why i was a full time university student at age 12...
nerds rule the world

annabella:
i have never penned one racist thing
and
why/how does not voting for obama = hating all black men?????????????????
and
would a racist bf vote for hc?
and
are u a typical wf who adores all bm?
u sound like one...(but, noticed how i asked before i assumed...unlike YOU!)

it is blatantly clear that u all know even less about me than the election in nov
tragic!!

shame on u all!!!
alicia banks
see my bio etc. at
www.geocties.com/ambwww

Oh dear...(laugh)I guess my conciliatory tone earlier got lost, huh?

not at all edith....

i appreciate your focus and sanity herein

and thanks for noticing the unfair and incessant personal attacks!

i will play nicely ONLY when they do

peace
ab

when "they" do, just who are "they?" let me guess those men you blame for all the things that are wrong with the hrc camp? sorry boo, the problems start with her, she isn't qualifed, although for you just being a white woman is all the qualifactions she apparently needs, and, the so called american people as a whole don't like her her her lack of a message or her dirty politics.

and, you sure can attack with ease anyone who does not agree with you or your love of hrc, which is actaully kinda creepy, but, i guess that's why you like hrc, all attack mode, and, nothing else, as you have never once posted anything but attacks, and, it shows, anybody here knows more about obama and hrc than you do, get a clue, stop the attacks, and do a google search to learn, as scary as it may seem, infromation is power, and, child, you need some information and leave the rage for the men you hate at the door, because those rages are one hot mess.

and, it will be a hoot to see just how far you get when mccain gets in, you are more anrgy than the average black man that the gop and you love to bash.

Alicia,

A lesbian, huh? Well, that explains a lot.

Anyway, for the chick that thinks I am voting for Obama because he is black, my backup candidate is Nader. Figure that out.

Should Clinton secure the nomination, Nader will have my vote. And should the democrats lose after selecting Hillary, that's what you get for being sooo....in bed with the Republicans. There is very little difference between Hillary and McCain.

The fact that the polls show McCain neck and neck with the democrats shows just how ignorant and dumb Americans are when it comes to selecting a leader. Again, look what so called "experience" has gotten Americans.

Hunter, Whoa! That was unnecessary. I'm a lesbian as well, and don't share her sentiments, so your "that explains a lot" is jejune, at best. I asked if she was anti-male as well, but not because she was lesbian. I was already familiar with Alicia's rants before The Daily Voice and just wanted to know the deal, but to think one thing has anything to do with the other shows ignorance. Slow your roll.

well, i know plenty of cool lesbians, and, most don't have the hated towards men that some cyber posters have. instead of throwing putdowns at people someone does not agree with, why not just stand your ground with facts, not barbs? that's why this is still a democracy, even though bush/cheney/ and the supreme court have tried to dismantle it all, we still more or less can say what we feel, and, most try it in a civil tone.

well, maybe not total freedom of speech, since elliott spitzer was busted under a part of the so called the patriot act, lol!

Um. well, can I just say that I'd like to vote for someone who can win? Personal sexual attacks aside and all...(smile)
I don't hate McCain -- but the major issue, I think we should be discussing is the Supreme Court. The next president is going to be able to put at least two justices on the bench. I'm sorry, but I don't see McCain putting anyone left of center on that bench. Clinton, love her or hate her, would probably even out the court with her nominees. Obama I would hope would do the same, considering, once again, he votes very similarly to Clinton, something I hope we're all taking note of? Simply put, I won't worry about Roe V. Wade while a Democrat is in the office; however, I do think it would be an issue with a Republican, moderate as he may be.
As far as Nader is concerned, I do have a serious fondness for him; I remember growing up, watching Phil Donahue and all of his little Consumer Reports. (smile) He's done the nation a great service, but honestly, I don't believe he's going to do much good here. This is said with all the respect he deserves.

Son of Baldwin,

Before you beatify Obama:

Even Abe completed his term in the US house.

Ronald Reagan served two terms as governor of California (one of the largest economy’s in the world and the most populous state)

Woodrow Wilson served a full term as Governor of New Jersey.

FDR served two years as seven years as assistant secretary of the Navy and four years as governor of New York.

Teddy Roosvelt was a police commissioner in NY; Assistant Secretary of the Navy; a war hero and Colonial in the Spanish American war; and vice president before he ascended the presidency after McKinley’s assassination.

Eisenhower was Allied Supreme Commander.

Hillary Clinton – Hills served a full term as US senator and was re-elected.

Obama was a US senator for 24 months before he declared his candidacy.

Lele,

You didn't address the previous question I posed you.

Son of Baldwin, did you pose a question. The links you provided only provided evidence that is not seasoned enough to be president. I provided you with a history lessons because all the people you refer to as being inexperienced had more experience than Obama. The fact is all of them have more experience than the 2 year senator who served in the state house part-time.

Son of Baldwin, did you pose a question ? The links you provided only provided evidence that O is not seasoned enough to be president. I provided you with a history lessons because all the people you refer to as being inexperienced had more experience than Obama. The fact is all of them have more experience than the 2 year senator who served in the state house part-time.

All this experience we speak of with respect to these former presidents is baffling to me at times. Bill Clinton is clearly an experienced gentleman but that didn't stop his poor judgment prior to the South Carolina primaries. That experience as the governor of Arkansas did not stop him from championing NAFTA.

One thing we must learn from the constitution of the United States and the set up of our government is more based on arguments than anyones experience, our government is based on rhetoric and interpretation of that rhetoric. Barack Obama knows how to manuever change via the the Constitution better than any of these other candidates as he was a Constitutional Law professor at the Univ of Chicago.

All I am saying is experience, great experience got us into Iraq, nowadays we need more than experience, we need an innovative leader who is ready to challenge the status quo and reinvent the image and desperate economy of our country. This may or not be Obama but the experience debate has to stop for our countries sake.

All this experience we speak of with respect to these former presidents is baffling to me at times. Bill Clinton is clearly an experienced gentleman but that didn't stop his poor judgment prior to the South Carolina primaries. That experience as the governor of Arkansas did not stop him from championing NAFTA.

One thing we must learn from the constitution of the United States and the set up of our government is more based on arguments than anyones experience, our government is based on rhetoric and interpretation of that rhetoric. Barack Obama knows how to manuever change via the the Constitution better than any of these other candidates as he was a Constitutional Law professor at the Univ of Chicago.

All I am saying is experience, great experience got us into Iraq, nowadays we need more than experience, we need an innovative leader who is ready to challenge the status quo and reinvent the image and desperate economy of our country. This may or not be Obama but the experience debate has to stop for our countries sake.

Check out http://nativenotes.wordpress.com

To Edith et al,

Who keeps asking why this wasn't picked up by the Obama campaign, considering the astute team that Obama has put together? In fact Edith when Jeremiah Wright did the invocation a year ago for Barack Obama. Obama met with Rev Wright and asked him to please calm down on the “emotional” sermons because they knew it would hurt the campaign. This being quoted by Roland Martin the night of the “horrific” Anderson Cooper interview with Barack Obama. But we can’t explain Sean Hannity (FOX) and Brian Ross (ABC) in the way it was put out by their respected networks.

The bottom line is that this was a clear message from the WHITE ran networks to warn whites and Alicia Banks about him before they cast their vote….YES, Alicia I said you. Because if you look the only ones in a RAGE now is WHITES and it’s very strange that we are “guilty by association” with our pastors. But the white folk just say SORRY and move forward. GO FIGURE AMERIKA

Speaking of white clergy. Speaking of RAGE check out below

1. The Right Rev Billy Graham labeled as “America’s Preacher” says at that time with PRES NIXON comments about Jews He said Jews revealed a special kind of contempt. ''A lot of the Jews are great friends of mine,'' he said. ''They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they a