Obama denies any video showing Michelle 'whitey' rant...

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Neither you or I know why Obama sat in that church and listened to Reverend Wright for so many years.

Again, you are bringing race into the equation by suggesting that if Obama were white he would not be in the position he is in.

Let's say that is true and that the democratic party is racist and chose Obama over Hillary because she was a white woman.

Really, you think that is the likely case?

Besides, what does that have to do with promoting John McCain?

The reality is that the democratic party hated Hillary Clinton more than they loved Obama, and Obama initially did appeal to higher values like hope, he did inspire people (not me, I think he is a confidence man just like any other politician)...rather than the tired old fear card that you are playing.

In the end, you continue to focus on race. That makes your focus on his race valid?

Why can't you just keep on posting the glory of John McCain?

Every time you bring up the issue of race, simply demonstrates your focus on race, and if you were colorblind, you wouldn't see a black presidential candidate, a bi-racial candidate, you would just see a democratic candidate.

There are plenty of ideological issues that republicans can make a case for in their support of McCain, and plenty to make a case against Obama when it comes to Obama...but the race card should not be one of them...unless you are trying to play the race card in attempt to appeal to the voting public that do make hiring decision (like hiring the new president) on the basis of race.

Until you drop it entirely, you are acting like a racist, or worse, a republican operative who is trying to influence voters with the race card.

In the current landscape of gloom and doom with the economy, I seriously doubt that your fear based messages are going to be received as well as something hopeful and inspirational for change going forward.

Then again I could be wrong, I have seen Americans vote for Bush the moron twice...

If you were an independent academic type, who equally focused on the flaws of both John McCain and Obama, then your suggestion that you are not playing the race card might have some value.

However, since you are not an independent intellectual, but rather a blind right wing republican supporter, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are playing the race card, and are likely a racist at heart...or worse, a blind partisan.

What people do in their church, if not illegal should really be none of our business, this focus on what Obama heard in church is really and truly unAmerican.

Quote from Yannis:

I don't think you and I differ much, in reality, Z, but I still disagree with you on some things.

Call me racist if you will, but I (and millions more) don't think that Obama would have been where he is now in the presidential run if he were white. Geraldine Ferraro was right, period. This fact alone makes race a key issue here. Or would you call him the AA candidate? He was chosen by the hard left that controls most media in this country, not because of his (very few and far between) accomplishments and experience and correct positions on key issues, but because he is a very well presented, liberal, black politician.

The questions about Rev Wright and Fr Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan and William Ayres et al are questions about his character and judgment, which also happen to be the main attributes he's peddling to the American public. The fact is that he WAS a member of that racist congregation for 20 years and his mentor often speaks in racist, anti-American terms, etc. Same for the other characters especially if you add domestic terrorism to the list. Why would I trust a President who did this? I don't. Not because of his race, but because of his poor judgment and lack of character. Give me Colin Powell or Condi Rice and I'd be glad to vote for them.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

...Let's say that is true and that the democratic party is racist.

So?

That makes your focus on his race valid?

...

You may have a point here, partially. My original post a few pages back was about the Government's over-messing things up by creating an environment where people do not feel responsible for their actions. Big government, imo, is (at least partially) to blame for the discouraging stats in the black community in this country. Then the discussion drifted towards Obama (not my original focus.)

Even so, if I am correct and he was chosen by the liberal powers that be primarily for being black, this is a huge issue for the American public. We deserve THE BEST, not the minority applicant because of so many other issues. Was he the best from among the Democratic candidates? With all of his baggage? Really? What would half of Democrats say to this question?

That's OK, I like the guy, which is a problem Thanks for the chat - have a good night.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

He beat Hillary in the primary because the democratic party did not want Hillary.

Period.

This has nothing to do with the general election.

Look, this should be so easy for republicans.

Simply do a Ben Franklin close.

On one side of the paper, write down all of McCain's accomplishments and beneficial actions as an elected official, all the known position on the issues.

On the other side of the paper, write down all of Obama's accomplishments and beneficial actions as an elected official, all the known positions on the issues.

This should be an easy close, yet you have to focus on the negative of Obama?

What is that really saying about McCain...

That he wants to stay the course of George Bush, and we both know that George Bush, even if he could run again right now in 2008, would be unelectable.

That's the reality you are trying to hide from, distract from, and try to escape from...

Quote from Yannis:

You may have a point here, partially. My original post a few pages back was about the Government's over-messing things up by creating an environment where people do not feel responsible for their actions. Big government, imo, is (at least partially) to blame for the discouraging stats in the black community in this country. Then the discussion drifted towards Obama (not my original focus.)

Even so, if I am correct and he was chosen by the liberal powers that be primarily for being black, this is a huge issue for the American public. We deserve THE BEST, not the minority applicant because of so many other issues. Was he the best from among the Democratic candidates? With all of his baggage? Really? What would half of Democrats say to this question?

That's OK, I like the guy, which is a problem Thanks for the chat - have a good night.

 

[Almond_Dragoon]

Quote from Cesko:

Your post makes me think of South Africa. If we are thing of the past your future is bleak. Leech can only live off of the host.

This spoken from the greatest leeches history has ever documented. Europe and it's ilk has stolen more humans, wealth and natural resources from other places than any other group.

If anything, all the brown, yellow, red and black people are coming back to take what was stolen from them.

Only a matter of time.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from Almond_Dragoon:

...Europe and it's ilk has stolen more humans, wealth and natural resources from other places than any other group...

I don't think people are any different across geography, nationality, religion or race. The Europeans, Chinese, Indians and other Asians, Africans, Americans (Native or not) etc all did similar bad things and good things over the centuries. It's just that some atrocities or benevolent actions are better documented than others. Yes, there was Hitler, but there was Ghegis Khan too, remember? Slaves were brought to the Americas, but the slave merchants for many centuries were the Arabs in Africa. And don't forget the Pyramids in Egypt built with human blood over thousands of years. etc etc. And how about all the good stuff that the Europeans contributed to the world? Democracy, theater, science, economy, literature? Better call it even across the globe on both the positive and the negative side. That's the only understanding of human nature that makes sense, imo.

 

[Almond_Dragoon]

Quote from Yannis:

I don't think people are any different across geography, nationality, religion or race. The Europeans, Chinese, Indians and other Asians, Africans, Americans (Native or not) etc all did similar bad things and good things over the centuries. It's just that some atrocities or benevolent actions are better documented than others. Yes, there was Hitler, but there was Ghegis Khan too, remember? Slaves were brought to the Americas, but the slave merchants for many centuries were the Arabs in Africa. And don't forget the Pyramids in Egypt built with human blood over thousands of years. etc etc. And how about all the good stuff that the Europeans contributed to the world? Democracy, theater, science, economy, literature? Better call it even across the globe on both the positive and the negative side. That's the only understanding of human nature that makes sense, imo.

I do admire your balance.

But modern history has documented that EVERY petty murderer, Edi Amin, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet, Manuel Noriega, Pablo Escobar, etc. used weapons from the greatest gun runners on the planet.... the US, Germany, Israel, and Russia.

So I stand by the fact that the most murderous genre of human ever to grace this planet is the European and his ilk.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention that some of these petty killers were grown at the School of the Americas. Where is that? Why, it is in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The Founders are rolling in their graves.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

The fact is that Obama is all about race. To say voters should somehow ignore it is ridiculous. Obviously, his race was the single most important factor in getting the nomination. If he's white, he's just a laughably inexperienced, corrupt Chicago pol hoping to get the VP nomination at best. But for millions of PC-indoctrinated liberals, the chance to vote for and swoon over an educated, non-threatening mixed race, multicultural candidate is their most fervent wet dream. As liberals, they are totally swayed by their emotions, so rational arguments about his marxist, class warfare positions or odious past associations are irrelevant.

For normal, ie non-lberal, voters, the race issue is a bit more nuanced. It is not a matter of his being half african. Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas would be highly acceptable to many voters. It is about the fact that both Obama and his wife have spent most of their adult lives "working" in the racial grievance industry, milking liberal guilt and using black political power to divert taxpayer money to some of the worst racist demogoges in the country, people like Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. While it is supremely ironic that Obama now presents himself as a post-racial uniter, the reality is exactly the opposite. He, his wife and his circle of friends and advisers see everything in starkly racial terms. One need only glance through his first book to be horrified by his angry obsession with color. If anything, his perpetually angry wife is worse.

The question voters have to ask is are they comfortable with the notion of a president who is a lifelong adherent of black liberation, ie marxist, theology? Who has spent his life as a shill for the racial grievance crowd? Who no doubt supports slavery reparations ( why did this never come up in the debates)?

Race is not the only issue in this campaign, but it is an important one, and voters should not be intimidated by liberals' demands that they ignore it.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The fact is that Obama is all about race. To say voters should somehow ignore it is ridiculous. Obviously, his race was the single most important factor in getting the nomination. If he's white, he's just a laughably inexperienced, corrupt Chicago pol hoping to get the VP nomination at best. But for millions of PC-indoctrinated liberals, the chance to vote for and swoon over an educated, non-threatening mixed race, multicultural candidate is their most fervent wet dream. As liberals, they are totally swayed by their emotions, so rational arguments about his marxist, class warfare positions or odious past associations are irrelevant.

For normal, ie non-lberal, voters, the race issue is a bit more nuanced. It is not a matter of his being half african. Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas would be highly acceptable to many voters. It is about the fact that both Obama and his wife have spent most of their adult lives "working" in the racial grievance industry, milking liberal guilt and using black political power to divert taxpayer money to some of the worst racist demogoges in the country, people like Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. While it is supremely ironic that Obama now presents himself as a post-racial uniter, the reality is exactly the opposite. He, his wife and his circle of friends and advisers see everything in starkly racial terms. One need only glance through his first book to be horrified by his angry obsession with color. If anything, his perpetually angry wife is worse.

The question voters have to ask is are they comfortable with the notion of a president who is a lifelong adherent of black liberation, ie marxist, theology? Who has spent his life as a shill for the racial grievance crowd? Who no doubt supports slavery reparations ( why did this never come up in the debates)?

Race is not the only issue in this campaign, but it is an important one, and voters should not be intimidated by liberals' demands that they ignore it.

I Agree, more or less...

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"Obviously, his race was the single most important factor in getting the nomination."

A complete non truth.

Hillary's voting to support the war in Iraq in 2003 and the weak way in which she handled it was the reason she was not the nominee.

In addition, negative articles on Hillary were on both right wing and left wing on line rags daily. When you have both Drudge and Huffington trying to stop Hillary, you have little chance at success.

This was a referendum on change for the democratic party, a move away from the Clintons.

If Obama was white...the results would have been exactly the same, perhaps he would have gotten a greater victory.

Race is simply not an important factor in why Hillary lost the nomination.

Yall klannish sure are focused on race, gender, ethnicity...

No wonder the minority groups don't vote for the republicans in mass...

Oh, and Colin Powell is ruined and would never have a shot after his complicity in getting the US into Iraq.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The fact is that Obama is all about race. To say voters should somehow ignore it is ridiculous. Obviously, his race was the single most important factor in getting the nomination. If he's white, he's just a laughably inexperienced, corrupt Chicago pol hoping to get the VP nomination at best. But for millions of PC-indoctrinated liberals, the chance to vote for and swoon over an educated, non-threatening mixed race, multicultural candidate is their most fervent wet dream. As liberals, they are totally swayed by their emotions, so rational arguments about his marxist, class warfare positions or odious past associations are irrelevant.

For normal, ie non-lberal, voters, the race issue is a bit more nuanced. It is not a matter of his being half african. Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas would be highly acceptable to many voters. It is about the fact that both Obama and his wife have spent most of their adult lives "working" in the racial grievance industry, milking liberal guilt and using black political power to divert taxpayer money to some of the worst racist demogoges in the country, people like Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. While it is supremely ironic that Obama now presents himself as a post-racial uniter, the reality is exactly the opposite. He, his wife and his circle of friends and advisers see everything in starkly racial terms. One need only glance through his first book to be horrified by his angry obsession with color. If anything, his perpetually angry wife is worse.

The question voters have to ask is are they comfortable with the notion of a president who is a lifelong adherent of black liberation, ie marxist, theology? Who has spent his life as a shill for the racial grievance crowd? Who no doubt supports slavery reparations ( why did this never come up in the debates)?

Race is not the only issue in this campaign, but it is an important one, and voters should not be intimidated by liberals' demands that they ignore it.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Ridiculous observation. You make it sound as if the 2008 campaign was an HC vs. Obama one on one. What about Edwards? Or Biden or Richardson. Of course Obama's color separated him from the pack. Just like it did in the 2004 Illinois primary. If blacks hadn't voted almost exclusively along racial lines then Obama wouldn't have been anywhere in the mix.

Obama clearly followed JFK's 1960 lead when Catholicism was much more of an asset to his campaign than a hindrance. Even Kennedy apologist Theodore White conceded in the Making of the President 1960 that JFK's adept use of religion was pivotal in garnering him the nomination. He monopolized the huge Catholic Dem vote and then played upon reverse bigotry to sway many Protestants.

One can only imagine the uproar if Obama and Wright were white. Two millionaires, one of them not even a true part of the Black experience yet the media and voters felt it a violation of the PC handbook to even disclose the depth of their relationship. Just the fact American's have heard of John Hagee- whose church McCain never once attended- on an almost equal par with Wright tells one all they need know about moral equivalency in reporting.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Obviously, his race was the single most important factor in getting the nomination."

A complete non truth.

Hillary's voting to support the war in Iraq in 2003 and the weak way in which she handled it was the reason she was not the nominee.

In addition, negative articles on Hillary were on both right wing and left wing on line rags daily. When you have both Drudge and Huffington trying to stop Hillary, you have little chance at success.

This was a referendum on change for the democratic party, a move away from the Clintons.

If Obama was white...the results would have been exactly the same, perhaps he would have gotten a greater victory.

Race is simply not an important factor in why Hillary lost the nomination.

Yall klannish sure are focused on race, gender, ethnicity...

No wonder the minority groups don't vote for the republicans in mass...

Oh, and Colin Powell is ruined and would never have a shot after his complicity in getting the US into Iraq.