EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hillary Has Cynically Turned to the One Argument She Has Left: Race
She failed to convince the electorate of her own viability. Now her team claims that voters won't back a black candidate
It is one of the enduring paradoxes of American racism that those black Americans most likely to exercise their full rights as citizens -- to vote, to stand, to speak out -- are the most likely to be branded as unpatriotic.
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist," said the chairman of a loyalty review board, one of the McCarthyite kangaroo courts that sat in judgment of possible communists, in the 50s. "But it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line."
Assuming that African-Americans could not possibly work out that white supremacy was not in their interests by themselves, their detractors routinely accused them of acting under influences both foreign and malign. The FBI wasted millions of dollars and hours trying in vain to prove that Martin Luther King was a communist. For those who would not know their place and were not assassinated, the punishment was often the revocation of whatever rights of citizenship they had. Already denied the vote, freedom of movement and association, Paul Robeson was refused a passport in 1950 and confined to the US. When his lawyers asked why, they were told that "his frequent criticism of the treatment of blacks in the United States should not be aired in foreign countries". In 1963 the intellectual and activist WEB Dubois was similarly grounded without passport privileges and so moved to the recently liberated Ghana.
The struggle for racial equality in America has always essentially been a battle for full citizenship. In a country founded on the principles of the enlightenment and built on the backs of slaves, it has long exposed the tension between the country's promise and its practice. The founding fathers held both that all men were equal -- and that a slave was worth three-fifths of a man. Sooner or later, the nation would implode under the weight of these constitutional contradictions.
It took the best part of 200 years for the law to catch up. In Barack Obama's candidacy we are now learning how far America's political culture has come in this regard and how far it still has to go. Because, for all the misty-eyed liberal talk of him ushering in a post-racial era, the past few weeks have seen Obama fighting not just for the nomination but for his patriotic legitimacy. Constantly questioning his national loyalty and obfuscating his religious affiliation, both the media and his opponents have sought to cast him not only as anti-American but un-American and at times even non-American. His bid to transcend race appears to be crashing on the rocks of racism.
"Race is intertwined with a broader notion that he is not one of us," Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Centre, told the New York Times. Pew conducted an extensive examination of voter attitudes, particularly among Democrats who have an unfavourable view of Obama. "They react negatively to people who are seen as different."
The point here is not whether white people are prepared to vote for him. First, they clearly are. Of the 10 whitest states to have voted so far, Obama has won nine. And there are countless reasons why people don't back him that have nothing to do with race -- not least that they prefer another candidate on their merits.
At issue is the insidious and racist manner in which his candidacy is now being framed as that of a nefarious, foreign interloper whose allegiance to his country is inherently inauthentic and instinctively suspect.
Some of these charges have long emerged from familiar and predictable places. As early as last year, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News falsely claimed that he had attended an Islamist madrasa while a young boy in Indonesia. When rightwing radio hosts refer to him they generally emphasise and repeat his middle name -- Hussein -- even though Obama rarely uses it.
But soon these attacks shifted from the political margins to the mainstream. During the recent ABC debate, Obama was grilled about his refusal to wear an American flag tiepin. One of the moderators asked Obama of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright: "You do believe he's as patriotic as you are?"
Having given up on the African-American vote, the Clintons have clearly decided that it makes more electoral sense to collude with these attacks than it does to raise the tenor of the discussion and challenge them. During the ABC debate, Hillary applauded the line of questioning. "You know, these are problems, I think these are issues that are legitimate and should be explored."
Being foreign, Muslim or unpatriotic should not be treated as slurs. But in a post 9/11 framework, the Clintons know full well how these allusions will be understood and what the consequences might be. When asked whether Obama was a Muslim, Hillary said that he wasn't: "There is nothing to base that on -- as far as I know."
Three days after Obama made his landmark speech on race, Bill Clinton said of a potential match-up between Hillary Clinton and McCain: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." The implication was that Obama doesn't love his country and all this "racial" stuff is just getting in the way.
All this does have an effect. By February, 80% of Americans had heard rumours that Obama was Muslim. Even after the furore over the Rev Wright, one in 10 Democrats still believed this. A recent Pew poll showed that the only character trait on which Obama loses to Clinton is patriotism. Exit polls in Pennsylvania revealed that 18% of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest -- and just 63% of them said that they would support Obama in a general election.
Unable to beat Obama on delegates and still unlikely to beat him in the popular vote, Hillary Clinton has just one strategy left -- to persuade superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. She has tried branding him as inexperienced and slick-tongued, and neither of those have worked. At this stage she has just one argument left: his race. For several months now, her aides have been whispering to whoever would listen that America would never elect a black candidate. In desperation, some are now raising their voices.
But their accusations are not only cynical -- by most accounts they also seem to be wrong. It seems they have underestimated the potential of the American electorate. Polls show that in the states won with less than a five-point margin in 2004 Obama does far better than Clinton against McCain.
The problem is not that Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She has every right to be. It is that she is running the kind of race that she is. Having failed to convince voters of the viability of her own candidacy, she is now committed to proving the unviability of his.
Hillary once said it takes a village to raise a child. Now she seems determined to destroy the village in order to save it.
--Gary Younge
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

34 Comments so far
Show AllI recently read an article in Smithsonian Magazine that was about a survey given to 2,000 high school students across the country, as well as 2,000 adults, 45 and older. The survey consisted of one question: Who are the ten most famous people in American history? (there was one catch: you couldn't include any Presidents or First Ladies).
The results of this survey were surprising:
First, the high school students (11th and 12th graders) and the adults answered the survey almost identically, after the results were tallied and averaged out.
Second, for both high school students and adults, the most famous person in American history was, by a wide margin (67%), a black man: Martin Luther King, Jr.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this survey is an indication that race is NOT going to be a detriment to Obama unless someone (like Hillary, for example) makes it a detriment.
But Reverend Wright hasn't been helping Obama out lately.
Certainly there must be enough young persons in this country who were not raised in Arch Bunker households to prove that race is not an issue. I put my faith in these enlighted individuals to prove to the rest of us that old traditions can die, hard as it my seem. It will be the youth of this country who will steer us back to sanity and reason.
I disagree with Younge's title's suggestion that race is the only remaining argument Clinton has left to her, but I concur with his larger argument about her campaign's willingness to engage in coded racism in order to weaken Obama.
Surely Senator Clinton's "35 years of experience" has given her plenty to run on without needing to engage in such repugnant tactics.
That her campaign has done so, however, is truly disgraceful. One could cite many examples, some far more transparent than others. Her effort to link Obama to Farrakhan, for example, was a particularly clear example of this sort of thing. What was its purpose if not to alarm white voters who view Farrakhan as beyond the pale?
The Clinton campaign might feel like it needs to do everything it can to make up the delegate gap, but in taking this approach it shows that Clinton has forgotten an important bit of down-home wisdom she might have done well to learn during her days as Arkansas's first-lady:
Just as you can't get "just a little bit pregnant" you can't get "just a little bit racist."
You mean her first lady and walmart experience?
If her opponent was a white guy she wouldnt be able to say: well he isnt electable.
She would still stay in though.
She only cares about herself. You would have to be as dumb as a Bush supporter not to see what she really is. Bush was easy to read even before the 2000 election.
This article misses the importance of age, one of the main reasons for Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania. It's the 2nd oldest of 50 states.
By the way, Clinton is NOT a member of the Mormon Muslim Communist Lesbian Satan-Worshipping Baby-Eating Ladies Club...as far as I know.
Frankly, I think Rev. Wright is doing all he can to make this election about race. Whether he is doing this intentionally or not I do not know. It it not a good thing. And it is irritating that he presents himself as a representative of the black america and black religion. What whould you think of a pastor who got up and said that he was speaking for white religion? I think we'd call him a racist, and rightly so.
Unfortunately, the racial aspect of this election is now out of the hands of Obama and even the Clintons.
I am disappointed with how Hilary Clinton is conducting her campaign. She is playing rough dirty and tooth and nail against Obama. I can understand this course of action from her not only because she has once upon a time lived in the White House for eight years but also as she is vying for the top spot in the world. I do not blame her for doing everything by all means necessary to secure her that spot. Yet, she is playing VERY dirty politics. REAL dirty. Who is she to talk really? She would probably do a better job than George Bush Jr.; but her tactics turn me off to be frank. Her methods of trashing Barack Obama have me stunned and calls into question for me what Clinton REALLY is about. I want to reiterate though that, if she is President of the USA, she would do a better job than George W. Bush; but to attack Obama the way she hsa IS deplorable for a morally positive standpoint in my humble opinion.
For me Hillary Clinton lost all credibility when she blithely threated to ``obliterate'' Iran during an interview with ABC. Let's face it - an obliterater cannot be a peacemaker - I have now come to recognize her for the power hungry, unscrupulous politician she is.
All of the Obamamaniacs that feel so sorry for poor little Barack as the mean Hillary is campaigning to win the race had better leave the country if Obama gets nominated. Your poor helpless Obama will really get a dose of slime poured on him when he goes up against the Republican smear machine in the general election. This contest is good practice for him and his supporters should be glad for the experience he is getting. He might have to call on that loud mouthed preacher of his to defend him then.
This article is just another shovel full of crap demeaning Clinton. The only thing that will help Obama now is if he comes up with a meaningful agressive positive attack, which he hasn't done for quite a while. A good start would be a successful debate with Clinton, which Obama appears to be running from. That won't get it done, and Clinton continues to eat his lunch. Suck it up, Obama, if you don't have the cojones to take it to Clinton, you're done anyway.
The Clinton campaign puts out a "buzz" right before primaries. Before Ohio it was the NAFTA rumor about Obama winking to the Canadian gov't about renegotiating the treaty. In Penn it was "he can't win because he's black". I wonder how many people who voted for her on race did so because they wouldn't vote for him or because they think others won't.
deathtotyrants: I reluctantly agree with you. This is nothing to what's coming and he needs to show some cojones. They should have taken the turban thing, explained about showing respect to other people and cultures and then showed pictures of Princess Diana in African dress in Africa and of Dubya walking hand in hand around his ranch with Prince Bandar. They don't have to get nasty, just take every negative as a positive and maybe use some humor. The attack machine would be flummoxed, at least for a while.
Thanks kernel and deathtotyrants for failing to address what's at issue here, namely pandering to racism for political purposes.
What's being discussed here isn't Obama's character (or, in dtt's terms, Obama's "cojones") but racism and whether it ought to have any place in a candidate's campaign toolbox.
Should we take your evasion of that question as affirmation that "anything goes (including racism) in a political campaign?" After all, what matters isn't the conduct of the person slinging the mud but the character of the person it's being slung at, right?!?
Kernel wrote, "Your poor helpless Obama will really get a dose of slime poured on him when he goes up against the Republican smear machine in the general election."
Righto!! But if Hillary had not given the Repubs their talking papers she could get out there and help defuse the slime (forgive the mixed metaphor) as Obama would do if the tables were turned.
She has vastly undermined her own credibility for this election and the rest of her career.
The idea that Obama should be grateful for the oppurtunity to practice fighting slime is absurd. There will be plenty of time to learn that in fall without adding a foundation of slime now.
L
Yep, Hillary and Bill are racists, their past record "proves" it. They hate black people. They hate yellow people and red and brown people too.
Obama is only half black, so they don't hate him as much as they hate his preacher. That's why Hillary is running for the presidency, she's a born again racist and Bill is a womanizer racist. They wear white hodded sheets after midnight during a full moon and burn wooden crosses in their attic and each has a black swastica tatooed on their ass. ___ Pass the word.
Here's the thing that amuses me to no end in discussions like these:
People who are fine systemic thinkers on some issues (e.g. the American political system) become die-hard individualists quite arbitrarily on others.
These people will rightly tell you (as if you don't already know) that the American political system---dominated as it is by a duopoly which stresses the substantive differences between the two parties but in which, in fact, substantive difference has all but disappeared---is horribly broken and that looking to either of the major parties for systemic transformation is a chimera.
But get them to talk about the presence of racism as a systemic feature of American political campaigning and suddenly these same people lose all critical ability. They can't step outside the system a whit; for them it is all about some individual's failings (most often a failure of "cojones" in the person being subjected to the racism, but occasionally a complaint about the individual doing the race-baiting).
As repugnant as Hillary Clinton might be as an individual for pandering to racist sentiment, the problem is systemic and not simply indicative of her failings as a person.
KEM PATRICK's comments, on the other hand, are indicative of something else entirely. The lame attempt at hiding behind obviously hyperbole (psst...the Clintons wear white hooded sheets!) seems to be compensating for some awareness that at the level of campaign rhetoric Clinton has indeed played with racist fire.
The Clintons created the current version of the Dems in the '90s to satisfy their egos. Now that they could lose control of their 'private' party, they have no qualms in destroying its viability - again to satisfy their egos.
Kind of like killing the ex-girlfriend syndrome - 'If I can't have her, nobody can!!'
The Indiana primary next week will tell you whether racism will prevent Obama from successfully running alone. If he doesn't clearly win by at least 5%, then DEMAND the teamup of Clinton and Obama. Your next 12-16 years of history and policy are at stake. McCain is likely to pick Huckabee to try for setup of 12 years dominating The White House.
Wright might have said something not nice about Zionism--something Clinton's never done--and this has earned him and his familiar Obama the wrath of all civilized white people, citizens of Israel at the van.
What seems to be lost in these discussions is that generally Democrats do not throw the kitchen sink at other Democrats because they cannot afford to alienate the supporters of the other Democrats in the primary contests. However, that does not mean that such Democratic candidates will similarly restrict themselves in a general election against a Republican. Usually no reason exists to hold back as the Republican's core supporters are not someone the candidates hopes to ever catch.
Thus, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama would give McCain the kid gloves treatment he is giving Hillary as he would not fear alienating McCain supporters. Hillary, conversely, along with her husband, has been so accomodating and polite with Republicans, including the Bushes and Mr. McCain as well as Scaife and Murdoch, for so long that it seems likely that she is being more harsh on Obama than she would be on McCain in a general election campaign. I can only guess that, because of painful memories, she fears the expected Republican onslaught and hopes her conciliatory tones with Republicans will signal the offer of a truce that would not be totally rejected.
As Hillary has positioned herself between Obama and McCain, she is hoping that Obama's supporters will be forced to support her as a lesser of two evils regardless of how they feel about her. And, even if not, if she wins the nomination and then loses she will start the next campaign as the leading Democratic candidate.
She has demonstrated repeatedly she cares nothing for the Democratic Party and so one would think that if the Democratic Party is to survive it must demonstrate to her that their are consequences for such behavior.
One thing we need to do in all our propaganda efforts is to constantly work to redefine 'patriotic'.
To me, this country was founded on the notion of people telling a King to go stuff himself. So, my definition of a patriotic American is one who's willing to stand up and express themselves and tell the world what they think is right .... even if some President or modern day King has a different opinion.
If the right-wing ideas of 'patriotism' were always true in this country, then we'd all still be subjects of the Queen of England.
Gotta love the Democrats. After months of trying to tell us that Obama is somehow our secret savior who will do magically things (that's he's never mentioned aloud) if he gets to the White House, now suddenly we are told by the Dems that if he doesn't win IN then he has to abandon his campaign and take a meaningless VP spot.
If Obama takes the VP spot, then he's surrendered. Forget all this BS about how the BP becomes President afterwards. Its all crap. George HW Bush (the old guy) was the first VP in modern history to pull off winning an election for President. The long history before that is that the VP's are regarded as weak and could never win an election ... a trend that went back to the historical norm with Gore (at least according to the Surpreme Court).
The amazing thing about the Dems is that they'll try to tell you that its so vitally important that the candidate with a (D) after their name wins, when the history of the last 30 years is that it doesn't mean a damn.
Dem congress or Rethug Congress, Dem in the White House or Rethug in the White House. Regardless, we all just keep getting screwed.
By DD's logic, Dan Quayle was a sure bet to be President.
Actions count. Character counts. Regardless of the issues, we've learned a lot about Hillary under pressure. To someone like me who campaigned hard against the Clintons in 92, its no surprise, just confirmation.
To what lengths will someone go to gain power. Are their actions they won't take, limits they won't cross to gain power. Such is the definition of ethics and character. What have you learned about Hillary?
Obama has played the race card while posing as the post-racial candidate:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Has anyone besides myself noticed that these Hillary/Obama articles are just dividing the people who blog comments here an dnow somany are filled with anger and even hatred? Has anyone else noticed that trolls like ERIC are running rampant here now and many good CD old timers have left in disgust?
My prior blog was sarcasm ERIC and you know it.
The right wingnuts have NO shame.. they break the law by changing party affiliation, to make sure Hilary gets PA, at Rush L and others, along with the religious wingnuts prompting,(so much for the honesty of the Christian right) then switch back to get their WARMONGER elected. yet not a PEEP from the MSM about record breaking numbers of "switchers" just before the PA primary, then the MSM fudges the math to make it look light Hilary got a 2 digit lead..
And Yes Kem the wingnuts who voted for BUSH are encouraged to come to any left leaning site and spew their shit,,
This shit is right in the faces of the American people, and it stinks..but somehow they are convinced it is truth and smells like a rose..
makes ya wanna puke
I hate this kind of articles!! I'd have so much more respect for Obama supporters if they would just tell me WHY I should vote for him? What issues does he champion? Why hasn't he offered ANY leadership as a U.S. Senator? Perhaps this race issue IS real, folks, lots of folks won't vote for him based on race. It's unfortunate, but democrats want to win. They won't with Obama - just look at the math of where he's winning and where she's winning. I'm voting for a black person, but she won't win, either.
I hate the demonization of Hillary Clinton. Shame on all of you!
Up until recently I was neither for Obama nor Clinton, but I find it despicable that the Clinton camp is sinking to such lows in order to win. On the other hand, people shouldn't be surprised either. It's the typical Clintonian triangulation: teaming up with their long term opponents (the Republicans) in order to destroy their immediate one (Obama). Seeing Terry McAuliffe on Fox News legitimizing Hannity's racist vitriolic attacks of Mr. Obama really makes me want to puke and then go and vote for Obama. I am confident that the rest of America feels the same. People understand that with Clinton or McCain we'll just get 4 more years of the same never kept promises. But if HIllary is successful in overthrowing the will of the people, I will definitely vote for Nader in November.
Rich,
I really respect many of the things you've said here at CD (particularly your point about the need to build progressive/left culture, and so forth). But I don't understand your defense of Clinton here.
I'll grant you that her voting record reveals her to be marginally more progressive than Obama, although to use the term progressive in connection with either of them feels strange. If Obama supporters are deluded in believing him to be more progressive than his voting record and policies indicate, Clinton supporters similarly have no reason to believe her to be committed to progressive change.
But let's take the issue of which of the two candidates is more "progressive" or electable off the table.
Why are people wrong to point out the Clinton campaign's playing to racist sentiment? Why is this automatically interpreted as demonization of Clinton and a show of partisan support for Obama? Couldn't some Clinton be just as appalled by the campaign's use of such tactics?
I'll grant you that she might have a better chance than Obama in the general election (although I have reasons to believe that's not true), but frankly does that justify playing to racist fears in order to secure the nomination of her party?
Is critique of the conduct of a campaign only permissible as a sort of post-election, retrospective activity?
Not to worry folks---the corpstream media is busy as we speak, bringing in the "fix." I am nearly beyond caring anymore, although the eagerness and systematic distruction of Obama's candidacy in the "guilt by association" campaign that has been raging since March, makes me believe he may actually be abit of an unknown to the powers behind the throne. They can't afford to take a chance that his popularity might become too apparent in the general election and they wouldn't be able to steal still another election. I fear it will be Clinton vs McCain and we already know her "negatives" are just too great for her to overcome such a "likeable, moderate, maverick, war hero like McCain. We're screwed folks! Someone has to be in place come January 2009 to pardon the thugs currently in power!
When this election began long ago, I had my objections to Hilary (mostly due to her intransigence regarding her Iraq war vote), but was not too turned off. As Bill and her have continued to Rove their way through this primary process and wallow in her narcissism (the numbers are simply against her ever getting enough delegates by the time of the convention), my disgust for Bill and her has grown in leaps and bounds to the extent that if I ever come face to face with the woman, I will be tempted sorely not to spit in her face.
The race card is used like anything else by a dyeing Clinton campaign despite the numbers. The Fox network and media uses it through the Rev. Wright to defeat a possible black candidate. McCain knows nothing more about the health care than the so-called leadership he seeks to bring to the American people. He and Clinton are simply an extension of the Bush policy of the last seven years and a hope to continue those same policies. They include the "politics of fear" as Obama speaks of and so many other means used to lie to the American people as in the gas tax scam.
The race and gender issues are simply part of a greater issue of fairness in all human issues and an end to exploitation of the masses at any level including the exploitation of women, minorities and children. The new style young capitalist is simply the extension of greed and all other low level thought.
The Fox network and these two politicians along with the power brokers of the Rupert Murdoch style of revisionism in America and the world move gullible humanity back toward the 1952 Australian style of thought recently abrogated by the Australians with the defeat of their leader, in foreign affairs and economics that if continued will bring the world to extinction.
Clinton once again shows her irresponsible thinking at any price to gain the American nomination to continue to lead the world to oblivion. I read with interest the comments of Americans. I consider myself a humanist and not one that has the USA tattooed to my backside although I gave three years to the military and so have a right to speak.
Nationalism, is always based in me-firstism, let the rest of the world be damned mentality.
Clinton is the new spokesperson for that idea and has now teamed up with the Fox network and the rabid so-called journalists who have helped diminish the America I once knew and fought to maintain. People like these at the highest levels of power color the way the rest of the world looks at the USA.
The economic system that determines all peoples survival regardless of where they exist, also determines what a country will become in its development, much of it the result of chance. In that regard the USA has been lucky, with well-worn imperialist ideas brought over with the Pilgrims. America has taken this country from the people who were here, the European model, without paying them. Some of us here know the story. The so called, "free market system", formerly American capitalism, and now globalization into which it has now morphed. The US with its European allies has created the current means of controlling everything for the few. The G 8 has developed ever-greater means to develop these ideas and to take what it wants from the rest of the world and its own population.
The African Americans, the Africans, the Hispanics, Asians and Indians have been the slave classes that have built the white European and American wealth. The historic exploitation of the working classes of America brought from the world into its "melting pot" with the so-called freedoms and democratic ideals built from the blood spilled to form, compared to the European monarchies and divine kingship, so called Democracy unique in the world. The freedoms bought so dearly, were the first "Divine Kingship" of the "Robber Baron" and now, corporate power elitism.
To keep the masses quiet and to build the lives of Americans, consumer ideology supplanted education, the study human purpose, as a goal in itself. The economic forces, which have built their power, care little for human development and survival. They care largely for their continued power as an end in itself and for the few who have the most based on its protection with a huge military force, hence the oil wars in Iraq, this to support an auto centered disposable consumer society. The expense of privilege in the community of nations may become the death of the globe and its entire people as a result of the American and European economic system, now out of control. Many American economists, Jeffrey Sachs, Joe Stiglitz, and others view these historical developments as a threat to global harmony and survival.
American wealth once had an altruistic quality about it. The post-World War II USA developed the Marshal Plan and cared about the condition of the world. Now the top one percent, those who have taken so much, continue to be supported by the thirty percent of Americans who still believe George Bush, and his myth of global superiority at the expense of the rest of the world. It is clear that many of Clinton's opinions continue the Bush doctrine, of unilateralism.
We sit on the edge of an environmental and economic disaster. This American system is out of control and the economic meltdown will continue regardless of who occupies the Oval office. The only difference is that Obama is intelligent enough to know that there are fundamental change needed in the way America and the so-called "free world" do business. Revs Wright, simply addresses continued black slavery in a world of exploitation of all people led by the US and now the power elite in collusion with the government to continue the "American Dream" mentality, represented now by corporate multilateralism and their wealth and power. Corporate elitism cares for itself alone at the expense of all people, the environment, the human experiment, its freedoms, and so called democratic ideals, which has become nothing more than an oligarchy.
We should not be too pejorative about Rev Wright who simply rails against the exploitive aspects of the Western mentality and points out the deficiency in the USA of evolved thinking toward the slave classes and the human species. He, having been able to experience directly because of his skin color these abuses is perhaps too angry which limits his effectiveness. His experience in seeing the wreckage of black America and his intelligence, has caused him to take up the defense of the disenfranchised.
America has a history of caring about others, once a genuine American direction, led by people, despite their failings like: The Kennedy's, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and so many others who died for their belief in a better America and a better world, caring about humanity. The media who carries their continued assault against those, who would in any way, attempt to include different thinking to bear on the so called "American Dream" which has become the world's nightmare must be seen by the masses for what it has become. The media must begin to understand its roll as an objective commentator to the necessary changes that must be made to the USA and the world if humanity is to survive.
The media above all must be changed once again to give democratic exposure to all-important ideas. They must present an understanding of the complex thought needed and brought to bear on global complex issues of survival. A departure from the simplistic superficial treatment ad-nauseam we witness each day, which passes for news presented by the Barby-Doll class of newsreader, called journalist.
The race card has been played by Obama and his campaign. He and his lackeys flamed Ferraro ... for something Obama said about himself in 2005 ! His comments are part of a Chicago Tribune article posted on his own Senate web site. What a hypocrite he is. And racist too, he apparently thinks that only black, or half black, people can speak about race, that whites cannot. Shame on him.