Clinton's Former-DNC Chair Switches to Obama: 'I Have Been Inspired.'

ike kay,

Thanks for the supportive comment, I appreciate it.

whateveryousay, good post!

I do not use peoples names often. But you reflect the truth of this country and its racist base and the political reality: There is no truth there is only politics and one needs the public to support the campaign if there is to be a shred of truth. There are those so brainwashed by the Clinton political nonsense, who have been trained by the system to use anything that will work to bring the opponent down, the gas tax for example and obliterate Iran, are cases that come to mind.

Few are able to see the propaganda, not many can see the forest for the trees. It takes an, environmentalist, a tree hugger. But there are some who think pandering to corporate greed will help the environment, Clinton knows how to do it!

We just need someone who can get us motivated. We have some major problems that are only going to get worse if we don't get busy. McCain and Hillary make me want to move to Canada. When i read Obama's books you get insight into how his mind works. He knows right from wrong but he also knows you can't get elected unless you play the game. I wouldn't be surprised if Rev. Wright doesn't want him to win, he may care for him too much. I don't know if anyone can fix this country now.

In 1928 a man who had no formal education past ninth or tenth grade, was the four time Governor of New York. Alfred "AL" Smith, ran against Hoover for the U.S. Presidency. He once quipped, ___ "I'd rather be right than be president."

Al Smith was considered to be an honest and very progresive man. He was part Irish blood and a Catholic and faced a great deal of prejudice. I personally don't know if he was right or not, ___ but he didn't win the election.

He didn't betray his priciples either.

Okay, Thank you for a very decent and well written BTW responce. I understand that and agree. It is sometimes easy to be misunderstood with E-mail type conversations.

I fear with any words Obama spoke in an attempt to appease anyone, he "un-appeased" a very large number and it was a serious political mistake.

Well, Obama took Guam. Not exactly a landslide, but a win is a win. Probably be a recount, only seven votes difference.

KEM, Hi. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Let me try to lay this issue to rest with a little more clarity from my end.

I understand you think I was calling you stupid and foolish. I was not. Let me explain this. I don't consider this a hostile environment but rather a meeting place to share thoughts and information, perspectives, between 'friends'. You and I have talked here before and, in some unusual way perhaps, I consider you a friend of sorts, although we have never actually met. In that light, when I say a comment, opinion, or statement sound "stupid", that does not, by the laws of logic, mean that the person who made it is a stupid person. WE ALL make stupid statements from time to time. That doesn't mean we are stupid people. It was not a personal attack on any individual, including you. However, as it obviously caused some consternation and misunderstanding, I shall make every attempt to speak more carefully in the future, so people are not capable of misunderstanding me, if at all possible.

Having said that, I did say that anyone who doesn't understand the complexity and difficulty uniquely facing Obama, as an African American, in his efforts to become President of a racist, white run country, is a fool. Perhaps it would be better to say 'foolish', as we can ALL be foolish at times without being fools.

So, I don't think you are either stupid or a fool for stating your opinions. If you read my words carefully, you will see that I never said that. And I never meant that.

The only things I said about you KEM, were that you sounded "inflamed" about the Wright thing, which you say you are not, which is great, just sounded that way to me, but it was not a criticism of you and, that I thought you were viewing the Obama - Wright situation through filters etc, which we ALL obviously do, being human, and is normal - again not a criticism of you personally. I just meant that when we filter we obviously have a hard time putting ourselves in another's shoes, such as Obama's and to whatever extent we cannot put ourselves in his shoes, to that extent at least, we might well offer him the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I have no difficulty with ANYTHING I have heard Reverend Wright say. But I don't think Obama can be so generous in his statements now, as he has to appease all of the closet racists in America, including the scores who don't even realize that they are, in fact, racist.

Anyway, I hope that clears some of this up. I never said you were stupid, KEM.

I didn't say just because he's black, didn't think it either. That illustration I gave could apply to anyone.

You are correct I did use__ ""s __and it was not exactly what you wrote, but the same meaning, anyone who cares can go back and see exactly what you wrote and it was NOT just I who read your comments the way I did.

You are ignoring the fact that we all have opinions and in many of the posts here, the opinion is Obama screwed up. That's my opinon. You have yours and I don't think your stupid or foolish for stating your opinions, your's may be far more accurate than any others. ___ We'll see Tuesday.

You began by stating those who had a different opinon than you were sounding stupid.

I'm not inflamed about Reverand Wright, never met the man and we are not friends. I liked what he said for the most part. Obama must have liked his words also, they were close friends for 20 years. I'm certain those opinions Wright expressed recently weren't opinion he just formulated in the past two weeks. You're assuming many things about me that are not correct at all. Don't assume.

I gave my opinon about the issue and that's my opinions. That's what we do here blogging, offer opinions. You offer yours and now you are makng assumptions about me. I never have said I was right about anything. I say that's how I see it. You see it another way and that's fine, but I don't think I'm stupid for offering my opinon. You do think so. I don't care if you wish to think that, but I attempted to explain in a decent manner, that I thought you were wrong on that score. ___ Still do.

And Kem, in terms of your question to me about whether or not Obama should be able to acceptably cut off his grandmother or family, just because he is black, also distorts my point. It's funny, you sound as if the Reverend Wright is your pastor and friend rather than Obama's, you are so inflamed about it. And you are projecting your concept of what a pastor is in the first place, as well as your own reading of their personal history together combined with your interpretation of what Obama's responsibility 'should' be in this situation, through the filter or your own world view, to decry Obama as a villain. I think that most people in the African American community understand Obama's forced hand and are themselves highly critical of Wright. Certainly not all but that is what my friends are telling me and they are informed and highly intelligent and happen to be African American.

KEM, Hi.

I know you are smart enough to know this but the inaccuracy of your post forces me to mention it; when you say someone said someting (me in this case) and use quotation marks ("") around their alleged words, they better have actually said or written the words you quote. I absolutely did NOT say what you quoted me as saying. If you choose to interpret my words as such, fine, but it would not be accurate. That is simply not what I said.

In terms of your question, it derives from your interpretation of my words, of which said interpretation is inaccurate. However, I have learned that people will think what they want, even when it pertains to what someone else is saying, regardless of the truth. You interpret Obama as you will, and further claim that I called you a fool for stating your opinions here. I absolutely said no such thing, but your question to me is - in that case (under false presumption on your part in the first place) does that make me a fool for stating my opinion as well?

Here is your answer, in two parts. 1) No, it does not, because in order for my stating of my own opinions to be foolish, under the conditions that you allege, the conditions that you claim would have to exist, which they do not. I did not make any such claim so it cannot be used as a qualifier or condition. 2) If in fact your claim of condition were true, no, as, even if I thought that your stating of opinions made you a fool (which I did not say), there is no law of nature that would necessarily make me foolish for stating my own.

Hillary Clinton is to Barack Obama as Robert Mugabe is to Morgan Tsvangirai.

Not only do I firmly believe Obama didn't have to publically cut off his pastor and long time friend, to so so for political reasons is a serious character flaw on his part.

His friend Wright told truths and didn't character assinate Obama in any way whatsoever and never said he would attack him if he was the president. Wright said the same type of thing Obama's wife said on a CNN interview.

And what you wrote in that regard ~WHATERVERYOUSAY~ about how difficult it would be for an Africana American to be the president and may have to do things he didn't want to do, is precicely my point there.

Based upon that type of reasoning, should Obama also cut off his grandmother, or any other member of his family if they spoke some truths that he thought may hurt his chances?

How far should a person go to become the president? Is selling ones soul worth anything or everything? How far will Obama go is the question for many? How far will any of them go? The point is, he didn't have to do it, and he showed he's no better than the others and he's not be as good as he says he is in his speeches and in his self written books.

~SPHNE~ You challenge me to read Obama's book? ___ You win.___ I have no desire to read his book. If you challenged me to read a book Bill or Hillary Clinton wrote about THEMSELVES you'd win that challenge also.

You read between the lines of his book, evidently you read between the lines of what's posted here by others too. I think the term for that is called 'assuming'.

Hi~WHATEVERYOUSAY~ Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote. You may not have thought you were calling everyone here a fool who disagrees with you on the issue, but that's not how you penned your thoughts. You started off by writing, "some of you posters are stupid for saying Obama was wrong to cut off his friend and pastor". That was the gist of your post.

That's my and many others opinion, so if we're stupid or foolish for voicing our opinions, ____ what are you for voicing yours is what I asked?

I fully understand that Obama had a tough uphill fight from the get go and he has done a magnificent job and if he's as good as he talks, he'll be the finest president we ever had. He'll very likely be the Demo nominee if he wins N.Carolina and Indiana and if he is I intend to support him fully.

I beleive his turning on his pastor was a very serious mistake and said why I thought so. You don't think so and I don't think you're foolish or stupid for thinking that. I just have a different opinion than you do on the issue and wrote it.

whateveryousay:

Absolutely valid points from all angles, I think we're pretty much on the same page, I am maybe coming from a more wishful than realistic point of view, so your points are certainly well taken...I would have probably broken down and started cursing people out long ago if I were in Obama's position, so his actions that I am so critical of sometimes, would probably pale in comparison to my own, again, points well taken...

kscola23;

when did we all become white folks?, haha, right you are that we are not all so much perhaps and some of 'us' here are not at all. I consider CD an 'us' place because it has community elements of sharing thought and open mindedness that are vital. But many of the posters here, critical of Obama's handling of the Wright situation, are white. Which is cool, no problem with that, just saying that I think they aren't understanding the fullness of Obama's situation from their perspective, as I do not either. In fact, we might all be better off to put ourselves in another's shoes before saying what they "should" or shouldn't do. And if we can't put ourselves in their shoes...be more open minded. Seems we could all stand to be more open minded, myself included.

kscola23,
True, I don't "know" what would have happened, and what I said is in the realm of speculation, as are all things in life - ultimately, yes.
And like you, I don't think Obama will de-construct the matrix. The thing is, I don't think anyone in the political arena is likely to and I do think Obama will set about making some good changes at least, so I support him in that. I think he is, essentially an honest person in a situation where few others are and where honesty is not the norm. I do hope you are right about the 60/40% ratio you mentioned.

During the last 'debate', I think the frustration so easy to see in Obama, as well as the semi uncertainty of what to say sometimes, was, in fact, due in large measure to the actual inability TO speak the truth in that situation. I believe he is way beyond intelligent enough and tough enough to have called both Clinton and the moderators out on their behavior in an intense and excoriating manner. However, had he done so, it would have been alienating to many people who are afraid of angry and honest African Americans.
So he had to bite his tongue and play along with the dumbness of the situation for political reasons. Now, whether or not he 'truly' had to say what he did, we can't be sure with certainty, of course. But I think he has been wiser to play moderate in contested situations in order to not actually frighten people. I think that we, as perhaps more progressive and liberal people, ought to give him the benefit of the doubt in this. He is in an unbelievably novel situation.

No Kem Patrick, It has nothing to do with leaving out character flaws. I have read many biographies. It's what you read between the lines. I can tell by reading your comments in the past few weeks you have not read them. I challenge you.

uh, when did we become all 'white folks'?

I'm not so much.

But anyways, whateveryousay, you should be a politician...You do make good points but its not like you know what would have happenned if Obama would have come off in a different, less political fashion. You think you do, and if I were a betting man (which I am) I would bet on your side, however, we still don't know. I'm just waiting for someone to break off this sharp right turn in the direction of 'the matrix'...and Obama seems willing to play by the same rules that will never break that turn off...thats all. Forget about Wright for a minute, I know Obama, as a half black man by the way, has like 40% of this country against him right off the bat...and he has done a tremendous job in my opinion of keeping that 40% right where it is, not increasing it. But, the other 60% I believe for the most part do not buy into the media's dirty tricks. I mean, he is ahead and will beat McCain if he gets the nomination....so those hurdles you speak so vehemetly about have been like already hurdled I think. The 40% will stay in their closed off racist patriotic american worlds and we will elect Obama. I just don't want him to be another snake... and he is kinda showing those slithering traits

KEM, I didn't say you were a fool, I said that anyone who doesn't really understand the complexity of Obama getting elected President, as a black man, is a fool.

Look, I would love it if we lived in a world where it was possible for everyone to speak the truth 100% of the time and simultaneously function in society, but we don't. Even
within the so-called 'progressive' community it is not possible. In fact, if you experiment and actually 'speak the full and uncensored truth' to everyone you meet –all of the time – you will find yourself in the midst of a bunch of people who freak out or hate you or both.

America is a racist country. Obama is a black man trying to become President. It doesn't take much to realize that there are a LOT of people who are on the verge of completely freaking out right about now, or will be soon enough. How many corporations like Hughes, Halliburton, Rockefeller, Aetna, Goldman Sachs, MGM, Morgan Stanley, etc, etc ad infinitum, are willing to make an African American their president? Not to mention all of the David Dukes out there. Well, some might say that the U.S. is the biggest corporation of them all.

The play book being used against Obama is purely disingenuous, designed to make him fail no matter what he says, by backing him into these conundrum types of corners where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It's classic racist bullshit where the black man gets accused of being the racist by the white men and has to defend himself against a shadow or ghost, a poltergeist whipped up out of thin air. The entire Wright issue is a non issue and the only reason it has persisted is because a) Obama's opponents have made it into an issue, and b) because America is a racist country.

Some of the comments have indicated that people think Obama "should" have stood by his friend, that he should have jumped on the press for making this non issue an issue, that he should have further brought everyone's focus onto these issues even deeper…and as 'progressives', we decry him for not being totally honest, or loyal to the deeper truths or cause of his friend or the issues of race. That's just great, but know this; if he had, he would have been shooting himself in the foot…or maybe the head for that matter. If Obama speaks at all to some of these deeper truths he most certainly will never be elected!!! It's all fine for us liberal, progressive, white folks to tell a black man how to handle the issue of race, while he is trying to become President of a country run by white men, but if we take ourselves seriously in thinking he should be saying what 'we' think he should say, as white folks we are fools.

It is so, so unbelievably disingenuous and telling that the biggest form of attack against Obama has essentially been to put him in the position of having to defend himself against being perceived as a racist himself. How perfect! The racist white people flip the tables and accuse/imply that the black man is possibly a racist, thereby deflecting any need to address their own problems with racism or the history of racism in America. Quite lovely.

If Obama had said that the Reverend Wright's words were not so significant, that he was an old friend and advisor, and that we must not focus on that, or that we should move ahead and listen to each other's differences in deeper ways and put the race issue clearly on the table, etc, etc,, he would have every right wing attack dog ripping its way out of its pen to chew him up. He would be branded as dangerous and, yes, as a racist black man by ten times the number of people who have thrown that slime already. Any chance of becoming President would be effectively ended. On the other hand, if he says what he says, he is a traitor, a lying creep who won't stand up for his friends, according to all of the progressive liberals who know so very much about being black in America.

Why is President Clinton's pardoning of a Weather Underground member not an issue? Why is one of McCain's spiritual advisors allowed to make statements the same or worse than Rev. Wright made? Why doesn't Hillary, or Charlie or George wear a flag pin? Why is it ok for Hillary to be a member of some freako church that essentially holds that God wants the rich and powerful to control everything? But, if Obama were to bring these things up, he will be ignored or accused of being negative, hateful, racist, etc etc.

What I am saying is that everybody bellyaching for Obama to speak like he "should" is not taking into account the political realities of the situation. I don't see Kucinich or Mike Gravel, truth talkers that they are, on the ballot. Political 'speak' and compromise is a reality that cannot be ignored if someone actually wants to win an election and not just be a brave truth speaker. And along those lines, for the critics of Obama's lack of candor, I would be willing to wager real money that almost all of you adopt 'political speak' every day yourselves. At work, socially, and even within your own family, it is unfortunately something we all find ourselves doing, in order to survive, keep the job, not piss people off too much, or not get hit over the head with the proverbial frying pan or ignored with stone silence by a spouse whose feathers have been ruffled. We all engage in political speak daily and we aren't even black men or women trying to become President of a white controlled country.

Get off Obama's back and start criticizing Hillary or McCain for their anti-messages of hope…and their lies. Obama's pale by comparison.

for the THIRD time- i never said what obama did was good/bad. i said it was predictable. i said wright new what would happen. and i also said where to find the interview i was talking about. you don't have to believe it any more than you believe in evolution- but it is there.
i feel like i'm going in circles with only the parts of my argument you want to hear being heard, but to me those are the irrelevant points.

I thought you'd like to check out the political allegory of mine that I just found a literary agent for. It's a story set in the context of a teacher discussing with his class all of the evidence that the Bush administration is as corrupt as it is incompetent...and how to rectify the Constitutional crisis we face. It's couched in a discussion about the urgent need to stop abusing Mother Nature. I wrote in 3 dozen celebrities to play the students, so it's very funny despite how infuriating it is. You can read it at www.stoplittering.com/theswitch.htm and, yes, StopLittering.com is my site.

Yes, Wright DID say Obama would be subject to his criticism 'IF' appropriate. Hell, Obama's wife could say that and yesterday she did say that on the CNN program. Wright did NOT say he would ATTACK Obama if he was elected.

Read Obama's books??? If I wrote a book about MYSELF, I'd probalby leave out any serious character flaws. I might not even realize I had them. Of course we all do know ourselves.

Politicians running for the presidency are likely to VERY careful of what they write about THEMSELVES. ___ Do his books come with a shaker of salt?

KEM PATRICK

I am with you, I meant he did what he had to do from a purely 'political capital' point of view, but good points...

Whateveryousay:

Are u serious? insults? i don't get why...but you are correct that he is on a slippery slope...now that is. IMO he did not have to say what everyone knew he would say in response, he could have slammed the media instead. Contrary to what we may think, maybe people would have appreciated him questioning the media's intentions.

Just a general comment for some posters (myself included sometimes)...

Why must we attack each other with silly comebacks and insults when we are all obviously just giving small and ultimately very inconsequential opinions?? just because somebody disagrees they are dense, or 'dumbed down', or 'not even real'? unbelieveable

I think some of you have it backwards, I think it was Rev. Wright who stabbed Obama in the back. He could have easily gotten up and said he and Obama have disagreed on many of t issues in the past. I also think everyone should read Obama's books. You get insight into how the man's brain works. He is both and idealist and a realist who has the ability to inspire people. That's exactly what the country needs right now.

There has to be the appropriate response from the media trash that floods the airways. If anyone is genuinely seeking to be president of this woe begotten populations of fools, petty mindless, bigoted, greedy group of American dreamers, they must use the appropriate means. None are free from this!

Still there is just one man who has captured the youth and it is he that must have the presidency!

parlorplayer May 2nd, 2008 7:36 am

"He takes no money from PACs."

This is nothing but a ruse. He takes PAC money from the law firms that represent the PAC's. Google it.

I am with KEM PATRICK on this one. Obama did not have to make such a public denouncement of the man, he had choices. He could have, for instance, refused to let this become an issue for him, stating infaticly that it is irrelevant and a non-issue then moving on. This approach seems to work great for W. Obama's statements denouncing Wright were as false as the allegations against Wright. I heard Wright speak at the national press club and on the Bill Moyers show, and he did not make any unreasonable, inflammatory or bigoted statements, as a matter of fact he basically owned the lot of 'em. The poor woman who was asking the questions looked like a chump! Obama's denunciation of Wright was unnecessary and shows a fundamental flaw in his character. I for one care about the character of anyone I am considering voting for. Which is why I will likely vote 3rd party this year, but let's not get into that again.

I did hear the bit at the National Press club where he said if Obama is elected as president he will be subject to the same level of criticism from Wright as the current occupant of that office, depending on his policies etc. Check the Q&A segment of that speech on Youtube if you care to find it.

Realitychecker--

Obama says nothing. I think Americans are so shocked and disenfranchised by what is happening in our country, that they will embrace any movement right now, even if they are NOT really listening to the words that are coming out of his MOUTH. He says nothing..fancy words, false promises. He is no different than any other politician that has ever run for office. Another rich man who has never lived in poverty..ever!

So..you are for a man that will not bring troops home from Iraq until 16 months after, IF, he is in office as President..That is three years...THREE LONG YEARS...as a soldier, that is torture. Would you do it I ask you?

Weak minded are for him. They listen to his fancy dribble and coined phrases. He is nothing but empty promises..A good looking face to attract votes but another empty vessel.

~WHATEVERYOUDSAY~. What ever you say. You think Obama had to oust his friend and advisor. That's your opinion and if others disagree with that opinion, they're stupid fools.

I think he has seriously crippled his chances of being the president by doing that, it was no more necessary this week than it was two weeks ago.

So If I'm a fool for writing my opinions, what are you for writing yours? ___ Neither are backed by any scientific evidence, it's just opinions.

~KLIMT~ I never heard Wright say if Obama was the president he would attack him and I don't believe he ever did say that. Why should he have? He said he was a precher and did his thing and Obama was a politician and did his thing and that's so. ___ So what?

Wright wasn't attempting to hurt Obama, he was attempting to explain why he spoke in the mammer he speaks and why Obama being his friend was alright. And it was. But someone now advising Obama thought differently and he took their advice. He screwed up. I bet he loses at least 30% to 35% of the black vote in N. Carolina and they just won't vote for anyone. ___ We'll see Tuesday.

The following article states that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton, for their presidential campaigns, have been accepting financial or financially-related assistance from foreigners, the Rothschilds of London and Elton John, while adding that this is illegal according to the electoral campaign laws of the USA. And the article not mentioning Barack Obama infers that he has a clean slate in this regard.

"McCain accused of accepting improper donations from Rothschilds

Global Research, April 30, 2008
guardian.co.uk - 2008-04-29"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8856

medusa May 1st, 2008 1:46 pm

I do not think Rev. Wright would appreciate you comparing him to Christ, but since there were no busses in Judas's time I expect you night be excused. But your point is well taken, Obama has indeed shown himself as a traitor to the truth, and willing to sink to the lowest level of political slime ball. Just when I was starting to believe that he might be someone I could actually vote for. Oh well, Bobby Kennedy was the last true progressive with a chance at the presidency and look what they did to him.

No one seems to be discussing the fact pointed out by Jimmy Carter and others: Obama is not only stirring up the hopes of the American people but also the hopes of the people of the world. Obama's candidacy is perceived of having at least the possibility of change while Clinton is perceived as a continuation of the policies of the past 20 years, and rightfully so. People's hopes may be misplaced but we can't fault people for at least hoping, especially at a time where hope is really hard to come by.

I thought Gimmesometruth said it so well that it deserved a second posting:

Wow….. some people really surprise me. I'm not even sure some of the commenters here at CommonDreams are real people. I may be paranoid but I wonder whether there are planted commenters who come in to progressive websites just to throw noise and chaos around. I guess the term for that is "troll".

Every now and again I hear this talking point "Obama is the candidate of Wall Street."

Where does that idea come from? Obama has raised more money from individual, small-time donors than any other primary candidate ever. He takes no money from PACs. He is the only candidate among the three major remaining candidates who calls it like it is about the proposed "Gas-tax Holiday", which, if enacted would simply allow oil corporations to get away with charging more at the pump, diverting potential tax revenues into oil profits.

He has explained himself very clearly, and admirably, regarding his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. The good and the bad of that relationship and why, at this point, but not until now, it has become necessary to distance himself from the man. Both Obama AND Wright have clarified that Wright was never his "spiritual advisor".

Ivy League education? Why is that a problem? Did you know that Ralph Nader is a Princeton graduate? Al Gore — Harvard?

Sure there are good leaders out there with all different kinds of educational backgrounds…. but why would you hold it against someone who got himself a scholarship at a top-flight college (Columbia) based on his hard work in high school? Then did well enough as an undergraduate to go to Harvard Law and become the editor of the Law Review journal?

Then, with that educational background, went back to the streets in Chicago and worked as a community organizer?

Why are those bad things? Where do you folks get this idea that Obama is some kind of Wall-Street Elitist?

Like I said, I'm not even sure if I should be engaging in this discussion, because I'm not sure some of you, such as "Atheist" or "Since1492″ are real people.

And if you ARE real….. where have you been? Though you may feel like you are in solidarity with some sort of "progressive" movement, you come out sounding like some crusty old conservative who already knows what she thinks before anyone else gets a chance to speak.

Obama's emergence as a (not entirely perfect) potential leader and unifier did not follow the script you've been writing and reading for the last I-dont-know-exactly-how-many years.

Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich…. they are all great spokespeople for the progressive movement, and I fully support them in their continued efforts to educate and legislate America into the 21st century. But none of them has a snowball's chance of becoming a President who can restore dignity, clarity, vision and trust to the US government. Obama is the one who CAN.

I don't think he is perfect, I don't think he is the messiah… I don't even agree with all of his policy positions…. but I don't agree with ANYBODY's policy positions 100%. Should I just vote for myself?

What I do think Obama has going for him is…. he is very intelligent and he's not wrapped up in the old-style Washington political bullshit. That's all I want in a President, and I think Obama will deliver.

What it boils down to is…. the next President will either be Obama or McCain, and maybe, possibly Clinton. If you like Clinton or McCain better than Obama…. fine… tell us what you think is great about those two… If you think the long-term project of establishing a viable third party is important enough to put your efforts behind Nader or McKinnery…. I can respect that too…. that's how I felt in 2000…

BUT don't just spew out all these BS un-informed ANTI-Obama talking points….. you are just making noise.

Unless that's your job.

by the way lol at 'naive' being a big insult. have you seen some of the garbage people say on this forum?

kem patrick.
actually, i'm not assuming anything. wright explicitly stated that if obama were to become president, he would attack him as a president, not treat him as a buddy. i don't remember the exact source but it is somewhere on youtube.
it was clear as day, and he knew as well the way obama would 'be forced' to react.
so yes, i do assume that, given this kind of relationship, people are naive to claim that obama was a mean little boy for betraying his friend. there were never any illusions, as far as anyone who saw the interviews that i saw, that wright would be crying in the corner over obama's denunciations. this has all been as deliberately played up as can be imagined.

I'm sorry, I don't usually speak this way, but some of the posters here are beginning to just sound stupid. All of you whining about Obama betraying his pastor are just being silly. How easy do you think it will be for a black man to become president? Get real, it's called choosing your battles, you can't win every one of them so you need to sacrifice the smaller battles in order to win the larger war. That is what Obama had to do with the Wright situation. He was as intelligent and moderate in his response to the controversy as was possible, and further sought to raise the conversation to a higher level in his now famous speech. The United States IS a racist country. It IS! And for Barack Obama to become President of this Mother*#@!er is no small feat. Anyone who thinks he can just waltz around wearing his heart on his sleeve, and not have to occasionally say or do something he would prefer not to (such as denounce his pastor's remarks), is living in a total dream world. He is a black man who is poised to actually become President. Anyone who doesn't understand the significance of that or the reality of the slippery slope he is on is just a fool.

kscola.
i think you misread my post. i didn't say anything about respecting or disrespecting anyone. re-read it if need be.
should wright denounce himself? no- why would he? he said what he said deliberately and provocatively- that is the point. he knowingly set obama up for a necessary public denunciation.
despite some obviously foolish comments i find wright a fairly well spoken man- but does that mean obama is 'disloyal' for breaking with him in an obviously politicized environment? of course not.
but since you brought it up i can't say that i respect wright for what he did. anyone can be a firebrand and make provocative public statements and many people do it much more eloquently than he does. but on the other hand i never said anything about respecting obama for his behavior- only that it was 100% predictable for everyone involved.

I don't think Obama had to do what he did, he had other options. If he wished to say anthing, he could and should have briefly repeated what he said in his speech in Philadelphia about the Wright issue. There was no necessity to cut off his good friend, mentor, and advisor as he had professed him to be. That is hurting him badly and he cannot take the words he has now spoken back.

And ~KLIMT~, you are 'assuming' Wright would attack Obama if he were the president. And you are also 'assuming' what Obama said didn't hurt him. I would find that to be most uusual, based upon their 20 year long, very personal family relationship.

Wright never once stated he was against Obama being a politician, in fact he avidly supported Obama when he was a State Senator and a U.S. Senator. And to say any here are naive, is really an insult. Perhaps you didn'realize that is exactly like saying, "other bloggers here are being ( childishly foolish )", the definition of the word naive. which I personally don't observe with anyone posting here.

sure Kgarry, thanks...i may just do that

Klimt, so what would you do if you were Wright? denounce yourself, say you misspoke for the last 20 years? Of course I agree maybe wait until the campaign is over, but its not like Wright brought this issue about. He is on more than a political mission obviosuly, so he hates politics and is not willing (although he is certainly being used) to compromise himself for any sake, what is naive about respecting him for that, and disrespecting Obama for playing politics as usual? we all acknowledge Obama 'did what he had to do'

kscola23:

A discussion better had somewhere else? If you wish, email me at kgarry@katlover and maybe we can find a more quiet corner in which to stumble about.

Oh, and thanks for stating the point so much more clearly than I managed.

i'm surprised to see people complaining about obama 'abandoning' his friend and spiritual advisor for the last 20 yrs, etc etc etc...
didn't you guys watch the interviews with wright before the latest drama in which he said that obama is a politician, so he will act as a politician. he himself is a preacher, so he will act in his capacity. if obama becomes president, he will attack him as a president.
there is obviously a dynamic that is beyond your simple notions of loyalty. wright is enjoying his celebrity status and is pushing the envelope- he knew PERFECTLY WELL how obama would react- this is part of the game.
if you think wright is 'hurt' or surprised by obama's denunciation you are incredibly naive to the political (or human?) process.

nice Kgarry,

except for the militant atheiest part, i'm right there with you... Obama had a chance to leverage some truths that have been throughly documented to further his campaign against the so-called 'powers that be' and did not, which takes actual credibility away and instead gives him political leeway..
just a quick question, do you think that the profound positive impact that religion has had on probably billions of people's lives is worth anything ultimately? and if no, what would you replace it with?

To Samson:

Thank you. Same here. Obama would have lost my support, too, after what he did to Wright (that is, if he had had my support in the first place, which he didn't.) (I'm voting for McKinney.)

Obama basically negated his Philadelphia speech about race by failing to use his disagreements with Wright to point out how many African-Americans, especially of Wright's generation, remember all too well the 40-year Tuskegee syphilis experiment or Dr. Chester M. Southam, who injected Ohio State Prison inmates with live cancer cells in 1952, performing the same procedure in 1963 on 22 senile, African-American female patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in order to watch their immunological response.

The list of known assaults is a long one

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html

I'm sure the list of unknown experiments is even longer.

Obama could have explained how the different experiences of black Amerikans versus white would naturally affect each group's relationship to the power structure. But no, like any politician Obama instead chose the politically expedient path and severed any ties he had to Wright.

Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not a Wright fan for one main reason: as a militant atheist, I consider religious education to be a form of child abuse, often permanently crippling a person's critical thinking process and placing said child directly under authority's thumb. I see ministers as con artists who have taken an easy road to an easy life, living off the superstitions, fears, and prejudices of said-educated people. And especially someone like Wright should see and talk about the connection between imperialism, colonialism, and "missionary" forces, those who are often in the vanguard of conquering military forces, purging indigenous peoples of their culture, heritage, language, and spiritual traditions before converting them to be obedient, compliant workers, helping the conquerors to plunder their own resources (people or otherwise). (If we can keep the slaves singing spirituals on the plantation, one little overseer can control a hundred workers.) It's been done throughout history, and for that reason I am not a Wright fan. But politically, he speaks truth to Obama's pandering.

metamorph:

Of course Wright's a sideshow, but he's probably had a bad effect for Obama already, ridiculous.

Ok, what about Obama's support of the complete BS propoganda driven machine that is the 'war on terror'? What did terror just start after 9-11? why does he talk within the very vacuum that the freakin neoCONS created?

Obama is restrained and will not attack other countries that is why I want him in over the other two. Obama has been active in insisting on kicking out special interests. I am idsgusted with warprofiteering- did any of you see the recent Democratic Senate Comittee hearing on warprofiteering? You know- it is about people like CEO of Blackwater , Mrs Prince- he is the guy who wears a flag lapel pin to show his patriotism while he is ripping off our taxdollars and making Iraq unsafe by sending his guys into Fallusiah and causing warfare.

So Clinton had Mark Penn as campaign manager and her buddy for years and on the side Penn was also representing Blackwater to whitewash them after they killed 19 civilians in Iraq.

So get me Obama- who will not cooperate with war profiteering and while stop the crappy warfare- how about that Somalia country we insisted on upsetting and sponsoring an invasion from Ethiopia into Somalia and now the whole place is full of terrorists- that is what warlike posturing results in and Clinton has demonstrated that she is as warlike as anybody. She admitted she will wipe out Iran for heavens sake- one of the oldest countries on the face of the earth. .. stop the warmongering military industrial complex.

Who cares about Reverend Wright- he is a sideshow.

vesselpessel :

In that sense, where is the difference?

Nice to see a little ball sac from Joe,

The dishonest, almost disgusting campaign the Clinton's have been running should give some insight into their characters (or lack thereof).

gimmesometruth, and realitychecker: good posts, however I would argue that cynicism towards american politics is absolutely warranted. I can assure you that I am real, and yet I agree that there is not much that will change if Obama gets elected. The American empire is just that, a freaking empire. Obama will be the most powerful man in the world (visible at least) and therefore will play by new rules. One of those rules being truth cannot be told! We all just witnessed Obama lying about how deeply upset he is with Wright. Please! Granted, he must say that to get elected, but it just shows the type of pressure he's under. Impossible to stick to your guns under that pressure. Thats the problem...Politics as usual, no change...

But for some hope, maybe we will hold his 'feet to the fire' and therefore enact some real positive change, but not likely. Just look at how easy we have been on the new congress. any thoughts?

gimmesometruth - It is true Obama doesn't take money from PACS BUT he does take money from their wives and lawyers. It's called bundling!

Since we don't have run-off voting and not enough politically savvy people to give us a real candidate (Kucinich) whose goal is the enhancement of the whole community of man, we now have to choose one who is more inclined than the others to creatively utilize both human and material resources more responsibly than we have seen in many years....and certainly over the last 7+ years.

How will any of our major problems ever get resolved if we vote for a candidate whose "advisors" are the same jerk-offs that created these problems in the first place?

The one thing I know for certain is that I don't want another non-visionary, war-monger running this country!

I'm heartened by the discussion.

However, I'm worried about something.

I've found that the naturally math-talented, many lawyers, and the overachievers -- like Obama and, perhaps, anyone who feels he or she could possibly be a political leader -- tend to feel that an emphasis on early childhood education, enough money, and time will get ALL students up to passing the ever-higher "standards" -- especially in the easily-scored Math.

I would suggest that they try to "document-justify" their position, that they check the education level of the area's adults. Concentrating on the young children would still leave the communities poor, families needing demeaning, endless welfare.
They could study the plight of the food banks in today's economy and the attitudes of the public about welfare recipients.
They could also talk to some of those who have been "left behind" for the past generation, ask about their natural talents/interests/abilities, and learn about the need for broadly, varied talents to keep our country going smoothly and safely.
They could understand that we don't know the "standards" of those countries and groups that are supposed to be so much better than Americans.
They would find that other countries don't even try to educate everyone -- as the U.S. has always tried to do. They just skim off the top-"producers", which is what the Business Roundtable is trying to do.
Leaders need to do their "homnework." Obviously, it's difficult as they mut try to raise $millions.
However, there won't be "change" until our mindset "changes." I know he can do it. We must work with him, help him, give him a chance to use us.
Self-development of ALL -- nurturing the realistic best in each one of us -- must be the goal!
I would suggest that leaders think about, learn about, the danger of "leaving behind" unjustly humiliated, angered, frustrated people all over our once-beloved country.
Otherwise, we're ALL "responsible" for the poverty, hunger, despair, other problems.

Thanks to Joe Andrew for his inspired and well-reasoned statement on behalf of Senator Obama.
Thanks also to the CD posts, gimmesometruth's stands out.
Obama inspires me, too, yet there is no shortage of angst in all of this.
As a white male Demo Catholic Teamster who also supports Obama, I am an anomaly when I see my demographic rejecting Obama in Ohio, Boston, western Pennsylvania.
Presidential campaigns are nothing if not angst!
Forty years ago I resented RFK for jumping into the race during that spring as I supported Clean Gene who I knew would end the war. Bobby's popular appeal increased dramatically until his June death; now he's in a pantheon of inspiring and immortal leaders. Gene's campaign collapsed following RFK's assassination.
The ultimate angst was delivered that November with Nixon's election, and he managed to expand a futile war and spawn today's health care crisis, see M. Moore's Sicko.
This race is full of twists and uncertainties, yet like Joe Andrew I have to believe our best candidate to present to the American electorate is Obama!

I'd vote for Rev. Wright over Obama any day. And if I lived in Chicago, I'd vote for Rev. Wright many times. :)

I wasn't an Obama fan to start with. But watching him abandon his friend, preacher and adviser for twenty years has lowered my already low opinion of the man. I don't care so much about Rev. Wright's words, although when I ignore the corporate media and go check him out for myself, I don't really have any problem with him.

But what it really tells me is a bit about Obama's character. Just how power-hungry he is that he's willing to stab a long-time friend in the back.

Will every commenter on this thread who works for the Obama campaign please stand up and identify themselves?

Reading Joe Andrew reminds me of Don Corrleone as he says, "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse". If you think there are not more strings to his "offer" you are crazy. If possible "they" (by which I mean the political establishment) will twist Barack like a pretzel. If not, they will break him into a million pieces and put him back together any way they choose. (like the North Vietnamese did to McCain).

Medusa got it right--if Barack will treat a life-long friend and spiritual mentor in such a manner he will do the same and worse to the rest of America.

Did anyone notice that 'policy' never got mentioned in the entire letter? Not one word about how the policies of Obama would be right for the nation. Or certainly not any specifics.

This is all from the point of view of a big-shot in the Dem party. He wants the Dem party to win because that means money, influence and maybe a job for him. Period. Not a word about how Obama would be good for the country. Only this strange mantra we get from the Democrats that the Democrats must win ... because ... well ...because they are the Democrats.

For the Democrats, its all about them and their quest for power. They don't give a damn about the rest of us. Isn't that clear by now? Doesn't this letter just scream that? If you are a Dem party hack looking for a job in the next administration, I can understand why you'd vote Democrat. For anyone else, I haven't a clue why voting Democrat isn't a complete waste of your vote.

criticalthinktank,

"There will be no change with any of the candidates running. People feel they have to support someone, but you know what? They don't. A support for Obama, McCain or Clintion is for more of the same..no change will ever come."

You are right that change will never come with your wasted vote for Nader.

You just help McSame.

In case it wasn't clear, the quotei'm referring to is:

"[Wright's] comments were not only divisive and destructive, but they give comfort to those who prey on hate."

Wow. That's all I can say.

(except to 1492 -- thanks for verifying that you are real... I believe you, and I appreciate it. I disagree with some of your opinions, but I believe that they are genuine.)

When Obama issued his Orwellian remark that when Wright, or I, raise our voices against injustice, and refuse to accept the official line that 2+2=5, we are actually promoting " divisiveness and hate"...

Well, let's just say I have had hell of a headache for the past couple days right now trying to control my rage.

Obama can go to hell.

Hillary can go to hell.

And, every other filthy, self-serving politician who promotes these vile amerikkan myths, hides it's ongoing crimes, and diabolically conflates the cries of the downtrodden - From Palestine, to Iraq, to Homewood-Brushton with "hate"(!?!?) - CAN ALL GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!

Inspired, Huh? When the crusaders ran out of money and luck,they were inspired to send hundreds of children (innocents) to march off and attack the Mohammedans.The children's crusade, they called it. Of course, the children, as soon as they marched around the bend, were kidnapped and sold into slavery. Another inspirational guy was George McGovern, who Gary Hart and the Dems were goggled-eyed over in 1972. He lost, after jettisoning "Sparky" Eagleton, in a landslide, against a known crook, liar and slimeball in the form of Richard Nixon. It' is no surprise that both Hart and McGovern have endorsed this empty suit. They still want to be right, so they're willing to dig us all into the same hole they dug for us in 1972. Joe Andrew isn't thinking of that. He isn't thinking at all.

I will not vote for Clinton, due to her extremely hawkish ideology and her disgusting behavior in this campaign. If she is the nominee, I will vote Green.

I will vote for Obama, realizing he is far from perfect, but recognizing his many good qualities and the chance he presents to change our relationships around the world.

Those of you waiting for perfect should realize that Jesus may not be coming back in your lifetime.

We have to support Obama to be classified as a progressive? ___ Wow!

If Obama is the Demo nominee, I will send a nice check and fully support and vote for him. ___ But the Repugs are going to have a field day with him and he will probably lose.

Another sad situation is. If the Florida and Michigan primary votes are not allowed at the Demo convention, the majority of the Demo voters in those two states will either stay home, or vote for McCain in the general. And that will be all she or he wrote, the party will be over, the fat lady will sing and McCain will be our new Bush.

We cannot afford another four years of Bushism. And some can say it, but Hillary and Obama are not the same as Bush, not even close. And Hillary and Obama are also far apart, on many important issues, in spite of what the press writes and the media jocks say. Check out their actual voting records as U.S. Senators.

Hey, if voting for Obama ensures that the empire continues to crumble, I'd like to vote a few dozen times.

gimmesometruth - I'm for real. To see Obama's ties to Wall Street just goggle 'obama wall street' and read away. Also check out Counterpunch, ZNET, and Dissident Voice. Then read WAR IS A RACKET by General Smedley Butler to see who our military fights for. Then vote for Obama and watch the empire continue to crumble.
Hoa binh

It hasn't been that many weeks ago that we were urged by progressive organizations (in other words, Obama-supporting ones) to contact the superdelegates (sd's) and INSIST (in the name of Holy Democracy) that they vote for that candidate who got the majority of votes of "the people." If this meant anything, it should mean that the said sd's would vote for the one getting the votes in their particular states: California sd's should vote for Clinton, etc. When the sd's starting breaking for Obama, the hypocrites in his campaign forgot all about their moral outrage about sd's and welcomed with open arms, for example, the endorsement of the Governor of Oklahoma, which voted for Clinton in its primary. Now, with Indiana's primary coming up next Tuesday, comes Joe Andrew urging sd's to join a chorus of "let's all join in a chorus of unity under our Inspiring Leader" exhortation to the sd's. With Indiana voters not yet having spoken and about as likely to speak for Clinton as for Obama, why is HE so speaking now? Shouldn't we all now write Andrew and tell him to wait til May 6 and THEN express the will of Indiana people? Where's the outrage among the slew of commenters here so ready and eager to join the Andrew Chorus? (You don't need to tell me, it disappeared as soon as its expression was no longer convenient to the Obama candidacy...but of course we've been there before in a way that neither an Obama nor Clinton presidency would change: we're all for Holy Democracy somewhere else until people in Venezuela or Palestine elect folks we don't like. Hypocracies R Us, or so it seems.)

JOE! JOE! JOE! Thank you!!!!! You are a true courageous American, and a great Democrat. Where else have you posted this message? (Everywhere...I hope.) Would that other super-delegates and average Democrats would have the same sense and logic. It is time to unite behind this candidate and start defending him. How does it look to the rest of the country and the world if we let our leading candidate be attacked by the Republican attack dogs (FOX News, etc.) and the supposedly liberal media, and then we vote for Hillary? Shall we let them dictate our nominee? No way! It was a close election and it may get closer, but Hillary cannot win without a betrayal of the Democratic voters. She ran a good campaign (I'll eventually forgive her for the negativity and minor damage she's done to Obama's chances in the fall...if this ends well!). It's time to unite and end this madness. We must beat McBush in the fall!

Thank you gimmesometruth -- I was surprised to find so many disingenuous comments here. Sounded like a Republican computer troll signed on to the URL and just posted random Obama slams that don't even reflect the story.

Thank you EVEN MORE to Joe Andrew. You are a patriot and an honest man. I appreciate the courage it took to make this decision. I also appreciate the effor