Such a sweet story Harvey Wasserman tells but unfortunately it is not quite correct. Jackie Robinson was a life-lomg Republican (as were many upwardly mobile African Americans of his generation).

In 1960 (after he was long gone from baseball and still a public figure of prominence) he criticized Dr. King for being divisive and provocative and was even more scathing in his criticism of Malcolm X (as were many other Blacks of his generation).

Jackie did what he had to do to make history and become every bit as important in his own way as Dr. King in opening up doors for full citizenship for African Americans. HIs keeping his legendary volcanic temper bottled up for his first two years as a Dodger despite constant provocations took a kind of raw courage that is hard to comprehend in these days of showboating "let it all hang out" athletes.

It was no surprise that by 1949 (when he finally was allowed to be Jackie instead of Black America's ambassador of goodwill to racist White America) that his and the Dodgers performance went to a whole 'nother level. How many players ever had the audacity and cunning to steal home in a world series game against the God Almighty New York Yankees of Mantle, Martin, and Yogi Berra in their prime? None!

That all being said, unlike Dr. King and Malcolm X, Jackie did not continue to grow and challenge the establishment. But without Jackie neither Dr. King nor Malcolm could have happened as they did. Perhaps Harvey Wasserman's tale about Barack being like Jackie is true in a way he did not intend.

If so, it is more of a cautionary tale to progressives to not get their hopes too high if (as we all hopr) Barack becomes the first Black president of the US (instead of Lady MacBeth Clinton or McCrazy McCain).

Somewhere out there maybe there will be a younger political Dr. King or Malcolm X inspired by Barack's example to go on from where he and Michele begin. We can only hope so.

I concur with those who don't like the author's saying Obama's got to be better than all the average, and sub-average white president's in order to be considered successful. Even though we know that historically all non-whites and non-males have had to do just that in order to get just about any job and then to keep it.

But I really have to wonder if Kem Patrick is saying that since Obama didn't win the primaries in the big states, that he can't win in the general. Somehow, I just don't see California or even Michigan voting republican in the general election for any reason. I just don't think this is a necessary conclusion to draw from a primary loss.

I have participated in caucuses in the past and certainly enjoyed them. They are very democratic, for those who participate, but they are also undemocratic. If you can't get there, you don't count. If I had wanted to, I could have voted in my state's primary election (my state's election didn't count but no one's talking about making it count either. Wonder why? Maybe because Obama won both the caucus and the primary?) but I didn't vote because it had NO effect on the delegate allocation. If people who are sick, unable to get out, lack transportation, out of town/country, etc., aren't to be completely disenfranchised, then voting, in a fair and secure system is the only answer I am aware of that covers all.

Kem, I've heard people say really weird things and be dead serious. The :evil is just my way of saying that I'm not being deadly serious.

And this is from Jackie Robinson's Minute:

Montreal may not have been free of racism in 1946, but Jackie Robinson and his wife Rachel were always thankful for the generosity and enthusiasm that they received there. According to the Royals' popular French-Canadian pitcher, Jean-Pierre Roy, Robinson often said that he would never have made it without the inspiration he got from the Montreal fans. "He loved the city," recalls Roy.

And the Montreal fans loved him back. Robinson helped lead the Royals to victory in the Little World Series. After they won the final game, fans carried Robinson around the field on their shoulders. Robinson finally had to sprint to the safety of the locker room, "probably the only day in history," one writer noted, "that a black man ran from a white mob that had love, not lynching, on its mind."

Maybe not the only day in history, but certainly the first.

RE: - Edwards

Some of these comments make Edwards sound like the nerdy but caring Luna Lovegood and Obama sound like "cool mean girl" Ginny Weasley. The comments are pseudo-kind in that they make it sound as if Edwards really doesn't have what it takes to be President but would be more than happy for any crap - er - scrap thrown his way.

Edwards is a very smart man and would have made the best President out of the bunch. I hope that Obama keeps this in mind.

Edwards just put the last nail in Clinton's coffin. It is, for all practical purposes, over.

RE - Republicans are just watching and waiting, like duck hunters sitting quietly in their blinds.

One does get the impression that part of the strategy is to keep the ducks fighting among each other so that none have a chance to prepare themselves for the hunt.

Every politician who wants their ratings to go up goes "visiting" - pictures shaking hands with other dignitaries (or, at least, no bad news) makes all politicians look better temporarily. But I am sure that the ducks have something planned for these Elmer Fudds

I really was hoping for a more in depth analysis.

What an excellent premise - weak execution though - sorry, didn't do it for me at all...

GO BARRACK!

Wasserman says some interesting things, and I appreciate learning about the professional sports history of Jackie Robinson. But Wasserman is a turn-off with some of the things he stated about Obama, specifically; and his spitting on the Repub. Part and not the Dem. Party is disingenuous, for the RP didn't achieve this level of criminal govt without the DP providing strong support. Wasserman strikes me as lying, though not entirely; only about or in some of the things he said.

Well, one other and specific example that comes back to mind is how Obama handled the infantile controversy over the words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was and remains Right.

Quote: "When confronted with Jeremiah Wright, Obama displayed remarkable skill."

If Wasserman's impressed by that so-called skill, then I am surely going to remain unimpressed. Yes, Obama is oratorial, a sharp enough orator, but Hitler also was, and very much so, too; although there's no other present comparison that can be made between them, or I think there isn't anyway. Cons are often swift, sharp, competent speakers or talkers, and sometimes very knowledgeable compared to many among the rest of the general population; but they're still cons, and most sane people don't want to be preyed upon by anyone, con or not.

Yes, good speaker Obama is; but a man of a stream of Senate votes that render him criminally complicit with the criminal commanders and ruling elites of the GWoT wars, the whole GWoT, in pretty much ALL respects, for that matter. To fund people you know to be using the money to continue to commit crimes of serious nature against others makes a person automatically and complicitly criminal. And this of course and obviously applies with most U.S. senators, and MUCH of Congress, all of whom are even more criminal than Bush and Cheney, etc., are, given that only Congress and the Senate hold the authority to declare wars, while having the authority to stop them, too.

I just made a long enough post(s) with a few article links for information on Obama, some good news points for his electoral supporters, so I'll just provide the link to the post.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/16/8998/#comment-278149

That's the first one, and I believe it's the one in which the links are provided; else it'd be in the second post.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/16/8998/#comment-278373

There's yet a third post of mine a little below the second one, though no links; just stating some correction for what I said in my second post and with respect to Cynthia McKinney's campaign Tried to edit the second post, intead of making the third one, but the CD timer ran out; unlike in discussion forums, where we can edit for as long and as many times as we want, including much later. We should be able to do that here, too; but can't.

For those who think that I'm saying, in my above post, that Obama is a con, NO, it's not what I'm saying; and my posts linked in the above one illustrate this.

And indeed, intead is not a word; while 'instead' is.

Strike out the 'of course and' in the 'of course and obviously' in what I said, which is as follows.

"And this of course and obviously applies with most U.S. senators, and MUCH of Congress, all of whom are even more criminal than Bush and Cheney, etc., are, given that only Congress and the Senate hold the authority to declare wars, while having the authority to stop them, too."

Logically, 'of course' does not fit there.

I can only go with my gut...the black guy is hot.

And, what I haven't heard much of - the man is half white and was not raised in privilege; he had an upbringing not dissimilar to lots of us who didn't have a "normal" youth. He is like us in many ways. We would be lucky to have him and he will be lucky to live through it. I do have a vision that it will happen and it will be a great day - racial tensions will be eased and everyone on the planet will breathe easier. It can happen - peace and joy can be ours. The irony, of course, is that this was the way it was in '92 when Bill was elected. Admit it - there was a sense of hope....and, life was good...

OK, bad metaphor. Not a helpful article - more like a blog that you "white out" later.

However, if Wasserman were to be true to his initial metaphor, he'd say Obama will be great because of his record (like Robinson had a great baseball record).

Unfortunately, when you look at Obama's voting record, he's no Jackie Robinson. He's no Jack Kennedy. He's batting zero on NAFTA, zero on non-insurance-industry-controlled healthcare, zero on war funding, zero on foreign policy with support for Israel and an irrational desire to bomb Pakistan. Obama even dissed his own pastor for saying the United States is a terrorist country (forgetting "shock and awe").

I thought Wasserman was going to concentrate on the record. Instead, he got all warm and fuzzy. No thanks. Don't wait for Obama to sidle up to Nader (fat chance). Vote Nader, or McKinney, or someone else other than a Dem or Repug.

Obama's voting record is the reason not to vote for him. We have a catch-22 which favors the power brokers over us. How do we break it? We have to demand an abolition of the electoral college; inclusion of other candidates in the debates; easier access for other parties as far as ballot access; demand that the media covers candidates equally without bias; recognize that "viability" is a vicious circle created by the powerful to oppress us, and vote for who we believe in; insist on IRV and proportional representation; most importantly, vote outside the (two) one-party system.

The question I would be asking is can Obama break free of his status quo sensibilities with regards his backwards environmental plan thus ditching the Bio Fuel lobby and the Nuclear Lobby, and actually show himself to be a friend of Mother Earth and not just another inside the beltway politico marching lock step with the forces of her demise?

As Griffin notes above: Obama is another corporate stooge marching lockstep with our destruction. If the sheeple don't wake up soon, calamity will follow.

What does it take for the herd to see the truth?

That's a stretch. Which part of racism in America doesn't Wasserman get: the ghettos, the CIA induced drug scene, the % of blacks in prisons, the % of blacks living in poverty, the number of blacks gunned down by police, the number stopped for DWB, the FEMA debacle in New Orleans, the bulldozing of perfectly good housing in New Orleans, etc. etc. ???

It's a racist country, dude! Deal with it.
and
It's a profundly misognous society, culture and country. That's what 6,000 years of Patriarchy means. That's the basic paradigm at the moment. Get outside your white head, man.

I was listening to the local news last night and Harry and Harriet Hairspray ( you know them, they're on in every city and town in America) -- Harry and Harriet Hairspray played a video clip of Mike Huckabee speaking before the National Rifle Association yesterday.

And as he was at the podium in front of the audience, something backstage dropped and made a rather loud noise. Huckabee then said: "That must be Obama backstage. Somebody may be taking a shot at him."

Needless to say, I was appalled. As such, I naturally assumed the story + video clip would be all over the Internet and the daily newspapers today.

When Howard Dean gave out with a funny yell --a "soundbyte" that meant absolutely nothing --it was played over and over and over and over and over and over by the media, ad nauseum.

On the other hand, a major political figure, the governor of a state, jokes about a presidential candidate being shot ... and there's barely a peep from the media.

Unbelievable.

The story's not on yahoo.com's homepage; not on msn.com's homepage. It's on The Washington Post's homepage, but just barely.

RE: - Quote: "When confronted with Jeremiah Wright, Obama displayed remarkable skill." / If Wasserman's impressed by that so-called skill, then I am surely going to remain unimpressed.

Personally, as a white Canadian woman, I don't see the big deal about Wright's comments in the first place. In fact, from what I heard on the Daily Show, McCain's Minister's comments were much much worse.

I liked that original speech about Wright and the grandmother, but Clinton smelled blood and wouldn't let it go. It was after that that Obama fell down on the issue. Or, should I say, got tripped up on the non issue.

Think of it also, the Republicans gain from keeping the Democrat nomination race going for as long as possible, so some of Clinton's lead were Republican and some of her lead was those who have an underlying fear blacks to begin with.

RE: - He's batting zero on NAFTA

Come on, you trust the integrity of Stephen Harper that much! If Harper truly thought of Obama as a kindred spirit, he and David Wilkins (the American Ambassador to Canada) would have been a bit more upset about the leak. And if the NDP thought for a moment that the NAFTA thing was true and not just the usual Tory spinning of half truths, they wouldn't be sticking up for Obama. The NDP was against NAFTA before there even was a NAFTA. Instead, the NDP, like Obama, called for a renegotiation which protected the environment and worker rights rather than give everything away to Corporations.

Clinton says that she wants to change NAFTA, but, as far as I know, steers clear of talking about workers rights and environmental standards. I think she wants NAFTA on steroids!

RE: Jackie Robinson Metaphor

It is a good metaphor, but applies equally to Clinton and Obama. If Obama screws up as President, the next 50 or 60 years will be marked by a succession of all-white Presidents. If Clinton screws up as President, the next 50 or 60 years will be marked by a succession of all male Presidents.

I just feel that Clinton will screw up in ways that screw both Canadians and Americans over. With Clinton, there will be more Maher Arars - because imprisoning and torturing the weak is usually popular policy. At least McCain and David Wilkins are open about there belief that there should be more Maher Arars.

Huckabee is a total A-hole. But I hope he's not the VP choice for McCain or we will have problems. He'll bring out the far far right votes like a tidal wave.

~Learnfromthepast~ Did I vote for Reagan you ask? Of course, I was his campaign manager, after plannig the Watergate break in. That's why I know how they operate.

Hi ~4the future~ It is not just California and Michigan Obama has to take, He has to win at least five of the so called swing states, that includes Ohio, Florida, West Virgiinia, North Carolina, New Jersey and Iowa. And of course New York which is not considered a swing state.

Some states like California, Michigan and New York are 'almost' a given, it's the swing states Obama or Hillary have to win also. Hillary has the better shot at that, I fear Obama won't do it. Florida is always a worry and so is Ohio. The Repubs pull off some dirty pool in those states.

Here's the exact quote -- this is Mike Huckabee, at the podium, speaking to the National Rifle Association yesterday, after a loud noise was heard backstage ...

"That was Barack Obama," Huckabee joked, "he just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he -- he dove for the floor."

Hucakbee apologized -- but what's the mentality here, consciously or unconsciously?

And if that was indeed a "slip," how many *other* slips does mainstream media POUNCE on, instead of virtually ignore? This one, as far as I can tell, has been given a pass by the MSM -- barely a peep!

Is Obama himself so intimidated by the NRA that he doesn't express outrage at such a Neanderthal comment?

And from a "Christian" candidate at that -- Mike ("God-Luvs-Me") Huckabee.

Or how about the "joke" John McCain told a while ago at a political gathering. Here's the joke the "mature" McCain thought was funny. ...

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because she's the love child of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno."

Reported? Yes. ... Reported as much as it should have been reported? Hardly.

These are small, hostile, mean-spirited people. And the country's foreign and domestic policy reflect that hostility and mean-spiritedness in starkly heartless and murderous ways.

The people are *clowns" and yet they're taken oh so seriously. Speaking of jokes -- they should be laughed off the stage!

Where's the outrage on the part of not just the Democratic Party but the American people in general?

-- Mike Huckabee makes a joke about Barack Obama being shot.

Bush (in Israel no less!) slyly, and in his typically weasely little way, compares Obama to those who appeased Hitler prior to WWII.

McCain thinks he's one of the Beach Boys and sings "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran."

If anyone wants to know just *how* insane things are in the America, google the following

"insanity in America"

with the quotes.

Then read the *second* article retrieved; the
one by John Chuckman.

RE: Did I vote for Reagan you ask? Of course, I was his campaign manager, after plannig the Watergate break in. That's why I know how they operate.

Don't even joke about that! At least Brian Mulroney was only Reagan's Eva Braun - which is about the nicest thing one can say about Lyin' Brian. If Mulroney was taking envelops full of cash from Arms Dealers in hotel rooms, I wonder what Reagan (or his VP at the time) got up to.

RE: Hucakbee apologized — but what's the mentality here (consciously or unconsciously)? / And if that was a "slip,"

That was no more of a slip than Ralph Klein's "Belinda" comments which are of such a nature I won't repeat them here (since they are - er - worse than McCain's). So what was Huck-a-pee's apology: "I'm sorry that Obama is such a chicken when it comes to guns!"

The only true chickens are those afraid to stand up to the NRA. Keep American guns off of Canadian streets!

One person's ceiling is another person's floor:

Sudbury man's home has 500 guns

SUDBURY–A 76-year-old man has agreed to give up his cache of weapons and pay a $1,000 fine on three firearms-related charges.

When police entered Georgio Bassetti's apartment on Feb. 29, they found rooms filled with hundreds of weapons, ammunition and bullet holes in the ceiling. It took police days to remove the weapons.

Assistant Crown attorney Karen Lische told court yesterday that police got a call that someone in the apartment had fired a weapon.

Tactical squad officers entered Bassetti's apartment and found him in an intoxicated state and noted six gunshot holes in the ceiling.

A female tenant in the apartment one floor up said it sounded like a gunshot had struck "right under" where she sat at her computer.

http://www.thestar.com/article/425648

Let's hope we aren't saying several years from now, "Yeah, Barack Obama, sort of like Jackie Robinson stealing home, handed over the rest of the world to the corporatocracy."
I hope not. I want to believe in the guy, but I'm skeptical. After all , his stated policy positions aren't significantly different than Hillary's.

Don't tell me what to joke about ~Vaudree~, go sniff some air freshner and tell your own jokes. At least mine are "understoodable".

atheist

"We've got a half-white dude who grew up in a priviledged family, who became a Senator and is now running for the presidency"

I wouldn't call the family Obama grew up in "privilaged" at least from whats been presented.

wsws.org website May 17th, 2008 11:46 am

Now you know this isn't going to get any play. This little faux pas has already been buried in that bottomless pit that Rovians have for mistakes.

"It's a racist country, dude! Deal with it."

Horsefeathers!

"Personally, as a white Canadian woman, I don't see the big deal about Wright's comments in the first place. In fact, from what I heard on the Daily Show, McCain's Minister's comments were much much worse."

Madam I'd agree with everything except "no big deal" and their comments being about the same, Wrights were worse. Wright and Hagee are both bigoted racists. Wright apparently hates America though she doesn't need friends like Hagee either.

Kem - I know that is just the DU talking. Have another beer, it will make you feel better - but don't drink too many.

Thomas - Wright is not a politician, he is a Minister who goes a bit overboard sometimes and whose words can sound worse out of context than in.

"It is not God Bless American it is Goddamn America"

What does that really mean! It means that American is going to hell in a handbasket. Who among you believes that it isn't! Wright was stating what was and not what should be with that statement.

What we are debating - between Obama, Clinton and McCain - is who is best suited to reverse the process. Who is best suited to get us off this destructive path and into a better future. Unless you believe that we are already on the right path ...

The eastern world it is explodin',
violence flarin', bullets loadin',
you're old enough to kill but not for votin',
you don't believe in war, what's that gun you're totin',
and even the Jordan river has bodies floatin',
but you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

"Change" may be less than I want it to be out of Obama's mouth, but I don't trust Clinton and McCain has all but admitted to being evil incarnate when he said that he planned to continue along the Bush-Cheney path.

Goddamn America - how can you do this to us! How can you (insert Bush policy) ...

Some ADVANTAGES. Obama has an advantage on the world scene. Please keep in mind that I have been both "Black" and "White" in the same lifetime by genetic engineering.
It has been my experience that since people of "color" ( that is, non-White) are the majority in the world, those people prefer talking to other people of color. It MAY be that the non-White leaders of certain countries will be willing to reach agreements with Obama, when they wouldn't for the "White" American leaders.
It was very clear when I worked as a volunteer in Mexico. The Mexicans gravitated to me like a magnet. The local school principal and his wife invited me to dinner, etc. Some Mexicans couldn't believe I was an American. (I was a lot darker than I am now.) They talked to me about prejudice in the USA. They wanted to know what it was like here.
I STILL have a good rapport with the Indians and Mexicans here, in the Southwest. Somehow, they sense I am still "not White" even though I am much lighter now.
It may be that those leaders will LISTEN to Obama better than they would to "White" people.
When there were hostages taken around Reagan's time, the terrorists RELEASED THE BLACK HOSTAGES first because they knew Black Americans had "enough problems living in the USA anyway". I remember that! It was only said ONCE, but I heard it.
Obama may be able to accomplish what no "White" USA president could.

Thomas, Obama's birth father, often referred to as a "goatherder" (including on Obama's campaign web site), was actually the son of a wealthy farmer, a child of privelege and reputedly an outstanding student. He met Obama's mother at the University of Hawaii where they were both students. Later, he attended Harvard. Pretty amazing for a goatherder.

Obama's mother remarried when Obama was 6. She married Lolo Soetoro, a wealthy Indonesian. Obama attended Columbia University in NYC, one of the most expensive schools in the U.S., and from all that I can find he hadn't received a scholarship and he didn't have a job. How did he pay for it ?

Obama is much more like Clinton or Kerry than he is like the average U.S. citizen or the average black man.

Btw, if anyone is going to refute my post, provide links, don't just say "you're wrong".

Many years ago a baseball fan who saw Robinson play with the Brooklyn Dodgers recalled sitting in the bleachers and hearing some of the vilest racism pouring out of the stands from white Dodgers fans that he'd ever heard in his life. Every time Robinson came out to warm up to bat it would start, accompanied by the occasional thrown bottle or lit cigar. Jackie ignored it all, of course. This continued until the middle innings when Robinson hit a home run. My friend was surprised that not only did the Dodgers' fans cheer -- the same ones who had been heaping despicable insults on Jackie moments before -- but even many white fans of the opposing team clapped. For the rest of the game, Robinson suffered no further abuse.

The old baseball fan was at a loss to explain what happened that day, but he finally concluded that the white fans knew, somewhere in their shriveled little souls, that what they were doing was wrong and were looking for a reason to expiate their guilt. A home run was the perfect excuse -- Robinson was now a 'winner,' and everyone loves a winner. Hopefully, in the same way, Obama will hit the political equivalent of a home run in debate with the bumbling McCain this fall and give the white people who have been holding back or abusing him a reason to vote for a black Democrat for president. Or else maybe they'll decide to vote for his white Irish side. ;)

Carmenaw [May 16th, 2008 1:10 pm], you're absolutely right, and the same rule sadly applies to any minority or woman attempting to break any barrier for the first time in this country. If they held the current crop of white males in Washington -- especially President Junior -- to the same 'Jackie Robinson' standard of exceptional achievement, few of them would come anywhere close.

Fortunately, Obama is an exceptionally gifted person -- he wrote and delivered one of the classic political speeches of our time in Philadelphia -- and he's a masterful negotiator and politician. (His passing of ethics legislation in the corrupt Illinois State Senate; his unveiling of Edwards' endorsement just after Hillary's WV victory, taking the steam out of her campaign; and his willingness to 'take on' McCain and Bush on foreign policy and score points on them prove this.) I'm convinced he's up the task of being one of the greatest presidents of the last hundred years, if given the chance.

Atheist [May 16th, 2008 1:42 pm] wrote: "At least Obama is congratulated for his achievements and promise. Clinton is scorned for hers."

Hillary Clinton has been scorned, at least by most of the posters to CD, for lying to enhance her image and improve her chances, and running a cynical below-the-belt campaign that has tried to change the rules and unfairly smear her opponent, She willingly sacrificed her integrity to her unbounded lust for power -- she's been more Rove Republican than FDR Democrat in that respect. I now know of three white women in their 50s -- the core Hillary voter -- who initially supported her strongly and have been so disgusted by her campaign tactics since New Hampshire that two say they would not vote for her in November. She's done some damage to likely Dem candidate Obama in the process, but even more to her future presidential aspirations.

Atheist [May 16th, 2008 2:16 pm] wrote: "What has Obama actually done to warrant such comparisons? And how does a half-white priveleged guy fulfill Dr. King's dreams?"

What has he done? He volunteered to work in poor black neighborhoods in Chicago after college, turning down lucrative job offers from law firms. He has sponsored and passed landmark ethics and transparency legislation in both the IL State and US Senate, as well as bills to help vets, improve voting standards, and solve the energy crisis. He has spent his adult life trying to bring people of various factions together as equals. He did not, as you and the right-wing claim, have a 'privileged' background -- he went to public schools and earned his way through college on a combination of scholarships and student loans. If he was as privileged as a you imply, why would he need student loans? Finally, his election will fulfill part of King's dream -- that a man who isn't identified as white can be elected president of the US; and his success as president will satisfy another of King's propositions -- that a black person can be just as good at any job as a white one.

KEM PATRICK [May 16th, 2008 4:31 pm] wrote: "There is no runaway election here, it's very close between Obama and Hillary. If the Florida, Mchigan votes are counted, Hillary leads in the popular vote. Hillary offered to pay for a re-do election in Michigan and Florida and Obama refused that. ___ Why?"

Kem, I have no idea why a smart guy like you is so deeply in the tank for Hillary, unless you're just slyly pulling our legs, but your analysis is wrong. Do you really think Obama won't win in California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, solidly Blue states in a Dem year? Kerry, who ran one of the worst presidential campaigns since Dukakis, won those four states handily. Next, why should Florida and Michigan be counted after Hillary agreed that they wouldn't? She's going back on her word to the DNC and the other candidates and you want her to be rewarded for that? Furthermore, you've got to be kidding -- why would anyone sane consent to an election financed by their opponent? It's like agreeing to play poker with a deck fixed by another player -- "Gee, how did you win again?" This is just absurd -- perhaps you think having the Republican Party finance the next presidential election is also a good idea.

The Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the Dem convention, but their voting power will be halved most likely -- it's what happens to those who break the rules and I doubt that it will affect the November election one bit -- this is such an 'inside baseball' thing that I doubt many voters in Michigan or Florida really care about it, outside of those in Hillary's campaign.

Atheist [May 16th, 2008 4:43 pm] wrote: "Hey fligloot, why wasn't Obama on the Michigan ballot ? Wasn't that his own decision?"

Hey, Atheist, why didn't Hillary keep her word not to count the Michigan votes or delegates?

KEM PATRICK [May 16th, 2008 4:45 pm] wrote: "The truth is, he has so far recieved over $131 million from PACs,___ the exact same PACs that have contributed to Hillary and McCain, only Obama recieved a lot more. ___Check it out."

No, Kem, that's not true, according to the Center for Responsive Politics at OpenSecrets.org, Obama has accepted 'bundled' money, which is what you're talking about, but no PAC money, and more than half of his approximately $240 million in campaign contributions came from small donations, under $200. If you have other 'facts' that aren't gleaned from Hillary's campaign website, post the link here -- I'm tired of chasing down your 'check it out' nonsense that leads nowhere.

KEM PATRICK [May 16th, 2008 4:45 pm] wrote: "If he actually had a well run campaign, he would have swooped Ohio and Texas, California and New Jersey. Obama won the caucus states, that's the whole story. He didn't win any states that he MUST win in November. That will be another story. Again, those are not MY opinions, it's how it is."

Wrong again, Kem, that's not the 'whole story': for example, Illinois, Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin weren't caucus states. Want me to list more? The question is why Hillary, who started out 30 points ahead and with the most money, most contacts and supposedly most professional and experienced campaign staff, lost to this allegedly inexperienced and weak candidate. Explain that, Kem.

Samson [May 16th, 2008 6:37 pm], I've read those Pam Martens articles at CounterPunch and responded to them, (to be fully informed on both sides of this argument, I suggest you read the thread over at Bud McClure's 'Atonement' piece at CD http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/04/8702/ ), so
I won't post a lengthy critique here, except to say you might want to read Pam Martens' articles yourself more carefully. Aside from the fact that Martens belongs to an organization that has endorsed Hillary Clinton, rather than Obama's connection to lobbyists and Wall Street being exposed by Martens, it was simply inferred, and she ends up admiring Obama and admitting she can't connect him to any corrupt schemes. Big whup.

Samson [May 16th, 2008 6:46 pm] wrote: "The problem is this. Obama has not proposed one serious change in America and said for sure that he will do this if he becomes President."

Yes he has and you can read it all at BarackObama.com/blueprintforchange/pdf

Well~RSJ~ that was quite a lenghty Obama ad you just wrote and in it you have said I and several others are wrong. Of course YOU are totally correct with all of your statements. However if one reads all the posts here, it is apparent you may not be totally correct about many of the things you have posted.

First of all you ask why I support Hillary? Well for one thing, I don't believe I am the only person in this country who has an does support Hillary and I'm not from "West By God Virginia" either. I don't really give a lot of support to Hillary, John Edwards was my choice. I just believe she can beat McCain and Obama will lose. I'll vote for Obama if he's the Demo choice.

You say Obama will win California, New York, Mass, etc. I don't disagree with that at all, he might. It's the swing states he lost to Hillary by a wide margain I'm concerned about and unless he wins those states he will lose, the same as Gore and Kerry did. You don't pay very good attention to what others post. I don't believe Obama will win in Florida, Ohio or West Virgiinia and he'll lose if he loses two of the three.

You can call the money he's recieved from big corporations whatever you wish to name them, it's PAC money and so far he has recieved over $131 million from large corporations, hidden behind the word "BUNDELED" money and GE and their media outlets have supported him fully. That's because GE wants those nuclear power plants. They own Obama.

As far as reading what Obama or his supporters write about him goes, it's like reading your posts about him. ___ He's perfect.___ I will say this, I prefer Obama over McCain and he's the best orator I have ever witnessed. I fear McCain is going to beat him however, because the Repugs have the flip side of the coin you wrote and they are ready to toss the coin in the pot. I hope I'm wrong.

KEM - I voted for Reagan - he was promising Change. But I was just checking you out - your retorts are fun to read.

Wow RSJ - you covered everything very authoritatively - how's the campaigning going?
I would be interested on your take as to why the MSM is so against that evil/lying Hillary and racist Bill while supportive and helpful to Obama - why they haven't even whispered the name Rezko and the fact that Obama started out at taking $50k from someone named Rezko and slowly admiting to talking to him on a daily basis and receiving 100k then $250k - hell that stranger Rezko even helped his friend Obama out and made the purchase of a house by the Obama's more affordable by about $300k.

BTW - is there a tape somewhere of Michelle giving a speech and talking about 'Whitey'? Should the Democrats know about this one before Obama is crowned or should we shut up and accept the coronation.

~RSJ~ in addition. The Michigan and Florida deal is a disaster and it was not a disaster created by Hillay Clinton. She thought it would be fair to have another primary election in those states. The states didn't want to spend the money for them so she agreed to pay for another election.

Obama refused to be part of it. You say it would be stupid of him to agree. __ Why? They would both campaign in those states, have an election and the votes would then be then counted. How could that be unfair or advantagious for Hillary?

If Obama wanted to be as fair and as Presidential as he pretends he is, he would have agreed and shared the cost of the two re-elections. Obama had lots more money to use for TV ads there. Was he afraid he'd lose in those states and Hillary would then be ahead in the popular vote?

Because of what has transpired in Florida and Michigan, He will likely lose both of those states in the general election. That alone will almost insure he is the loser in November. Now that's my opinion, you have yours I have mine and there is no reason for insults.

~RSJ~ You asked me to explain how Obama got ahead of Hillary when she was 30 points ahead of Obama before Iowa. Okay, I'll explain it, here's how, since apparently you weren't paying attention to what transpired.

First of all, he won in Iowa by a small margain, a CAUCUS state and the young college students made the difference. He was young, a new fresh face, skinny and cute. He was an African American with a pretty wife, a truely wonderful orator and he was going to have CHANGE. We all were pleased that perhaps the race issue would finally become a moot issue in America. We could have an African American president, we weren't all red neck KKKs here after all.

After that close win in Iowa, Obana had momentum and he won other caucus states and in some states, like South Carolina, he recieved over 90% of the black vote and he swooped them. He was on a roll and the money poured in for more TV ads.

He had more money then for TV ads, as Hillary had spent most of hers on the first five states with the wrong assumption that Obama was not a serious threat. That was a very bad assumption.

Finally the media and press had swung to Obama early on, that helped him more than any other single thing and it went just as the Neo-cons had planned all along and now we are where we are. Obama has lost almost every important state and lost badly in four of them, but he has won the STRONG Republican states. My My, guess what will happen next?

Hi ~LEARNFROMTHEPAST~ Yes Reagan disappointed me, I thought he would be super. He was "duper" instead.

I do beleve we will hear the name REZKO in the general election, perhaps frequently. We will also hear a lot of other thnigs, which Hillary didn't wish to mention for obvious reasons. Because of closeted skeletins most of us are totally unaware of, she may receive a good number of the super delegate votes at the Demo covention. ___ We'll see.

Contributions made to Obama 2008

Goldman Sachs $544,481
University of California $371,266
Ubs Ag $363,257
JPMorgan Chase & Co $353,808
Citigroup Inc $331,946
National Amusements Inc $313,511
Lehman Brothers $312,597
Google Inc $293,974
Harvard University $292,441
Sidley Austin LLP $287,795
Skadden, Arps et al $266,413
Morgan Stanley $253,576
Jones Day $245,875
Time Warner $245,828
Exelon Corp $229,861
Wilmerhale Llp $215,231
University of Chicago $208,007
Latham & Watkins $199,966
Microsoft Corp $196,093
Kirkland & Ellis $190,976

here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

.
It explains far better than I…

.

Kem Patrick

I have obsevered you from afar. You have single handledly turn this Blog into a toxic waste dump. In most cases there is no originality in any of your comments. You simply rehash information from the Biased Media.

I have observed your domination of many discussions with the rehashed barf of the Media time and time again. If you wish to hold personal chats with your buddies, please secure their email addresses or telephone numbers and restrict your visits to those personal venues.

Integrity has become an unexceptable word as it pertains to this Campaign. The Clintons have masterfully displayed their ability as a conduit for the Bush/Cheney/McCain status quo ideas of the past few decades.

Demographics tell the general population that this tired old, racist, devisive, imperalistic, deceptive generation has run its course. The time has come for a fresh new generational approach to these tired old issues created by the egos of a self appointed, self serving, old system of good old boy, protectionist ideals. We are faced with new global conditions that require new technologies, minds and generations to resolve them.

The unique quallities that a multiracial Barak Obama afford this nation and the world is that he is a product of all of the hypocracy of this great nation. He is that Son, Grandson, Nephew,Brother, Cousin,Neighbor,Uncle, that has grown up observing and experiencing many of the injustices afforded a child that did'nt questions God's choice to send him through a cross ethinic experience. He further affords the world an Ambassador of Truth and Hope for conditions on Earth where all of God's creation might enjoy the use of the given Resources. He affords the World an opportunity for a dialogue unmarred with Egos of evil.

Yes he can and is the Jackie Robinson of the Presidency. A position whose time is long overdue.

~BUCKOO~ I don't like you at all. You're stupid too. __ You an American? __ Hope not.

You claim I "single handely" have turned this Blog into a toxic waste dump. ___LOL.___ There are others here who posted more comments than I have. You don't like my face or something? "You have observed me from afar"!! ___ So what, do you think that I care what you do? Keep observing Dufus, knock yourself out.

I personally don't know a single blogger who has posted here, and some I have never heard of before today. Yet many here have stated reasons they do not prefer Obama, or have given truths of who and what he really is, some quite forcefully ___ as is their right.

I have said many times that I WILL vote for Obama if he is the Demo choice. I have posted why and with ample justification, that I believe Obama cannot beat McCain, just as many who are far more informed on the issue than I believe. That includes some high roller political analyists, who have called every election properly since JFK. I have also said I hope I am wrong about that.

That makes this a toxic waste dump?

You say that I have "single handedly" corrupted this site because I prefer Hillary over Obama. Sorry to show others how stupid you are, but below is a list of others who do not favor Obama all that much and have stated why on this thread. So I am not alone here dummy. I did post three posts in sequence answering questions and comments of ~RSJ~ and I now reply to you. Here is the list, "check it out".

~Nannie~, ~Learnfromthepast~, ~Athiest~, ~John R~, ~Huck~, ~Rich Griffin~, ~Mike Peters~, ~Solrey~, ~Pkokinos~, ~Cannuckansti~ Sampson~, ~Mike Corbiel~. Read their posts, they are quite informative. That's why we come here, to learn from others.

Your problem seems to be, that you don't wish to hear the sad truths about Obama and I told it as I see it, or have agreed with others who gave truths here. You didn't specifically state one thing that I posted that was incorrect or improper, you just ran your lips and fingers and made a total fool of yourself. ___ LOL again. Of course, there will be some who agree with you I'm sure. __ I don't care.

What I do care about is, our trees are all in bloom and not one single bee, wasp, hornet, butterfly, or even a moth has shown up and that's not normal and it's far more serious to me than which liar is selected to be the Demo nominee.

Another final thing here ~BUCKOO~, love that name you gave yourself BTW.

You accused me of repeating media blather. Then you "humeriously" did just that yourself. You wrote a long disartation of media blather about Obama, which we have all heard so often from the "media" it's getting sickening.

Primarily what I posted was, the states Obama won and those where he lost and why that win loss ratio is so important if we don't want McCain to win in November. Those were not media blather I posted, ___ it's facts.

Actually ~BUCKOO~,`I wonder if you are not one of the Repug loyalists who visit this site and who wants to insure Obama is the Democrat nominee. The Republicans have succeeded in fostering the MYTH that they would prefer to run against Hillary and millions now believe that bull. The Repugs are famous for using the back door tactics they term "rat fu##ing" to accomplish such deciet.

.

I'll say it again…

We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

.

"Next, why should Florida and Michigan be counted after Hillary agreed that they wouldn't? She's going back on her word to the DNC and the other candidates and you want her to be rewarded for that?"

Clinton supported revotes in Michigan and Florida, which would have complied with DMC rules. In February, Obama stated that he was in favor of revotes, but then backed out in March when Clinton proposed them. Why should Obama be rewarded for going back on his word?

It amazes me that many Obama supporers think that there should have simply been no revotes at all, even revotes that complied with the DNC rules. Keeping votes from being counted was evil when the GOP dui it in 2000, but it's progressuve when it helps their guy win.

Democracy = My guy wins. That is hardly the "new politics" of "hope" and "change".

"Furthermore, you've got to be kidding — why would anyone sane consent to an election financed by their opponent? It's like agreeing to play poker with a deck fixed by another player — "Gee, how did you win again?" This is just absurd — perhaps you think having the Republican Party finance the next presidential election is also a good idea."

The plan for the election was approved by the DNC. Clinton supporters who were willing to finance the new primary asked George Soros (billionaire currency speculator and Obama supporter) to donate. His reply:

'"George Soros does not support holding another primary in Michigan because he believes doing so will further delay the selection of a Democratic candidate in November," Vachon said.'

Leaving aside Soros' desire to screw Michigan and Florida so that his guy could win, we see that Clinton made an effort to include Obama supporters in financing the election. It wasn't her fault that she got shot down. Unsurprisingly, some Obama supporters condemned her for approaching Soros. No matter what she does it's wrong.

KEM PATRICK May 17th, 2008 9:22 pm

"If Obama wanted to be as fair and as Presidential as he pretends he is, he would have agreed and shared the cost of the two re-elections."

EXACTLY, Kem. "Pretending to be Presidential" hits the nail right on the head. After Obama lost in New Hampshire, he sent his campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr. to whine to the media. Jackson played the race card against Clinton, arguing that she never cried for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and that this would be an issue for the upcoming primary in South Carolina with its large Black population.

Obama is already crying to the media about his impending loss in Kentucky. He's arguing that Fox News and unspecified negative e-mails unfairly turned people against him. Kentucky has a closed primary (Democrats only), so he's arguing that DEMOCRATS have been brainwashed by Fox News. He's also arguing that it's so unfair that he doesn't have months to campaign in Kentucky like he did in Iowa.

"Obama had lots more money to use for TV ads there. Was he afraid he'd lose in those states and Hillary would then be ahead in the popular vote?"

Probably. I think that he was also afraid that Clinton's arguments about winning the big swing states would have more credibility to the superdelegates.

Obama tried to use the excuse that Democrats who voted in the Michigan Republican primary wouldn't be allowed to participate in the revote. It wasn't just Democrats that he was so "worried" about. In Pennsylvania, he was encouraging Republicans to switch their registration to Democrat so they could support him. In other words, unless Republicans were allowed to have their vote counted twice in Michigan, Democrats wouldn't get to have their votes counted at all!

What Obama was proposing was not only unethical, but it was also in violation of DNC rules. So he wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game, which was precisely what he lectured Clinton about. When Clinton refused to support a plan that violated DNC rules, he turned around and blamed her for the collapse of the revote plan.

It was brazenly hypocritical and dishonest, but the media gave him a free pass on it. Hillary's fib about Bosnia was a much worse offense for them.

RE: - Btw, if anyone is going to refute my post, provide links, don't just say "you're wrong".

Aren't the ownership of goats considered a sign of wealth in some countries? There was a segment on CBC News Sunday where it said that, in some countries, one can use ATM machines to transfer the ownership of cattle (I can give you the link but it's worthless since it did not include the video).

Technically, the "goatherder" comment is accurate - though concede that Obama is making use of American misconception of what constitutes wealth in other countries to make his beginnings seem more humble. Likewise, a teen mother who was in college at the time - most people don't consider a birth at 19 a teen pregnancy, though, technically speaking, it is.

Then again, the whole "American dream" mythos is basically BS. Some people do better than their parents, and some people do worse, but rags to riches is usually pretty rare except in organised crime circles.

RE: - Obama is much more like Clinton or Kerry than he is like the average U.S. citizen or the average black man.

You mean the whole switching to Christianity angle with Kerry and Obama? Though both were born Christian, Kerry's paternal relatives are Jewish and Obama's paternal relatives are Muslim.

Seriously, one cannot make a bid for the Senate, let alone the Presidency, without a well stocked war chest. Both Obama and Clinton spent more in one Primary than any Canadian Federal Political Party is allowed to spend during an entire election. Edwards was the one who made getting corporations and well-heeled lobby groups out of the political process. Until that happens, you are stuck with two wealthy well-healed individuals trying to pretend that, deep down, they are just like the rest of us.

RE: - Every time Robinson came out to warm up to bat it would start, accompanied by the occasional thrown bottle or lit cigar. Jackie ignored it all, of course. This continued until the middle innings when Robinson hit a home run.

Jackie Robinson was chosen to be the first black player in the major leagues because of his ability to ignore taunts - and, to be given a chance, he was bombarded with taunts for two hours as a test. Thus, JR knew that he was only given this chance because of his ability to act as if it wasn't bothering him. JR's experience at Montreal was a mild version of what he could face in the US, but it taught him that, if he played well, the taunts would become less (giving him an incentive to play well).

Racists like to be part of a mob and when they see that the mob is against them, they tend to shut up. Those people who threw the cigars realised, with the clapping, that they were the minority. But if JR were to start playing poorly, the taunts would come back.

RE: - and he's a masterful negotiator and politician.

There is a debate whether this is a good quality or whether the refusal to negotiate is a better quality. In Hotel Rwanda, it was a good quality, but Bush/Son of Cain always sees it as a bad quality - which is why he is anti-union and anti-peace. There are some who think that Clinton figures that she needs to show that she is tough enough to be President and that she may feel that a willingness to negotiate is a sign of weakness.

There is a difference between negotiation and appeasement - with negotiation, one always has something to use as a threat if negotiation doesn't go well (ie unions can strike). But, of the three, only Obama seems to be in the position of having to outline the difference between negotiation and appeasement - I don't think either Clinton or Son of Cain recognise a difference.

"My way or the highway" does fit into America's "take no crap" attitude, but it does make America look like its being run by jerks.

RE: - his unveiling of Edwards' endorsement just after Hillary's WV victory

Do you think that Edwards endorsed Obama because he honestly feels that Obama is the better candidate or because he wanted to unite the Democrats behind who he thought would be the ultimate winner? If it is the former, it means that Edwards is as aware of Harpers tendency towards dirty tricks as I am, and if it is the latter, it means that Edwards would get behind whoever was winning at this point.

Clinton going out on a high note would be a respectable out.

RE: - Kem, I have no idea why a smart guy like you is so deeply in the tank for Hillary, unless you're just slyly pulling our legs

I think he was joking about supporting Reagan (I wouldn't insult him like that by assuming, even for a moment, that he did), but I am quite sure that he sees Clinton as the next best thing to Edwards.

None of the Clinton supporters have ever addressed the Michael John Hamdani issue. To refresh memories, MJH was a small time forger who thought that he could get a smaller sentence if he could claim that he gave Canadian passports to terrorists. The RCMP figured that the story was BS, but the FBI took him seriously. It all turned out to be a hoax. Clinton, in a climate where Muslims (and those who looked like Muslims) were being beaten up, went on live TV and told the world exactly where she thought these five fictional terrorists entered the US from Canada. After Clinton was caught in a lie, she refused to appologise, not only to Canada, but to all Canadians and Americans of Muslim descent as well as all Sikhs of both countries.

Clinton supporters, how can you still vote for her after that! Shouldn't the fact that she was willing to capitalize on the weakest in society so as to further her political aims disqualify her from higher office! I am going for Obama more out of default than anything.

Wish that Edwards was still in the race ...

Is everyone still in the 18th century, when even an octaroon was considered Black?

Why isn't anyone pointing out that Barack Obama is ONE HALF WHITE ??

It seems like the elephant in the living room, that the total discourse seems to accept his blackness, always knowing, but never mentioning that his mother is white.

I don't understand how this can go on, with no one EVER bringing it up. Let's all get with it, and join the HUMAN race!

I think that point has been raised repeatedly.

What Earthly difference does it make if Barack Obama is ONE HALF WHITE?

It makes no difference at all, we are all the same, except we all have our individual personalities, souls and morals.

Kem Patrick,

I will not stoop to the level of Integrity that you choose. My point is simple; Barak Obama seems to be in position to secure the Democratic Nomination for President, if so, let all of us Democrats extend the courtesy of a vote for the chosen Nominee. Thank you for your stated commitment.

I will neither acknowledge or retaliate the names you imply represent my character. No I have never seen a photo of you, however, if we ever met, I am resigned to beleive that we would have a civil exchange. My comments are based solely upon my observations of this blog.

My opinion was not framed to offend, simply a stated opinion to which we are all entitled. Please do not allow one opinion to disjoint your character. Go In Peace.

I suppose I thought that you would be the kind of person that would initiate the healing within the Party. At any rate, God Bless.

You trying to sound like a nice guy after the childish off the wall insults you directed at me ~BUCKOO~?

First you accuse me of all by myself corrupting this site, which I adequately showed to you was really a stupid comment and now it's "YOU won't stoop to my level of integrity." What's that supposed to mean? You're obviously a mealy mouthed, brain damaged crackpot.

You say now your opinion was not framed to offend, what a sorry joke that is, anyone who cares to read your 1.44 am post would easily note that is all it was and my character was not disjointed by anything you or anyone else writes here.

Those names I posted for you where not representative of YOUR character, they were the names of those who didn't support Obama you moron. Then ~VA GREEN~`posted two more good info blogs about Obama's well documented wrong doings after that. You obviously have a reading comp problem.

If we ever did meet ~Buckoo~ I can guarantee you that we would not have a civil exchange and don't worry about us ever meeting. I don't need your God blessings either, so just drop it and go play with your marbles, or bang your head against the floor.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:05 pm] wrote: "Well~RSJ~ that was quite a lenghty Obama ad you just wrote and in it you have said I and several others are wrong."

Only because you were. It was not an 'ad,' just a simple correction of the smears and distortions that have been heaped on Obama by the GOP and Hillary's campaign that have been echoed here.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:05 pm] wrote: "First of all you ask why I support Hillary? Well for one thing, I don't believe I am the only person in this country who has an does support Hillary and I'm not from "West By God Virginia" either. I don't really give a lot of support to Hillary, John Edwards was my choice. I just believe she can beat McCain and Obama will lose. I'll vote for Obama if he's the Demo choice."

Well, Kem, I'm glad you're going to vote for Obama, but your logic leaves something to be desired: You believe Hillary can beat McCain when she can't beat an allegedly weak, naive and inexperienced candidate who has not, as you've stated in this thread, run a good campaign? How does that magic work? BTW, I also, as you know, supported John Edwards until he dropped out, even though I have a friend who is a relative of Obama's and have met Obama on two occasions. I just thought Edwards was more populist than Obama and that he would have an easier time beating the GOP. I also defended Edwards at the time against the same sort of empty and stupid attacks now being leveled at Obama, as did you, Kem. Once Edwards was out, I looked at both Hillary and Obama's records, watched their speeches on C-Span, and decided Obama was the better candidate.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:05 pm] wrote: "It's the swing states he lost to Hillary by a wide margain I'm concerned about and unless he wins those states he will lose, the same as Gore and Kerry did. You don't pay very good attention to what others post. I don't believe Obama will win in Florida, Ohio or West Virgiinia and he'll lose if he loses two of the three."

Hold the phone. Ohio, for example, formerly Republcian, now has Dems in every important state office, from governor on down. (No more Ken Blackwell.) They elected Sherrod Brown, a Dem progressive, over Republican incumbent Mike DeWine after the GOP threw a lot of money into keeping that Senate seat. The state is trending Blue and I don't think Obama will have any problem winning it in November. Obama has done well in traditionally GOP states that have been also trending Dem, such as Virginia, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina and Colorado, and he nearly won in rock-ribbed Republican Indiana, another state where the GOP 'brand' has worn out its welcome. He'll also likely pick up Iowa, Louisiana and Missouri. With most of those states in his column he can easily make up for losing the West Virginia and Florida electoral vote, assuming Florida goes to McCain. BTW, Kem, I pay very close attention to what others post -- unfortunately.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:05 pm] wrote: "You can call the money he's recieved from big corporations whatever you wish to name them, it's PAC money and so far he has recieved over $131 million from large corporations, hidden behind the word "BUNDELED" money and GE and their media outlets have supported him fully. That's because GE wants those nuclear power plants. They own Obama."

No, there is a difference between PAC and 'bundled' money, but you still haven't proved that he voted for or sponsored any legislation that specifically helped any of these bundlers. To the contrary, he's sponsored and passed bills that expose bundlers and lobbyists to the light of day -- why would he do that if he's so corrupt? He supported a nuclear energy bill designed to use clean nuclear power only as a transition from polluting coal-fired plants to wind, solar and other green energy sources. Can you prove he did this because he is 'owned' by GE?

BTW, where are you getting this '$131 million from large corporations' figure? Provide a source. Even Nannie's [May 17th, 2008 10:05 pm] out of context figures from OpenSecrets.org, with the three universities exempted (they aren't on Wall Street last I checked), amount to only $4.8 million total -- a small percentage of the $240 million the Obama campaign has collected. You Obama-bashers should at least get on the same page on your attempted smears.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:05 pm] wrote: "As far as reading what Obama or his supporters write about him goes, it's like reading your posts about him. ___ He's perfect.___ I will say this, I prefer Obama over McCain and he's the best orator I have ever witnessed. I fear McCain is going to beat him however, because the Repugs have the flip side of the coin you wrote and they are ready to toss the coin in the pot. I hope I'm wrong."

(Big Al Gore sigh) No, I have stated many times here that I don't think Obama is perfect and the reasons why. I'm only defending him from scurrilous and specious political attacks; that's much different from thinking someone is perfect. In fact, I think Obama will only be the first step in ushering in a new progressive era and dismantling the ugly Reagan-Bush conservatism that has dominated our country for thirty years -- we'll need to elect more progressives to Congress, and local and state offices as well, but Obama's a good initial move in that direction.

As far as McCain beating Obama, the Republicans threw the entire Rove dumpster of dirty tricks and negative ads at Dems Bill Foster in Illinois' 14th district, Don Cazayoux in Louisiana's 6th, and Travis Childers in Mississippi's 1st -- all previously 'safe' GOP districts, especially MS 1 -- and the Democrats won. Anything out there on Obama Hillary's campaign has already found and used and it's old news. The wheels are coming off the Republican Party and you're still scared of them -- that's a sure way to lose.

learnfromthepast [May 17th, 2008 9:14 pm], the MSM, especially in Illinois where I live, has continuously covered Rezko and found nothing linking Obama to any of his sleazy deals. The trial, in fact, is over Rezko peddling influence connected to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, not Obama. Obama has been thoroughly investigated by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times and they found no involvement of any kind by Obama in any of Rezko's shady schemes. You're also incorrect that Obama purchased his house from Rezko -- Obama happened to move in next door to Rezko and purchased some land from him adjacent to Obama's property -- and he paid market price for it, there was no 'sweet deal.' It's true Rezko raised some campaign money for Obama in the past, not as much as you claim, but there was no quid proquo and their relationship has been wildly exaggerated by a certain senator from New York campaigning against him for the Dem nomination. BTW, if you have a link for Michelle Obama talking about 'whitey' you should post it.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:22 pm] wrote: "~RSJ~ in addition. The Michigan and Florida deal is a disaster and it was not a disaster created by Hillay Clinton. She thought it would be fair to have another primary election in those states. The states didn't want to spend the money for them so she agreed to pay for another election."

Hillary Clinton made an agreement with the DNC and the other Dem candidates that the Michigan and Florida vote would not count and said so in October 2007, when she was far ahead in the polls and didn't think she'd need those states. Her attempt to count the vote now violates that agreement and her statement in October of last year. Both states refused to authorize a recount and the DNC did NOT say it would recognize the votes from any recount, no matter who paid for it. BTW, Hillary just turned down a very generous compromise offer by Michigan, agreed to by Obama, to give her 59 delegates to 39 for Obama, in a state where he did not campaign and was not even on the ballot, and 45 percent of the voters voted for someone other than Hillary. She reneged on her word not to count those states and now she won't accept a compromise devised by the Michigan delegation. End of story.

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:51 pm] wrote: "~RSJ~ You asked me to explain how Obama got ahead of Hillary when she was 30 points ahead of Obama before Iowa. Okay, I'll explain it, here's how, since apparently you weren't paying attention to what transpired."
"First of all, he won in Iowa by a small margain, a CAUCUS state and the young college students made the difference. He was young, a new fresh face, skinny and cute. He was an African American with a pretty wife, a truely wonderful orator and he was going to have CHANGE. We all were pleased that perhaps the race issue would finally become a moot issue in America. We could have an African American president, we weren't all red neck KKKs here after all."

He won Iowa by a 'small margin' and so did Edwards with Hillary trailing at third. In fact, a large majority of the Iowa voters preferred someone other than Hillary, but I'm sure it was just Obama's 'cuteness' and Edwards' '$400 haircut' that attracted those empty-headed swine-eaters. Meanwhile, the serious and sagacious voters of New Hampshire gave Hillary her victory there based on such political profundities as, "Well, like, I'm a woman and she's a woman and, like, it would be really cool to have, like, a woman president. Like that song, 'I'm Every Woman' -- we, like, need that, you know?"

KEM PATRICK [May 17th, 2008 9:51 pm] wrote: "...Obama has lost almost every important state and lost badly in four of them, but he has won the STRONG Republican states. My My, guess what will happen next?"

I'll try to remind the voters of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Louisiana, and the rest that they live in 'unimportant states' that Hillary would desperately need in order to win in November. This is the first time in my life that a Dem candidate has been criticized for winning in GOP states -- this is how bughouse crazy you Obama-haters have become. BTW, he won the Texas delegates; Hillary won the popular vote, and the Republican Party there wanted her to win it -- they somehow think Hillary would be the easier candidate to beat in November no matter what Prof. Kem says.

KEM PATRICK [May 18th, 2008 3:09 am] wrote: "That includes some high roller political analyists, who have called every election properly since JFK."

Who would those be, Kem -- do they have names? Frankly, I can't think of one high or low-roller political analyst who has called every election right since JFK. Share, brother, share!

KEM PATRICK [May 18th, 2008 3:09 am] wrote: "~Nannie~, ~Learnfromthepast~, ~Athiest~, ~John R~, ~Huck~, ~Rich Griffin~, ~Mike Peters~, ~Solrey~, ~Pkokinos~, ~Cannuckansti~ Sampson~, ~Mike Corbiel~."

Where's Jacob Freeze and Bob K.? Kicked out of the Obama-Haters Club -- what, did they make a mistake and tell the truth?

Nannie [May 18th, 2008 4:51 am], I'll say it again: We voted for Nader in 2000 and got Bush; in 2004 it was vote for Nader and we got Bush again; 2008, it'll be vote for Ralph and get McCain. Now, that's progress!

VAGreen [May 18th, 2008 8:05 am] this post is already long enough and I've already dealt with most of your swipes at Obama anyway. I'd just suggest you read something other than right-wing sites for your information on Obama -- they have a penchant for conveniently getting things wrong when it's to their advantage, just as they do with Hillary, and just as Hillary does herself.

Vaudree [May 18th, 2008 12:54 pm]: "My way or the highway" does fit into America's "take no crap" attitude, but it does make America look like its being run by jerks."

It's no secret, Vaudree -- we ARE being run by jerks, dumb ones at that.

To answer your question, I think Edwards was ready to endorse Obama publicly before this, but Obama kept that ace up his sleeve. Having seen him at work in Illinois, I can tell you he is a subtle but masterful politician and this would be just the kind of thing he would do. This is why I think he'll be elected -- he can outmaneuver McCain and the GOP, as weakened as they are by being shackled to eight years of Bush failure.

RSJ, I think so too. I asked the question because it seems that, whether we are supporting Obama or Clinton now, many of us used to be Edwards supporters.

But would Edwards be supporting Obama if he believed that Harper's "leakers" were accurate? Edwards ran on getting smooch money out of politics so would he be supporting Obama if he believed that Obama was lying about NAFTA?

The leaks sounded like a distortion of what Obama said publicly before they occurred - that he was more worried about Mexico than Canada because he thought Canada had not bad workers and environmental standards.

Hmm Jackie Robinson. Wasn't he the sell-out that berated Malcolm X for his views on black empowerment and self help?

Well Good Looooooooog try ~RSJ~ but no cigar. I'll keep it short and give one example of how you have attempted to distort what I wrote with your replys. I wrote the names of the bloggers here on THIS thread who don't favor Obama, to inform the nutcase ~Buckoo~ that I was not alone here with my opinions concerning Obama.

So what do you do to prove I'm wrong? You give two other names of bloggers who had not posted on this thread and ask me why I didn't put their names on the list.

They weren't here stating they didn't favor Obama, that's why I didn't and yet you claim you pay attention to what others write. ___LOL.___ It 's just that I don't believe Obama wil beat McCain and Hillary can is why I support Hillary, not because I believe she's perfect.

And the states I said were not important was only in the context that they almost always go Republican and are less important for a Democrat during a presidential election. You twist the meanings off what I wrote. Hey ~RSJ~ support Obama 100%, I will never condemn anyone for that. And I don't believe it's healthy to condemn those who don't support him 100%.

Wonder who ~VAUDREE~ is going to vote for? Do they allow Canadians to vote in our presidential elections?

Harvey Wasserman deserves a great deal of credit for documenting the election frauds that took place in 2004. But, Harvey, please, let's get real!

Barack Obama, as you well know, is a corporate-backed candidate. In fact, he has more corporate money behind him than either Hillary or McCain. You're aware of that, I trust.

Fact is, there have been any number of candidates in recent history who it's been projected (by well meaning liberals such as yourself) will "turn things around." You'll recall, Candidate Carter who many hoped would "tuun things around" after Watergate. He didn't.

You may also recall that in his famous "lust in my heart" interview that he gave to Playboy magazine back in 1976, he stated that the American public can consider his Administration a failure if it included people like Z. Brezinski. Then, guess what? Surprise, surprise -- he chose Brezinski to play a prominent role in his Administration!

Indeed, it was Brezinski and Carter who came up with the brilliant idea to create the mujahadeen -- a ruthless group of middle eastern thugs -- recruited, trained and financed by the CIA -- that, including Osama Bin Laden, later morphed into El Quaida.

Then there was, in 1992, that hoped-for liberal, Bill Clinton. Do you remember, Harvey, when Candidate Bill went on an on about "trickle-down economics" -- the Marxian metaphor of crumbs falling from the tables of the rich down to the tables of the poor and middle class. We all know what a friend of the poor and middle class Bill turned out to be.

Then there was (remember?) Paul Tsongas, another "Great Liberal Hope." With the country, meanwhile, moving further and further to the right, to where now we have liberals who look back fondly on Ronald Reagan! (Recall Obama's praise of the Reagan presidency a couple of months ago.)

No, Harvey, well intentioned though you and others may be, what's needed is someone who advocates FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES to the political system and, clearly, that's not Barack Obama (cockamamie analogies to Jackie Robinson notwithstanding).

You and others may fondly, unrealistically, indeed *desperately*, wish Obama to be something he's not, but that doesn't change "what he is." And what Obama is, at best, is a bright, attractive "personality" -- a happy face -- on an otherwise heartless US domestic policy and a murderous US foreign policy.

Obama will deliver alright, but not to the vast majority of the general population. Obama will deliver as per the corporate money that's backing him; that is to say, first and foremost, to Corporate America. As Frederick Douglass put it two centuries ago: "Power is not given, it must be taken." And, clearly, Barack Obama, in THAT equation, is not on the same side as Frederick Douglass would be.

Is he?

You know and Obama knows that liberals will quite reliably suck up to anything that even *looks* like a progressive. The problem only problem being that Obama ISN'T a progressive. And all the wishing in the world won't change that.

For a clear picture of an Obama presidency, see the following -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

You got that ~RSJ~?

The Repugs and McCain have it and they will use it.

The following is an exrcept from an article by Bill Van Auken entitled "'Appeasement' Clash Gives Foretaste of McCain-Obama Contest."

"...the charge of appeasement was leveled against Chamberlain and the French premier Edouard Daldier, for bowing to Hitler's threats to invade Czechoslovakia during negotiations held in Munich in September 1938 and pressuring Prague into ceding its border districts to Germany. The action set the stage for the Nazi takeover of the entire country just a few months later and the subsequent invasion of Poland and conquest of most of Europe.

"Can anyone seriously suggest that Iran—much less the Palestinian Hamas or Lebanese Hezbollah movements—are on the brink of overrunning the Middle East with some modern-day equivalent of the blitzkrieg? On the contrary, it is Washington that is building up its military forces on the borders of Iran and openly debating the possibility of staging yet another unprovoked war in the Persian Gulf.

"Invocations of Chamberlain at Munich have been the stock and trade of American foreign policy for more than six decades, used again and again to portray America as threatened by aggressors in order to justify US imperialism's own acts of military aggression. It is no different this time.

"While all historical analogies are necessarily limited and flawed, if one were searching for a contemporary equivalent of "appeasement," a better starting point would an examination of those powers that facilitated Bush's own war of aggression against Iraq, or for that matter, the Israeli siege of Lebanon two years ago. Domestically, one could arguably attach the label of "appeasers" to the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush's war, though the full partnership that the so-called opposition party has established with the administration in repeatedly funding the war goes well beyond the meaning of the term.

"The Democratic Party and the Obama campaign showed little interest in exploring such historical issues. Rather, they pounced on Bush's remarks as an opportunity to further their central campaign theme for the general election: a victory for McCain will be the equivalent of a third term for Bush."

... Do we hear Obama saying ANYTHING like this?

And why should we? Barack Obama is an Uncle Tom to Corporate America. He's corporate-bought, corporate-sponsored and corporate-controlled.

Barack Obama has more corporate money behind his campaign than either Hillary or McCain.

Obama may want "change," but he won't dare change the fundamental underpinnings of US foreign policy.

He won't change the basic distribution of wealth in the United States.

He won't do anything to change the basic distribution of wealth between the have and have-not nations.

He won't threaten corporate power. Not with their own money he won't!!!

In short, Barack Obama is a phenomenon -- a dream pr candidate for Corporate America -- a candidate who gives the *appearance* of change but who will, in fact, fundamentally change nothing.

It's sad to see all these "cruise missile liberals" -- liberals who claim to be leftist but who are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to America's murderous imperialist ambitions -- sad to see these cruise missile liberals "read into" Obama all these wonderful things that they think he'll do if elected.

Only to be disappointed. ...

-- As JFK disappointed them.

-- As LBJ's Great Society disappointed them.

-- As that great saviour "Honest Jimmy Carter" disappointed them.

-- As the 1992 "liberal" Bill Clinton disappointed them.

-- As that great role model for women, Hillary Clinton, disappointed them.

Look at what mainstream media and the political establishment did to the lukewarm reformer John Edwards. Do you think Barack Obama simply *ignored* Edwards' fate? Obama is being carefully vetted by the ruling class. As long as he remains an Uncle Tom to the plantation-owning ruling class, Obama will remain nothing more than a "happy face" of the same-old, same-old.

For those who consider reality to be "quite a concept," here's the real Obama for you -- http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

I'm supporting Obama (because Edwards is out of the race).

RE: "…the charge of appeasement was leveled against Chamberlain and the French premier Edouard Daldier, for bowing to Hitler's threats to invade Czechoslovakia during negotiations held in Munich

According to that statement, "appeasement" is when one gives in to a bully rather than stands one's ground and negotiate. In other words "appeasement" was when the world looked the other way while the US invade Iraq.

If we really believed that preemptive war was wrong, Canada would have sent an army to stop the US from attacking Iraq. But the Elephant roared and the mouse went under the chair.

The US, like Germany, engaged in preemptive action, not because their country was under threat (though they had the people convinced that they were), but because it served the interest of their moneyed classes.

RE: Financial backers

I don't like this part of the way America does politics either.

Comparing Campaigns

May 7, 2008 (Runs 13:56)

The U.S. process for picking the next president is long and expensive. But does it have any advantages over the Canadian system?

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/at_issue/comparing_campaigns.html