Its been a rewarding yet predictable day as one liberal after another have fallen all over themselves to praise Obama's speech. One of the more outrageous ones was Chris Matthews stating the speech went beyond the "I Have a Dream" speech, and compared it Lincoln. Now the NY Times bows down to Obamessiah as he rises from the ashes.
There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.
Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better…
Hmmm…where did we hear this before? Sounds like the MSM got the memo to echo this as a historic event! It gets better though:
There have been times when we wondered what Mr. Obama meant when he talked about rising above traditional divides. This was not such a moment.
We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.
In other words, Obama has ended the discussion and if you don’t agree you are probably a racist or something.
If the last 20 years count for anything, the best estimates of his “fundamental beliefs” are that the United States is a racist hegemon begging to have jets flown into office towers to teach it a thing or two about imperialism. He’s a gutless, opportunistic coward who was afraid to say an unkind word to one of the power brokers in the black community on whom he counted for votes as an Illinois politician, and now that he’s a national figure he’s throwing the same guy under the bus to preserve the illusion that he’s a “post-racial” politician. And you’re sitting there cheering him on because you don’t care what sort of idiocy or anti-American vitriol you have to swallow to put a Democrat back into the White House. Does that about sum it up? Have I missed any “nuance” in the “U.S. government created the AIDS virus” rant that Obama never, ever heard anything about and that you’re now willing to wave away?
That about sums it up. The MSM lapping it all up like good little sheep for their chosen shepard, regardless of the revelation he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Its getting old fast watching the media invoke JFK, Lincoln, MLK, etc in paiting this man like the second coming. Its enough to make one sick.
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama’s Speech Raises
March 18, 2008 - 22:20 ET by R D HelmObama’s Speech Raises Discussion to Higher Plane
ROFLMAO!
And as I saw earlier today, glad to see that Allahpundit has finally come around on this fraudulent pol.
I was beginning to worry.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Plain and simple
March 18, 2008 - 23:04 ET by Jerry MackIt is plain and simple to me. The msm will not do harm to one of their own. Also I have noticed how seldom that they mention that this is about the Dim nomination for president. Usally they use the term presidential nominee.
What goes up, must get down.
March 18, 2008 - 22:46 ET by GlidedonHigher "Sole Plane"
http://www.imdb.com/...
Into the Lie
March 18, 2008 - 22:47 ET by BarkerIs Liberation Theology the Left's new religion??
Stay tuned...................
Yes the media lap it up and don't call him on his contradictions
March 18, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Dee Bunktons of contradictions. The biggest one being that he said a couple days ago that he never heard any of these type of controversial remarks and now he says he did but didn't agree with them.
Then there is the way he talks about unity but then claims the Regan Revolution was built on Racism and conservative talk show hosts spread racism. Will the media ask for an example of where Regan or a talk show host has disparaged black people in the way that Wright disparages white people.
Then the Grandmother thing - PLEASE! Now you are just as bad as Wright if you've been afraid of black men passing you in the street? That's crazy. It's not racist to be afraid. People are afraid of white men in leather jackets on Harley's with tattoos also and not all of them are bad people. It's what happens. You see crime on the news and it's committed often by people dressed similarly and you then tend to fear people that look a certain way. I'm sure his grandmother wasn't afraid of the black man in an Armani suit and expensive tie carrying an expensive brief case and walking around in a business district. Even if she was, private fear is not the same as hate and it's certainly not the same as preaching hate to a crowd of people.
The one small small thing Obama did was admit that welfare is partly responsible for some of the problems in the black community, but if you blinked (I found it hard to stay awake during his speech) then you missed it. He spent much more time talking about more welfare type programs so he obviously doesn't understand the link and just gave it lip service.
Obama is a phony.
Well Dee, I have asked a
March 18, 2008 - 23:20 ET by JerWell Dee, I have asked a couple of others to show how or where Obama lied, and thus far I have encountered nothing but a deafening silence. You instead use the term "contradictions", so I will pose the same question to you. As I stated to the others, my understanding is that Obama admits to hearing some controversial remarks spoken by Reverend Wright over the years, but denies hearing the particularly incendiary words which have sparked the current controversy. Can you show me otherwise?
Also, Obama never said the Reagan Revolution was built on "racism" or that talk show hosts spread "racism". He did say there was exploitation of white "resentment", some of which was legitimate and some merely perception.
By the way, I have been very critical of Wright and Obama's association with him. But I thought, on the whole, this was a very positive speech.
Jer
With respect, I disagree strongly
March 19, 2008 - 00:11 ET by KC MulvilleWhat we're saying is that Obama argued that the reason he didn't jettison his pastor is because the pastor didn't say those words in his presence. But surely, he must have know that this is how the pastor felt, so why try to dodge on the actual words? If you want to dance on the head of legal pins, you can get in line with the other crass and venal politicians, but Obama claimed to be above such crudity. Turns out he's as artful a dodger as any other hack politician.
Jer, just my opinion, but the speech wasn't positive. He delivered his speech smoothly and calmly, but his rationale was based on the same old liberal assumptions. The delivery was assuring, but the argument behind the speech was as incendiary as any Sharpton harangue.
Jer's argument = it depends on what the definition of is is
March 19, 2008 - 08:54 ET by Dee BunkLike KC said, this isn't some legal argument and Obama said before that he never heard Wright make these type of controversial statements. Now he says he heard him make controversial statements. What are the controversial statements he made that we haven't heard yet?
It's clear that Obama tried to give the impression before (despite his nuanced definition of "is" words) that he had not been present for this type of hate spewing. Now after realizing that people have witnesses him there he backtracks.
I don't doubt that Jer saw his speech as positive. Like everyone of Obama's speeches he implies that all the racial divisiveness is coming from conservatives and conservative politicians. In this speech he admitted that African Americans have some problems with race but he didn't put any of the blame where most of it belongs and that is on Dem politicians who use the African American community by fostering and and then capitalizing on their hate to keep them on the plantation.
I agree with you, there is
March 19, 2008 - 06:36 ET by Ruths husband BenI agree with you, there is no contradictions here. Move along. Nothing to see here folks, but a new hope for liberalism.....
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they
made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.” Obama (talking about Imus)
"Oh, rrrreaaaalllllyyyy????" RHB
Well Dee, I have asked a
March 19, 2008 - 07:27 ET by motherbeltWell Dee, I have asked a couple of others to show how or where Obama
lied, and thus far I have encountered nothing but a deafening silence.
Maybe you encountered deafening silence because you posed your questions at almost midnight. Myself, I was in bed at 2330, as others probably were.
But you can go back into that other thread now and see that I answered you. I posted you links that show he knew the pastor was not someone he wanted connected to his campaign a year ago.
You keep challenging people to show you that he was aware of the specific remarks (G damn America!) in that video. As far as I'm aware, no one has claimed that he was there for that particular sermon; only that he knew Rev. Wright was bad news for his campaign (do you suppose he didn't want him around because he was a lousy dresser?) at least a year ago.
If you want to hinge your entire argument on the fact that he was not in the church to hear that particular rant, you are welcome to take solace in that.
Whatever gets you through the night.
Obama lied, credibility died
March 19, 2008 - 07:36 ET by Mica the MagnificentObama claiming he wasn't there when Jeremiah spewed his hate so therefore he didn't know anything, is like saying you didn't know about WWII because you weren't born yet.
Well, Mica, apparently Jer
March 19, 2008 - 07:55 ET by motherbeltWell, Mica, apparently Jer thinks that will fly......
my understanding is that
March 19, 2008 - 07:51 ET by Free Thinkermy understanding is that Obama admits to hearing some controversial remarks spoken by Reverend Wright over the years, but denies hearing the particularly incendiary words which have sparked the current controversy. Can you show me otherwise? \
This misses the point entirely. It doesn't matter if Obama heard the comment or not. This is equivalent of saying that a klansman's racist views are acceptable because he never heard the grand poobah of the klan speak.
Wright is a person Obama has called his mentor. Obama has chaose to be a member of this church for 20 years. Whether or not he heard Wright say something does not change the fact that the mission and philosophy of the church he is a member of is anti-American racism. Obama wants to be President but not have his character judged by those who will vote.
Obama had to give a speech yesterday, and despite the fawning of the msm which was typical, the speech failed. He had a chance to denounce Wright and distance himself from the hateful views of wright and his organization and he didn't do it, instead he made another failed case for more liberalism to cure the woes brought on by liberalism. It was a horrible speach that missed its mark and this is an issue that will probably kill his Presidential hopes.
The BHO speech was not forceful, and in no way explained anythin
March 19, 2008 - 07:04 ET by PawpawNWhat did his speech explain, other than "I'm a politician and want to be powerful and President, so I'm going to appease everyone in a short speech!" Overlooked in the whole thing is he did not say GOD BLESS AMERICA! Here's more on my take: Yesterday's speech did more to set back race than anything in the last 14 years-only OJ did close to the same. We now know that churches are spewing hatred of America, hatred of the white man, hatred of corp America, etc. The candidate of UNITY has now shattered the fragile layer of race relations by never totally distancing himself from words of pure hatred. His statement of not agreeing is too simple. If you stay in a room full of fleas, you are not able to keep all the fleas off! When you continue in an environment that does not change, it changes you, you do not change it. Really what he said just reiterates some of what Repubs have said for years-programs to make things better do not work. We the people believe it is people that make things work, not government! He spouts about how the blacks and lower class whites have been put down by the rich-this is hatred speech. Some blacks and whites have rose to monetary status because they did not believe they were to be kept by the government, but that they could, with the will of GOD and their own hard work, succeed! He talked of lines in the emergency rooms of hospitals of people without insurance. They don't have it because they won't pay for it! Not because it isn't available! He brings up Dr King, well, to borrow from someone else, BHO you are no MLK! And what did the ASHLEY story have to do with anything. 14 years ago, let's see, Bill Clinton in WH. Poor Ashley's mother had cancer[I'm sorry for her and her family], and he says she lost her job because she missed work and lost her health care. Well if she had health care, it would continue under Cobra for a certain period of time. Ashley ate relish and mustard sandwiches. Did not any church know of Ashley and her mom's fate. My church helps those in need. It's supposed to be a story to inspire, but I read a sign recently that said, "Aspire to inspire before you expire!". Good words to go by. The Ashley story has too many missing components. I've love to know more, know why no one helped in her neighborhood, church, etc. To finish his story he says the elderly black man says only "I'm here because of Ashley", but never really explains it-was it because she went to his home and said come out, or was it because she related the story to him, or just what? The speech was void of any real substance. Lost in it all was his use of the church to talk politics-thought DIMs wanted no "church and state"! He constantly threw in GIVEAWAY programs while saying welfare state has harmed us-total contradiction in own statements. If Rev Wright's statements weren't so bad, why did the website of the church take off some of their mission statement, etc.-again total contradiction. He stated all churches get into talk like this-never been to a church in my life that does and if they did I'd leave! Says he could have just moved on and not addressed this-he knew that was politicial suicide-again total contradiction. He says stagnant wages-where, didn't we increase minimum wage, because of unions, etc, people get raises every year. He says jobs shipped overseas, well how about the reason why-UNIONS. Didn't talk about overseas jobs that come here-take Toyota, & others for example-total contradiction. He spewed hate talk himself about conservatives and Reagan Coalition, etc.-total contradiction to his supposed message. Why say "a candidacy as imperfect as my own." Looking for sympathy vote! Then again went in bad welfare state then straight into govt giveaway programs-total contradiction. Said Rev Wright had CONSERVATIVE ideas-wow, where did that come from-TOTAL CONTRADICTION! When he said "We have a choice in this country", he went into listing OJ trail, Katarina, etc., all statements to inflame, racial statements-total contradiction to his message! He spoke of shuttered businesses-but failed to note reason they're shuttered is because they did not keep up with technology, not becuase of anything bad-TOTAL CONTRADICTION. He talked of HOMES taken away-they were taken away because the people tried to live over theimeans!-total contradiction. His perfecting the USA statement lost the fact that we will not be perfected till we put the past behind us, learn from it and go on-the Old Testament is history, we learn from it-the NEW TESTAMENT gave us JESUS CHRIST and how to live. He ended on some story that had no beginning and no end-no story. And never a GOD BLESS AMERICA! That's one man's opinion!
As if...
March 18, 2008 - 23:23 ET by acumenAs if Obama is a casual observer of wierd uncle Jeremiah watching just out of hearing distance from the narthex. When in fact he is a collaborator in division, perpetually dissatisfied, preaching a doctine of social change. He is infatuated with a larger societal splinter of dwindling social injustice oblivious to the 20 year old timber growth of hate exploding from the stained glass eyes of his church.
What are the doctrines that Obama chooses to clothe with the name social? In actual fact they are nothing but arrogance and the very opposite of charity, because they neither want nor practise the justice they preach. On the contrary they overflow with hatred which do not relieve oppressed people but increase their numbers to the advantage of a few arrogant fellows that dare ask how Obama could have handled this better.
Paula Abdul politics
March 18, 2008 - 23:33 ET by KC MulvilleOn American Idol, we can always count on Paula Abdul to rave about the performance, no matter how bad. All the singer has to do is warble in that year's preferred style, and the judges will offer a glowing tribute. Pretty soon, the contestants realize that it isn't their own talent that matters; it's the style that the judges are looking for. One year, it's Whitney Houston pop. Another year, it's white rocker. If you sing country, and it's a soul year, just give up now, because they ain't gonna pick you, no matter how good you are.
This year, the New York Times and Chris Matthews are looking for an electable liberal. So long as you give them what they want, they'll give you the Paula Abdul treatment: i.e., glowing tributes, even if you botched the song horribly. It's not about what Obama can do, it's the image and style that the NYTimes and NBC are trying to sell.
Obama's speech was nothing. He told us that, yes, there is racism. Racism makes blacks angry. Slavery was bad enough, but the post-slavery discrimination still goes on, and that makes blacks even angrier. What's the answer for it? Obama's answer is that we have repair slavery's damage by pouring money into bad schools and offer free healthcare. Stop giving money to corporate white people who are already filthy rich. In other words, if you want to cure racism, and make blacks happy again, vote Democrat. Vote for him.
Well ...
But those questions won't matter. This is Paula time for liberals.
At Full Tilt
March 18, 2008 - 23:53 ET by third eyeIf this ever happened to the Clintons -- twenty year relationship or not -- Rev Wright would be shoved under the proverbial BarocketShip at light speed, without so much as a blink of an eye. And thats what I expected to hear today frankly. Barack's hesitance to do that does not bode well for his general election strategy, where its quite obvious to the Casual Observer that when your friends are giving awards to Louis Farrakhan, you are instantaneously disqualified as a Moderate.
3 Things I Learned From The Speech
March 19, 2008 - 00:19 ET by The_Pumpcrop1. White racism is evil. Black racism is okay, it's expected. So many African Americans on my TV today saying how whites don't get it, whites are the racists and blacks are just "venting" and that there is only one and ONLY one racism in America: WHITE racism!
2. Obama is a shifty and really can't be trusted. The speech was so full of... well, bull. Yes, but no. I never, but yes I did. To fix the problem we must band aid SOMETHING! The two little examples was so.... Off: Grandmother and the WHITE girl volunteer? (I've already heard jokes birthed from his speech).
3. Our spineless media (or Dem lovin') ignore the first two. Not very many pointed out the hypocrisy under the pretty blanket of eloquent words. Praise, praise, praise.
I am NOT nor never have been a "racist". Raised in the military it was just never a conscious thought. But according to this speech, I am, you are, America is... But just the white parts.
Pumpcrop
March 19, 2008 - 00:30 ET by MrShyI am NOT nor never have been a "racist". Raised in the military it was just never a conscious thought.
And therein lies the ugly machine at work here. What's at play is to keep this in our conscience.... "race", "racism", "whites and blacks".
Aaah, of course! Just the medicine for moving beyond racism. Keep it in the spotlight, tell us every day that it exists. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy that sustains this myth of on-going racism... the gift that keeps on giving.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Obama speaks, the MSM swoons
March 19, 2008 - 02:09 ET by DaMavI guess they are so anxious to see a Democrat in the White House that
they think the issue will go away with a few slick lines, but that
seems unlikely.
Obama
offers reconciliation of the races, provided whites agree to legitimize
the most extreme ideas and demands of black America by not casting
out their spokespersons. This undercuts black moderates who have been under attack as race
traitors by the very forces Obama himself refuses to disown. Listening
to Wright calling Rice and Powell disgusting names is apparently
excusable if they are in a Republican administration. Reconciliation
need not be extended to those blacks who are not liberal Democrats. The
only reconciliation available to Obama is our acceptance of the
harshest words for our country, and tin foil hat theories of how evil
our government is. He has a right to his opinion of course, but not to
be our President if he will not draw the line and claim ownership. And
how can he claim ownership of a government cast as tyranical, devious,
murderous, terrorist, and evil incarnate?
This is a blind
alley that Obama seeks to lead the nation into. It is not a step toward
equality, but an enfranchisement of permanent grievance and victimhood
for blacks, and permanent overclass status for white liberals who
adjudicate their grievances at the expense of everyone else.
Obama
could have put his foot down and condemned the entitlement and
victimhood train, pointing out that it was going nowhere. Instead he
seeks to legitimize it as the price for racial harmony, offered only by
himself because of his half-black, half-white status. But what does
America get out of this "solution"? Villification? Infamy? Perpetual
indebtedness? Reparations? And yet more attacks in spite of it all?
I
can't blame Obama alone. He has plenty of help in pushing us toward the
blind alley of hate -- the liberal MSM is seeking to annoint him as
Savior, as the next step up from King. The reality is that he has more
Sharpton than King to him, he's just a lot better speaker. His refusal
to sever the bonds with the hatemongers pushing the concept of America
as the Great Satan will ultimately be his undoing, no matter how many
palm fronds are waved by the MSM.
Our job, as Americans proud
of our country though cognizant of its shortcomings, is to make sure
that Obama never gets the chance to impose his phony brand of
redemption upon our national soul.
Kool-Aid
March 19, 2008 - 06:28 ET by DanoI think he's a wolf in sheeps clothing. No one wants to hit this head on. He's a closet racist, period. Look who he hangs with. He stated in terms that his grandma was a racist?
However the libs are lining up for refills ok kool-aid.
OBAMA'S HUBRIS
March 19, 2008 - 06:47 ET by political mavenHis implication is that people have a problem with him because he's black, thereby challenging the country to get past racism by voting for him.
In reality he & the blacks are the racists. Blacks are voting for him because he's black. (over 90%).
The reason most people don't like him is because he is a leftist liberal.
He sat for years with that Wright character & never disassociated himself from him until it was politically expedient to do so. Then the drooling media swallows it whole!
So this pompous nothing is going to equate himself with the founders & talk about how through him we can complete the war against racism?! This guy is actually starting to believe his own kool-aid drinkers!
He is an American hating nothing, (who says nothing but platitudes), like his wife & mentor!
If a guy like Walter Williams were running we would flock to him...because of his ideas, not his skin shade ...he's not even half white like Obama.
Finally, it's ironic to hear liberals talk about slavery, when in fact they & the rest of the gang in Washington, enslave us daily. Confiscating the fruits of our labor & handing them to people (social programs) is slavery by definition!
Two Black Conservatives
March 19, 2008 - 07:48 ET by AgnosticRice and Powell were both begged to run by the racist conservatives with nearly everyone assuming they would win nomination in a landside and both refused to run. Also, Walter Williams would be a great running mate for Senator McCain because of the Senator's own admission about being weak on economics and I believe this would give the Republican ticket the fiscal conservative look they need to push a lot of obstainers/write-in voters to go ahead and vote for McCain.
Don't see it happening but still shows that the Republicans are the racist that the MSM are trying imply.
Williams would cause me to vote for the ticket.
March 19, 2008 - 08:03 ET by sarcasmoLet me say for the record, McCain's WAY too much of a RINO for him to ever accept Prof. Williams as a VP. Not gonna happen -- Rudy's FAR more-likely.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
agree sarc,
March 19, 2008 - 10:42 ET by AgnosticUnfortunately for Senator McCain he does not need someone else whose claim to fame is his handling the crisis of 9-11. He needs someone who is sound economic advisor and is very level headed. Prof. Williams fits both of those criteria. Like you said it won't happen but Rudy is not help and Senator McCain needs help regardless of what the polls say because he hasn't even become the focus of the media yet and they are already downplaying him. Rice and Powell would be good but they bring baggage and there areas of expertice is already have already been conceded by the Democrats. The only other person that would give credibility as a economic expert in the VP slot would either be Paul or Romney and they both come with heavy baggage as well.
Grandma
March 19, 2008 - 07:11 ET by catnamedjakePoor Grandma! He did throw her under the bus. And seeing as she does not grant interviews, she won't be defending herself. He can't disown "reverend racist"? Are they related by blood? Is Jwright getting an inheritance from BHO? I have heard mixed reviews from the Dems, I really don't think it did as much damage control as he would have liked. It also has occurred to me that it may be Michelle that has fueled Obamas "blackness". She's the angry one (her college thesis) Think about it. He lived with his white grandparents as a boy. For all he knew, he was white.
The art of misdirection
March 19, 2008 - 07:30 ET by c5thenObama's speach was verbal Tai Chi, and not very good either.
Instead of explaining how and why he has chosen a racist and anti-American as his "spiratual adviser", he instead tried to turn the attention to race in general and that fact that there are those who are still prejudiced and practice bigotry. DUH!!!! He wants people to believe and accept that while he disagrees with what his spiratual adviser says, he still "respects" him as an individual. Huh??!! If you disagree with his positions, why is he your adviser? He wants people to believe that since he's been going to that church for 20 years, he is stuck there and can not change churches. As if it's the only Christian church in the Chicago area.
The questions were never about is racism still here, or even if we can rise above it. The question was, and still is sadly, why Obama has chosen this man to be one of his most trusted advisers and why he has chosen this congregation to call his spiratual family. He never addressed those fundimental questions, so we can only assume that there are reasons and that he doesn't want to talk about them.
If you want a Black man to vote for but find Obama's ideas and positions anathema to you, I suggest you check into Alan Keyes. Listen to some of his speeches here. You'll see that he makes Obama seem like Barney Fife (played by Don Knotts). It is likely that Abassador Keyes will be running under the Constitution Party for the November election since the Republican party turned their back on him during the primaries.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Great post, c5! Even the
March 19, 2008 - 07:36 ET by motherbeltGreat post, c5! Even the billing of the speech was "a speech on race" (not a speech to address the controversy) as if we needed a lecture from him, not an explanation.
He wants people to believe and accept that while he disagrees with what
his spiratual adviser says, he still "respects" him as an individual
His campaign also released a statement saying he was proud of his pastor and his church
I'm like you; I thought "how is that possible?" It's like saying you're "proud" of your father, even though you denounce the fact that he beats your mother!
We here all see this contradiction, as I'm sure a lot of others do. But the media are so enthralled by the way he says things that they are blinded to what he is saying.
I've heard Alan Keyes, and Obama is no Keyes
March 19, 2008 - 08:30 ET by JayTeeObama doesn't come close to Alan K's Intellect. . . and I would like to hear from the Black Community about the "Stained Constitution" Remark from Obama.
It's like waiting for Islam to critique Al Queda ? Jesse J, weigh in on this, explain it. . . Rev. Sharpton, is this Wright guy in Tune with Black churches all across America ?
Non-Attending White Guys wanna know.
Perfect Timing
March 19, 2008 - 07:35 ET by capavLeading up to Easter Sunday, the msm should play a new song when talking about Obama. O-bama-hey-bama-bama-bama-o-bama-hey-bama-o-bama. It's really a great Jesus Christ Superstar song.
According to Obammy this
March 19, 2008 - 07:37 ET by ConservativeRexAccording to Obammy this presidential race IS about race. Dang, everyone was saying we have moved past this. I guess they lied.
If the MSM dropped the
March 19, 2008 - 08:15 ET by KillgraveIf the MSM dropped the cheerleader act, and actually did its job, it would ask the following questions to this jug-eared dope:
1) In the 20 years your ass sat in that pew, has your father-figure mentor up on the pulpet ever said anything that angered you?
2) If so, how often has this happend? Did you do anything about it?
The simple question to us is, do we want a president who will sit there, say nothing, and do nothing when someone in his presence bashes our country, our citizens, and our government? And I'm asking this giving Obama 100% benefit of the doubt.
Well I see the NYT is up to
March 19, 2008 - 09:38 ET by ConservativeRexWell I see the NYT is up to it's old standards..of completely missing a chance to report something honestly. Obamas speach was laughable and a complete lie.