Obama strikes back at Nader over 'talking white' blast
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 25, 2008 at 4:24 p.m.
Photo by Alex Brandon © AP
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks at an economic competitiveness summit at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., Thursday, June 26, 2008.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama dismissed racially charged criticism from independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader today, saying Nader was using inflammatory remarks to get attention for a candidacy that "hasn't gotten any traction."
At a televised news conference from Chicago, Obama responded to statements Nader made in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News this week, when he accused Obama of ignoring poverty issues, trying to "talk white" and play on "white guilt" to get elected.
"Ralph Nader is trying to get attention. He has become the perennial political candidate," Obama said in the news conference broadcast on cable news networks. "I think it's a shame, because if you look at his legacy in terms of consumer protections it's an extraordinary one. But at this point, he's somebody who's trying to get attention and his campaign hasn't gotten any traction."
"(There are) better ways to get traction than to make an inflammatory statement like the one that he made," Obama said. "It is what it is."
In Monday's interview at Nader's Washington, D.C., campaign headquarters, Nader was asked if Obama is any different than Democrats he has criticized in the past, considering Obama's pledge to reject campaign contributions from registered lobbyists.
Nader repeated some statements he has made in the past, questioning Obama's willingness to talk about issues affecting low-income, predominantly minority communities. But then he went a step further by referring to Obama's race.
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."
Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to "talk white," Nader said: "Of course.
"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."
Later in the interview, Nader said of Obama: "He wants to show that he is not a threatening ... another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."
Initially, the Obama campaign had little response to the Rocky Mountain News interview, expressing disappointment and calling the remarks "backward-looking."
But the story dominated the cable television networks and various online politics sites throughout the day, and Obama was asked to respond at a news conference in his home town of Chicago.
"What's clear is Ralph Nader hadn't been paying attention to my speeches," Obama said, citing various town hall meetings and speeches he has conducted to highlight issues like predatory lending, the housing foreclosure crisis and others.
Nader said he plans to travel to Denver during this summer's Democratic National Convention, hoping to highlight an alternative agenda that he thinks the party should pursue. His appearance in the city is sure to anger some Democrats who believe his presence on the ballot during the contested 2000 election cost Al Gore votes, helping Republican George Bush win the disputed election.
Nader rejects that blame, saying Democrats "scapegoated" him instead of looking at other factors that contributed to the defeat.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 25, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_Galt writes:
If you vote for the Democrat ticket, you can count on gas rationing in a few of years.
After all, they are the party that has been blocking drilling for our own reserves off the east & west coasts and in ANWR (a God-forsaken place on this planet if there ever was one).
How will it make you feel when some liberal Democrat (that you elected) tells you that you are only allowed 10 gallons of gas a week?
When you realize that you won't be able to get to work or to the store or to take the kids to weekend activities on your weekly ration, how smug will you be then?
Do you think that Democrats will reward you for electing them?
Don't you realize that it's all about personal power to the Democrats?
They want to tell you what you can and can't do!!
OBAMA = CHANGE THAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT!!
June 25, 2008
6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
Wasn't Obama's mother white? Shouldn't he talk white then? Am I missing something? I don't necessarily support his politics either BTW.
June 25, 2008
6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Loitering writes:
A.N.W.R is worthless as a short term solution it will take 15 years to bring it to market and that includes anywhere else they want to drill. By the time it reaches the market we will be way past gas rationing to an America standing still and left behind. Everyone needs to get it through their heads, "THE DAYS OF OIL ARE ENDING!" Even if we did bring every drop of oil in the states to the market, there is so little of it it might have a small impact for a few years. So that pretty much leaves us with three options: 1. Take over the middle east and dont share 2. Keep paying Saudi scumbags for our fix which will only get more expensive as demand increases. 3. Find a new alternitive fuel or energy source It seems pretty clear to me what needs to be done, McCains petty few billion isnt going to cut it and Obama's pledge of $150 Billion probaly only gets us half way there. Wake up people! This recession is only the beginning if we dont get it together now. To you Rush re-gurgetators, do the world a favor and keep your mouth closed! If your not part of the solution then your part of the problem, and your stale non-ideas have no use in the new energy revolution. Try real hard John and sift through any factual evidence you can find, oil is done for and every pollitician knows it they just want to take as much out your pocket as they can, while they still can. With all due respect, please open up your mind and do a little thinking for yourself instead of reciting the GOP talking points.
June 25, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
oceanview78382 writes:
If any of you have ever had to deal with Nader in person, you'd know what an egotistical and condescending person he is. I remember he would only hire attorneys from certain top schools _ he talked to be because I went to Cal Berkeley but any from a Colorado school or many of the good colleges around the country - he sneered at you.
He's done some good things but he fits the opposite of "if you meet him you'll like him"
June 25, 2008
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
JCS1958 writes:
I think you are just easting your time John_Galt. smart money says the man you support (because he is your party's man) is not going to win this election.
Face it, Dubya turned out to be the very worst president in the current voter's memories. He lied to get the US in an unpopular war, an impeachable offense. The bills he signed over the last eight years have done immeasurable damage to the economy. It is clear that he is president ONLY because the GOP put him there. Frankly, he is nothing short of stupid.
You can post whatever vague "warnings" and "observations" about Obama you like. You can outright LIE about his past and future political actions, as so many conservatives are prone to do. But in the end, and becasue of a Republican president that is nothing short of imcompetant, he is likely going to be the next president.
And your party has put him there.
June 25, 2008
6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
alwaysright writes:
Who is this Obama person ya'll are talking about ?
June 25, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Selfthink40 writes:
Hey John Galt!
Did you realize that almost all the oil coming from Alaska is exported to the Pacific rim countries such as Singapore, Japan, China, as well as Canada and Mexico? With all the proceeds going to the BIG FAT PROFITS of the oil companies? Oh well, it's the least we can do for the Chinese, who are going to own us someday, thanks to the irresponsible (and stupid) policies of your heros in this current administration. I just don't get the argument for more domestic drilling since that oil goes on the world market, and does not stay here anyway. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE!!! It is a money grab by rich oil companies and greedy wall st. speculators who, like you, use SCAAARRRY scenarios like that crap in your blog! By the way, it wasn't the democrats that made your dollar worthless by cutting taxes AND starting a war! Then borrowing foreign money to cover the deficit.That accounts for a large percent of the spike in crude prices. Remember, $90.00 is now $140.00. Now THAT is what is REALLY scary! But then again you will never hear that on the Sean Hannity show!
June 25, 2008
7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Selfthink40 writes:
Hey Shaggy,
Did you know that Sadam got his "weapons of mass destruction" from your pals in the Reagan administration? And then also gassed over 100,000 Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war in addition to the Kurds? But dont wory he made up for it by selling more weapons to the Iranians, remember that little thing called Iran - Contra? Just a few pesky inconvient facts that conservitives like to ignore!
June 25, 2008
7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_Galt writes:
For all of you liberal know-nothings.
Fact 1 - There is enough oil in ANWR to replace the oil we import from Saudi Arabia for up to 40 years. Yes, it will take time to develop ANWR, but rather late than never. Only liberal clowns who would rather protect a barren piece of land than American citizens would disagree.
Fact 2 - There are enough proven reserves of oil in shale in Colorado & Utah to last America's needs for 100 years. We have way more proven oil in shale reserves than the entire Middle East. While not yet cost efficient, we have the technology to extract it & re-vitalize the lands that are disturbed.
Fact 3 - Bush never lied about Iraq. There has never been one piece of solid evidence to support that statement. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that those liberals who say Bush is lying are the true liars in our country.
Fact 4 - Regulations promoted by liberals has prevented the construction of any new oil refineries for over 30 years.
OBAMA = THE KIND OF CHANGE WE CAN DO WITHOUT !!
June 25, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Selfthink40 writes:
Your right, they did. Cheney still holds the recipts! I just can't understand when it seemed like a good idea to provide a military dictator with chemical and biological weapons, and expect him not to use them, (yea right). And they did find them. A few canisters of 25 year old chemical weapons that had U.S on them. By the way if he had so much, why didn't he use them when he was being invaded, and why were there NO Iraqi's involved in the 9-11 attacks? No,they were almost all Saudi Arabians...our "friends" in the region...just more pesky facts....
June 25, 2008
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Selfthink40 writes:
I appologize Gene, I meant Reagan sold weapons to Iran, then diverted those funds to the Contras. Without the approval of congress, (highly illegal you know). Remember the whole Oliver North trials, when Reagan claimed executive privelege and refused to testify, leaving Col. North to stand on his own? That event happened after arming Sadam with chemical weapons. So hey, the next time Sean Hannity asks "What would Reagan DO?" You can answer with some "pesky facts".
June 25, 2008
9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Shaggy writes:
"Bush has kept us safe from terrorists attacks since 9/11."
Guess again. Who was president on 9/11? We were *attacked* on his watch. That there's been no subsequent successful attack is hardly due to the incompetent AWOL-in-Chief's efforts. He's not caught UBL yet, has he. Says he doesn't even spend time on it. Real great.
And McCain's aide says an attack between now and the election would be *good* for Republicans??? Are you pulling my leg? He actually thinks McCain, who's said he's worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent terrorism, would look *good* if he failed? Republicans would look *good* if there were another attack? Why on earth do they "think" we Americans would vote for the fools in charge on 9/11 AND on another attack when they failed?
Sounds like Republican logic.
June 25, 2008
9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Loitering writes:
Fact - ANWR at peak production in 2028 will only offset the world oil price by 0.4-1.0 cent per barrel. Whoopee! Read the government report at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerp...
Fact - Oil shale cant produce modern gas it can however produce diesel. Look it up in any encyclopedia its missing several key hydro carbons used in fuel chemistry. As well it does not do anything to address environmental concerns, if we are going to invest all these resources and money we might as well kill two birds with one stone. Oh and it became economic to produce at $80 a barrel.
Fact- Bush lied his butt off to get us into Iraq, personally I have no dilemma with taking out an insane and dangerous tyrant. I don't like the way its been ran and criminal actions can be tied right to the president ie. Weapons of mass destruction, Outing intelligence operatives, Linking Saddam to Bin Laden, Domestic spying with out a warrant, Torture and many other assorted war crimes.
The administration lied and mislead us, they have broken laws and violated constitutional and human rights. Don't feel too bad I voted for this jerk to, Im a reformed republican looking for a better way. After they sold my job overseas all I had left in common with them was guns and abortion. Thank god for the liberal, socialist, big government, welfare program that put me through school for a new career so I could take care of my family.
There's a couple little pesky facts for you.
June 25, 2008
10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Hey Whining, Mindless Liberals -
What is your solution then? I don't mind high gas prices...I live/work in the city and don't drive much. When it really comes down to it, I can afford whatever it costs anyhow. It is really the poor (Democrat voter base) that are being hit the hardest...
So, you say, bad oil companies!
It is supply and demand you knuckleheads! They have it, and (as is usually the case in your lives) you don't! So, either pay up and stop complaining or develop a solution (and not just that the oil companies should just give it away to you open palmed losers).
Should we drill for our own? Pay the piper and compete in the world market? Stop driving? Hold hands and sing kumbaya? C'mon smart people... you tell us what the solution is... If you have a secret recipe for a fuel alternative then I know plenty of people that would pay you handsomely for it. If not, pipe it because you have nothing more to offer than a bunch of whining!
And by the way, although this is self-evident to anyone with half a brain, more taxes won't help you out of this little problem.
June 25, 2008
10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
chiy writes:
Shaggy...
Who praised Clinton or Carter in this thread? Try to pay attention to the conversation at hand instead of the voices in your head.
The only reason Reagan's ugly specter was raised was to provide you with one of your pesky facts. Sometimes we have to "dwell on the past" to explain the blowback we have to clean up in the present. I'm sure you have a framed copy of the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand over your fireplace.
If you want more pesky facts about the lies that led to the Iraq War, pick up a book called, "Assassin's Gate." It contains 450 pages of pesky facts culled mostly from sources inside the Bush Administration.
June 25, 2008
10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
chiy writes:
Time and Again...
Have you read any of the posts by the "whining liberals?" (and why do the stupidest conservatives pepper their posts with words like "mindless" and "half a brain" on their way to saying nothing at all?)
Have you read about the new Apollo Project? Do you know what the new Manhattan Project was? The former is the latest incarnation of the latter. It's an all-out focus on creating new forms of energy. Remember the space program of the 1960's? Do you know how many technological advances resulted when private industry and NASA combined their forces? The new Manhattan Project was put forth by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon after the oil embargo of 1973. It included alternative energy like solar. In fact, Carter even installed solar panels on the White House.
Then Reagan was elected. So long, new Manhattan Project. So long solar panels. He spent your taxpayer money to have them removed, in order to make a political statement and show his undying allegiance to the energy status quo. It's because of thinking like Reagan's and thinking like yours that we can enjoy cheap gas forever and to hell with our children. HJohn Gait warns that we won't be able to take our kids out on the weekends. If we rely on oil from ANWAR and the Florida coast and ignore alternative energy, our kids won't be able get to work at Walmart on their mopeds let alone take their kids out on the weekends.
Thanks Reagan. Thanks Phil Gramm (R TX) for paving the way for energy speculators during the Bush 41 term. Thanks for Enron. Thanks Clinton for sitting on his cigar and doing nothing about it.
June 25, 2008
10:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Openminded1 writes:
"I don't mind high gas prices...I live/work in the city and don't drive much. When it really comes down to it, I can afford whatever it costs anyhow. It is really the poor (Democrat voter base) that are being hit the hardest"...
I can't Believe he made this statement..LOL LOL LOL..
June 25, 2008
11:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
ES writes:
Looks like Obama has a lower IQ than G.W. Bush and he hasn't had to make a tough decision yet.
June 25, 2008
11:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
chiy writes:
ES...
Huh?
June 25, 2008
11:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
CyberHostage writes:
Where does Ralph Nader disappear to for 3.5 years out of every 4? He should go there now. Here, we'll arrange for a Corvair, Ford Pinto or Explorer (with over-inflated Firestone tires) to pick him up.
June 26, 2008
3:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
jugdish writes:
I come to this country and do many job I do not like. But do it to feed and educate children. When I became citizen I study hard on how politics here work. I just dont know how man like Mr. Obama make change for better. His experience lacking. President Bush have more experience and look at all his problem. This country need leader from business world. Those CEOs no mess around. Some I work for very good leader. They get things done. Sad but politics here all about power not people. Keep goverment out my pocket. Use it to fix what wrong and hold people accountible for what they do. As for family, it my job to raise and educate children. Teach write and wrong. I not educated man but I know enough now to see problem if democrat elected. They not about individial responsible. They about controlling power. How can so many educated american not see this? No matter it take me till 65 I will get education at college. And you see it wont change what I see as my responsible.
June 26, 2008
4:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
If this is the best America can offer up for the job, we are in trouble. Somewhere in this nation, is a great man yet to be king.
June 26, 2008
5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
oceanview78382 writes:
shaggy writes ( or attempts to write) "Saddam needed to be outed" He might have meant OUSTED but was probably having gay daydreams about the former leader and made a slip.
As for Bush keeping us safe from 9-11, why should our enemies travel all the way over here when they've killed more Americans that died in 9-11 right there in the middle east. Its far better for them to kill US troops there because 9-11 was a public relations nightmare as many of the 3000 killed were not Americans. Killing soldiers increases their support, killing civilians doesn't.
Shaggy won't understand this -he's probably daydreaming of who else can be "outed".
June 26, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
hemnebob writes:
i agree with obama...
ralph, you have no traction in today's world.
stop looking like and old fartbag!
June 26, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Oh no.... CATFIGHT!
"Obama strikes back at Nader"
Like too spineless, toothless weasels pawing each other, with nothing more than some hissing and spitting......
June 26, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Why did Obama give this legs by responding to Nader in the first place? When asked, he could have responded with a simple shake of his head and a tired, sympathetic smile to be interpreted as "That poor guy ... let's move on."
Responding gave (some small) creedence to Nader. A mistake. Obama still has a lot to learn about politics at the national level.
June 26, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Senator Obama just heaved a mighty sigh of relief.
In deciding that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals, the supreme court has removed the greatest threat to the Obama campaign - millions of angry gun owners motivated to vote for conservative court appointments.
The Illinois senator has been very careful on this issue and it now appears that his caution is paying off.
June 26, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
there are some folks from the right who apparently have forgotten the list:
iraq did not have the wmds for which the republicans took us to war
iraq did not pose a threat to the US
iraq did not have a working relationship with al qaeda
iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11
the iraq war has made us less safe (according to bush's own director of counterintelligence)
the iraq war has taken our military "to the breaking point" (according to our own generals on the ground)
the iraq war has left us less financially secure (by unnecessarily adding trillions of dollars to our long term debt load)
the iraq war has allowed al qaeda to restrengthen to 9/10 levels and allowed the taliban to retake most of afghanistan
let's not pretend otherwise, okay shag?
June 26, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Jay -
Maybe Obama will take you to Iran when he goes over there to "talk" it out. You will surely be able to help work out any misunderstandings that the Iranians have with us and all of the West.
June 26, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
i bet obama is thinking "damn someone actually called me out on my campaign strategy".
June 26, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
"John Gait" is a typical conspiracy theorist scared of the gov't. republican. John McCain only within the last few weeks flip-flopped and stated he is now for, was against, the drilling for oil you speak of. That was one of COUNTLESS items he has flip-flopped on recently in his "I'LL SAY ANYTHING TO BE PRESIDENT" campaign. He has gone AGAINST everything he professed, drilling for oil, willing to stay in Iraq for "100 years" if that's what it takes. Now he says they must set a time line and get out of there soon. FLIP-FLOP FLIP-FLOP.
June 26, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
"Fact 3 - Bush never lied about Iraq. "
wow. you really do have on some HEAVY-DUTY blinders. I mean, we are talking the elephant-sized ones you see in the circus.
June 26, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
marine grunt, if you'll see this link, that issue is explained in detail including a bipartisan senate report on the matter.
the relevant post was April 14, 2008, 3:39 p.m. in response to some willful ignorance...as luck would have it.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
timey...i'd be all for going to iran and hashing some stuff out.
time to listen to our own military and intelligence communities and abandon the mcsame strategy of "disengagement". hasn't worked in iran. hasn't worked in nk. hasn't worked in syria. hasn't worked in israel/palestine.
let's engage the regional players. we can still go back to mucking up countries with unnecessary wars if you feel we need to.
June 26, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
CoLoradoCitizen writes:
SELFTHINK 40 put it best and should be re-iterated:
Did you realize that almost all the oil coming from Alaska is exported to the Pacific rim countries such as Singapore, Japan, China, as well as Canada and Mexico? With all the proceeds going to the BIG FAT PROFITS of the oil companies? Oh well, it's the least we can do for the Chinese, who are going to own us someday, thanks to the irresponsible (and stupid) policies of your heros in this current administration. I just don't get the argument for more domestic drilling since that oil goes on the world market, and does not stay here anyway. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE!!! It is a money grab by rich oil companies and greedy wall st. speculators who, like you, use SCAAARRRY scenarios like that crap in your blog! By the way, it wasn't the democrats that made your dollar worthless by cutting taxes AND starting a war! Then borrowing foreign money to cover the deficit.That accounts for a large percent of the spike in crude prices. Remember, $90.00 is now $140.00. Now THAT is what is REALLY scary! But then again you will never hear that on the Sean Hannity show!
June 26, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
CoLoradoCitizen writes:
Republicans, since Reagan, have been on a Bimbo Barbie spending spree like never seen before. .......Lower Taxes AND yet still INCREASE SPENDING ON PORK PROJECTS to obscene levels.
Here's the numbers from the white house site on who has buried us in this sickening debt that republicans can't seem to comprehend.
Just the facts, no perceptions, hard data taken from the White House itself:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The Gross Federal Debt now stands at 63.5% of the GDP. Of that, 33.5% were contributed (racked up) by Reagan-Bush, 6% by G.W. Bush, and 6.1% by printing money. The remaining 18% are left over from WWII
In 1981 the gross national debt, compared to the nation's annual income, reached its lowest point since 1931. Despite his claim to hate the debt, Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending. This is not partisan politics, this is straight off the White House web site.
As the graph shows, Bush II repeated Reagan's performance and turned the debt upward again. Bush II's own Office of Management and Budget provides all the data.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq...
chart(click link above) shows how the United States debt skyrocketed during Reagan, spending under control with Clinton, and then through the roof with Dubbya. Increase Gov't. spending/ Lower taxes = DEBT! These numbers are taken directly from the White House website
The eye-popping $9 trillion gross national debtis owed by the "General Fund." That's the part funded by our income taxes. Half of that goes for the military and to pay interest on the debt.
June 26, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
TexTraveler writes:
I LMAO everytime some one says Obama is half white, why doesn't he call himself white. With that skin color and hair, give me a break. Just to give you a history lesson until the 1970s in many southern states you were legally "negro" if you had 1/32 african blood.You were subject to the Jim Crow laws. This is because many slave owners increased their slave holdings by rapeing their female slaves and selling the resulting children. Because of this most African/Americans have some white ancestors in their family tree.
As to talking white, he running for President of the United States, not President of the African American States. Candidates usually do the Irish thing on St Patricks day, Italian on Columbus day. Why is McCain not using street language to campaign in the African American areas.
June 26, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
cableboy764 writes:
For someone who doesn't want race to be an issue, Obama sure does a good job of keeping it one.
June 26, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_Galt writes:
OBAMA = THE KIND OF CHANGE WE CAN DO WITHOUT !!
The animal symbol for the Democrat Party is an a$$.
Seems appropriate!
June 26, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
He is a man who is half Caucasian and African, and he talks. Whats the big deal?
June 26, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
The neo-con movement is done, cooked, left over salad. It was an experiment gone wild. Most Americans are not stupid. They see where this fascist movement has taken us, what it has done to the working class, what it has done to civil liberties, what it has done to the federal budget. The only people it has helped are the corporations and the 1%ers. Just about everyone else has not bennefitted from this reign of fear and intimidation. So long, hasta luego, later on dudes, your party in the woods is over.
By the way, thank goodness for the Supreme Court desision. This is one liberal who loves his guns.
June 26, 2008
11:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
chiy writes:
Shaggy:
I get the fact that you sidestep direct challenges to your posts by tossing around phrases like "you liberals" and "liberal thing" and all, but stick to the pesky facts. You tried to obfuscate the history of Republicans by talking about Democrats. You brought up Clinton and Carter because you could no longer defend Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their minion... Bush. Don't pretend that I inferred something from your post that you didn't explicitly write.
Have you read "Assassin's Gate" yet? Read it and then tell me about liberals ignoring inconvenient facts.
One last thing... best not to call Obama a plastic messiah when your man, McCain is the inanimate object at the podium.
June 27, 2008
12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
chiy writes:
John_Galt:
Where do you get your material? It's brilliant! Take your last post for example:
<quote>"OBAMA = THE KIND OF CHANGE WE CAN DO WITHOUT !!
The animal symbol for the Democrat Party is an a$$.
Seems appropriate!"<end quote>
That's witty and incisive on so many levels. I just don't know where to begin my effusive praise.
So I'll begin here:
This observation wouldn't pass muster in threaded discussion for an online third grade class.
Did you come up with the parody of the Obama slogan all by yourself? You're a good boy! Very creative. I see that you flipped Obama's slogan on its head by saying that it is change that we CAN DO WITHOUT instead of change "we need." You get a gold star, young man. Very good. I don't know where you get your muse.
And don't get me started on the way you equated the symbol for the democratic party with a common coloquialism for the hind parts. Classic. Incredible. Inspired.
You conviced me. McCain 2008! Obama is a terrrrrist!
June 27, 2008
12:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
chiy writes:
jugdish:
jugdish writes:
George W Bush's experience in the private sector is what got us into this mess. Before becoming the worst president ever, he may have been the worst CEO ever.
Google his company, "Arbusto," a supposed oil company, to find out how GW Bush didn't mess around when it came to driving the company into the ground and then soliciting a cash infusion from the Bin Laden family in order to finance his golden parachute. Arbusto is no more. It failed. Bush walked away rich while the employees collected unemployment.
June 27, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
This is hysterical.
Obama is so easily manipulated & talk about a chip on his shoulder.
Funny.
June 27, 2008
5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sankhara50 writes:
"predatory lending, the housing foreclosure crisis and others..."
Well, considering who his campaign is made up of, he gets no credit for mentioning this, unless he wants to appologize for the conduct of his staff, and explain how they've all seen the light.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02...
http://loanworkout.org/2008/06/obamas...
I wonder how many people does Obama get to disown before people think he actually has anything to do with the people who he hangs out with and run his show?