Obama says public tired of hearing about his former pastor

[just candid]

I would have no problem voting for a woman as US President.

Just not this woman.

Hillary is such an obviously manipulative, deceitful, ingenuous person that I could never vote for her.

Plus she is a domestic violence abuser, having assaulted her husband several times and gotten away with it (as many women have in Amerika).

She has played the traditional Washington DC game and she looks like a typical political hack.

If I was confronted with a choice between Clinton or McCain, I would sit out the election and not bother to vote.

[just candid]

"Unless we are working together, in a strategically thought-out effort to vote in our own best interests..."

Yup. There you have it: why women vote the way they do. In their own best interests. Women sell their votes a hell of a lot more cheaply than men do; or to put it another way, they are easier to bribe. Dependency on the state makes you that way.

Never mind what happens to the country; never mind what happens to the economy; never mind what happens to people who aren't women. None of that counts. If women are moving towards Obama and not Clinton, it's because they think Obama will act more in the interests of women than Clinton will do. They may well be right.

That's how you get women's votes; just tell them all the things you are going to do for them. Echo their demands, however unreasonable, unfair, sexist or illogical. Just tell them what they want to hear. And if you can fake sincerity, so much the better.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

[just candid]

If I was confronted with a choice between Clinton or Obama, I would sit out the election and not bother to vote. Though something I have just heard may sway my vote toward McCain

[Monorprise]

Because Obama demonstrated over 20 years, that he is either in agreement with, Apathetic to, or too cowardly to stand up to what his preacher said, for the last 20 years, which was quite disturbing. For both the preacher and all theses like Obama who chooses to be his congregation.

All the possible explanations in this case, says one of several very important and disturbing things about Obama, of relevant to the prostitution he is trying to take, any of them very concerning with regard to his values and charter, or lack there of.

The question is, which one of theses possibilities is the case, as that tells us more exactly who Obama is, and what he actually believes.
Is it apathy, is it agreement with the preacher, or is it lack of moral and ethical constitution?

I don’t know, and considering that all of them are damming, with regard to the presidency, I’m not sure I need to know. But it would be helpful to know which, in order to better understand, what kind of man is serving in congress.

[happy cracker]

Stuipd Citizens wrote:

It is clear to me that Obama is squeaky clean because they are grasping at straws to condemn him, personally i think its petty and i believe its been a plot of the clinton's to tare a man down who's fierce competition. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the american public who will buy into this nonsense. the latest thing is the "racism" associated with the majority of black democrats supporting Obama. Give em a break. Blacks have been supporting white candidates since they could vote. What we are seeing is a true test of how democratic and egalitarian the DEMOCRATIC PARTY really is willing to be. It is easy to be fair when you have nothing to lose. If Obama is treated unfairly, this could break up the solid support of the black community for the democratic party. That is not to suggest that the Republicans have anything better to offer, but blacks will have to rethink their support of all candidates.

we can't have a pro arab for president, maybe you blacks think so, but us whites think different. we love our country to much, the lesser evil is sen. john mccain obama will get a few of the bleeding heart liberals vote, but not many. you black folks should start your own political party if your not happy with the liberal party.

[happy cracker]

Lee wrote:

Keep trying to get to your Obama talking points. Obama knew this controversy would come with Rev Wright and it's here to stay. GD America, AIDS was created by the US government, etc.
<quoted text>

good post keep up the good work. mccain all the way. screw that arab loving liberal.

[happy cracker]

Stuipd Citizens wrote:

yea and that happen when obama was 8 years old, i'm sure they got advice with a kid on how they should proceed geez you folks will try anything..lol makeup sh*t whatever it takes people are damn sure going to use them against a Black politician of similar stature. What I find impressive about him is that even with all that crap out there, he's still winning (the nomination at least). Clinton is reportedly spreading the word that she should be the nominee because Obama can't win, and cites race and Wright as one of the big reasons. You see racism is kind of like a virus. It mutates and avoids new strains of resistance. In the old days you could put a face on it-George Wallace, Bull Connor, etc. Today it is systemic and has names like Katrina and sub-prime lending. But, it all has the same purpose.

any s.o.b. who is my pastor and says god damn america is no friend of mine. his new pastor rev. moss is another left wing radical, maybe worst than rev. wright. plus obama donated over $100,000 to that church of hate. so he must share the same values as rev. moss. get over it, mccain will win in november. white folks will only take so much b.s. come november we all will remember ( god damn america ) the g.o.p. will play that so much that you will hear it in your sleep. also, hang in there hillary, keep up the good work. you can run in four more years.

[dave]

??

[just candid]

Elvan wrote:

<quoted text>
As a white man there are many jobs listed in the paper where I live that I am not allowed to even fill out an application for.
You don't think Barry is playing the race card in his favor when he claims to be black? He's as much white (half) as he is black. Again, Geraldine Ferraro had it right...he's where he is in this presidential race ONLY because he's black. Or claims to be.

http://feministing.com/archive s/008785.html

[just candid]

Posted by: FEMily!| March 12, 2008 01:44 PM
Oh, f*ck. This sort of thing makes me feel so embarrassed on behalf of white feminists everywhere. Ugh

[just candid]

NOTE: I had to edit the other "f" word

[just candid]

March 12, 2008
Geraldine Ferraro
Geraldine Ferraro, Democratic politician and champion of reproductive choice, said the following to The Daily Breeze in Torrance, California:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

[just candid]

http://www.feministing.com/archives/008784.ht...

[just candid]

I can not vote for either of these two.

[oriana]

Real American wrote:

I guess you haven't heard that the GOP's corporate paymasters have ruined the economy and starved the states of money.
Ignorant, clueless jerk
<quoted text>

it's you whos the ignorant clueless jerk.

the economy is not only not ruined it's healthy.

unemployment is down

GDP is up

trade deficit is down

earnings are good

economic growth is slow but healthy

oil is expensive, but that has nothing to do with economic policy

fool

obama is counting on ignorant people like you.

[oriana]

another Obama LIE

Obama launched a new TV ad this weekend in KY featuring an Illinois miner praising the the him for work on coal issues.

"Washington, D.C., is not listening to us," said Randy Henry, who is identified as a miner for 31 years. "Barack understands it."

Obama is telling Kentucky voters he 'understands' coal, but fails to mention that he has proposed taxing coal, voted against coal-to-liquid legislation, and that his own energy policy would restrict the growth of Kentucky's coal industry. If he can't 'understand' why that is bad for Kentucky's economy, then he doesn't 'understand' how to lead

in a town-hall meeting this January in Nevada, Obama said he wants to invest more federal money into coal technology research to develop ways to sequester carbon dioxide emissions -- a key greenhouse gas -- from power plants.

"If we can figure out a way to produce coal generated power cleanly, then we should be for it," Obama said. "But I am not going to license or encourage coal that’s dirty. The technology is going to have to prove itself, and right now we’re not quite there yet."

[oriana]

It's no surprise that the media are in the tank for Barack Obama, but the willingness of the New York Times to simply misrepresent the facts--while pretending to act as a fact-checker!--is pretty breathtaking.

many more news outlets are prepared to follow the Times's lead in flat-out misreporting the facts, if that's what it takes to get Obama elected.

The Times story is "On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link." It takes John McCain to task for pointing out that Hamas has endorsed Obama.

The Times reporter, Larry Rohter, says that John McCain has "again portrayed the Democratic contender as being the favorite of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group."

Of course, this is not McCain's "portrayal;" it is an indisputable fact that Hamas has endorsed Obama and has said that it hopes he will be elected. But the paper's most egregious error, in its campaign "fact check" column, is yet to come.

Rohter notes that charges and counter-charges have gone back and forth between the McCain and Obama campaigns, but Rohter judges that McCain is mostly at fault:

But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side.

McCain, Rohter writes, is guilty because he says that Obama has advocated "unconditional" meetings with Iran's President:

[I]n a fund-raising letter sent out in April, a spokesman for Mr. McCain wrote:“We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.”

That, the Times says, is wrong. It quotes Obama adviser Susan Rice denying that Obama has advocated "unconditional" talks with Ahmadinejad:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state.

That's good enough for the New York Times's "fact checkers."

The problem is that, contrary to his campaign's current revisionist effort, Obama plainly has advocated unconditional talks with Iran on several occasions. He was caught on YouTube doing exactly that during one of the Democratic debates. Not only that, Obama's web site contains this statement:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
Now that it is convenient for Obama to retreat from his conciliatory attitude toward Iran and other bitterly anti-American states, the Times is happy to help him cover his tracks, even though Obama's own web site confirms that, exactly as the McCain campaign said, Obama has advocated talks with Iran "without preconditions."

think we are about to witness a level of partisanship in the "mainstream" media that has not been seen since the era of professional news media began a little over a century ago. In the past, when newspapers like the Times have misreported facts, people have generally assumed it was, even if the result of bias, inadvertent. No longer. We have entered an era in which leading news organs will intentionally and persistently misinform their readers in order to achieve a political objective--the election of Barack Obama.

powerline

[Edthirty]

Nancy wrote:

<quoted text>IMO, History will not be kind to GW Bush, as he wasn't kind to it. He will go down as one of the worst, along with Jimmy Carter. Nixon's name is synonymous with dishonesty, but he did open relations with China...we have to give him that.

So now lots of jobs that were once here are in China, not to mention we get to import all that tainted food and lead contaminated toys. China just as Communist as Cuba, just as cruel to its citizens, but somehow worthy of trade with the USA. Does that make sense to you?

[Honkey Slayer]

dave wrote:

??

Typical McCain supporter, Nothing but short unintelligent barbs about comments made with someone with a mind.

[Honkey Slayer]

happy cracker wrote:

<quoted text> america has one good choice, vote mccain

Yeah, Vote McCain, for "DOG CATCHER"