Obama denounces Rev. Wright

Post Reply
Barb
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 1:36 pm

Obama denounces Rev. Wright

Post by Barb » Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:10 pm

[quote]Obama strongly denounces former pastor

WINSTON SALEM, North Carolina (Reuters)
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama denounced his former pastor in his strongest language to date on Tuesday, saying he was outraged by Rev. Jeremiah Wright's assertions about the U.S. government and race.

"His comments were not only divisive ... but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama told reporters.

"Whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this," Obama said.

Obama was forced to address the issue again after another appearance on Monday by Wright to combat criticism of his controversial sermons that have, among other things, suggested the United States deserved some blame for the September 11 attacks and had had a hand in spreading AIDS to blacks.

"At a certain point if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it -- in front of the National Press Club -- then that's enough," Obama said, referring to Wright's suggestion that Obama's denouncement was what a politician had to say.

"That's a show of disrespect to me. It is also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do" on the campaign, he said.


(Reporting by Jeff Mason, editing by Lori Santos)
Copyright 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.[/quote]

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:14 pm

Welcome to Clintonian-Republican Politics 101!

Obama has everything to lose... His "cool" may be the first casualty.

But to keep things in perspective, read also the following opinion.

[quote]Mike Whitney
Counterpunch
April 28, 2008*

Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared on PBS Bill Moyers Journal on Friday night and delivered a knockout punch to the bully-boys in the corporate media. Wright showed that he is neither a fanatic nor an “America hater”; just an extremely well-read and principled man with an unshakable commitment to justice. Wright has also paid his dues; he's an ex-Marine who served as a medic in Vietnam when most of his critics were either hiding behind their student deferments or languishing in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas National Guard.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

"And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America!”

No one disputes Wright's summary of US history. His comments have simply been lifted, just to beat up on Barak Obama; everyone knows that. Just like everyone knows that the corporate media destroy political enemies, which means anyone who poses a challenge to America's unelected corporate oligarchy. That's why it is so frustrating to hear people say, "The media is not doing its job."

That's just plain wrong; the media IS doing its job. It's cheerleading the country to war, it is diverting attention from the main political and economic issues of the day, and it is destroying thr system's political enemies, actual or potential.

What the media try to do by singling out Wright is pretty straightforward. They're trying to create the impression that blacks conceal a deep sense of grievance which expresses itself in rage. This generates feelings of fear among whites which, of course, is all part of the strategy. The message is simple; "blacks are angry, blacks are dangerous" and, oh by the way, Obama is black.
The attack on Wright is that it was set up in a way to make it look like the Reverend — a man whose entire career has been devoted to social justice — is a racist. That took a bit of maneuvering. In fact, the media, and their friends at the right-wing think tanks, had to dig through 15 years of Wright's sermons to find just the right snippets they needed to destroy Obama. Now that's determination!

Race has become one of the dominant issues on the campaign-trail. Obama is no longer just a man running for office; now he's a black man. That's how swift-boating works. Like they say in the Godfather; “It's not personal; it's just business”. The business of personal destruction.

Fortunately, Bill Moyers decided to give Wright a chance to acquit himself before the public. Wright took the opportunity and made the most of it.

Rev. Wright: “God is the giver of life. Let me tell you what that means. That means we have no right to take a life whether as a gang-banger living the thug life, or as a President lying about leading a nation into war. We have no right to take a life! Whether through the immorality of a slave trade, or the immorality of refusing HIV/AIDS money to countries or agencies who do not tow your political line! We have no right to take a life!”

Wright showed that the doctrine he preaches, Black Liberation Theology, is neither discriminatory nor racist as the media has suggested. Rather, it integrates the teachings of Jesus Christ with the real-time struggle for social justice and equality. Compassion is not possible if one does not have a grasp of one's own culture and identity. That's why Wright tries to reconnect his congregation to their roots, so they can be proud of who they are and have more productive lives.

Rev. Wright:

"You know, you come into the average church on a Sunday morning and you think you've stepped from the real world into a fantasy world. And what do I mean by that? Pick up the church bulletin. You leave a world, Vietnam, or today you leave a world, Iraq, over 4,000 dead, American boys and girls, 100,000, 200,000 depending on which count, Iraqi dead. Afghanistan, Darfur, rapes in the Congo, Katrina, Lower Ninth Ward, that's the world you leave. And you come in; you pick up your church bulletin. It says, there is a ladies tea on second Sunday. How come the faith preached in our churches does not relate to the world in which our church members leave at the benediction?”

This is the essence of Black Liberation Theology; how to make sense of the world we live in so the word of Christ can be applied in practice. Wright thinks that faith should be a transforming experience that changes behavior and shapes lives, not just a few hours of prayer every week at Sunday services.

Does that make it “a race-based theology? (as Moyers asks)

Rev. Wright: “No, it is not. It is embracing Christianity without giving up Africanity. …We're not givin' up who we are as black people to become somebody else…No mas. Nada mas. We're gonna be ourselves. We're gonna be our culture. We're gonna be our history. And we're gonna embrace it and not say one is superior to the other. Because we are different. And different does not mean deficient. We talk about God of diversity? God has diverse culture and we're proud of who we are and that's not a race-based theology.”

Wright has also been skewered in the media for suggesting there may be a connection between American foreign policy and the attacks of 9-11. The media considers any analysis that doesn't square with Bush's crackpot "they hate our freedoms” theory to be either anti-American or outright heresy. In his most famous sermon, Wright elaborates on the "blowback" theme as well as the so-called war on terror:

"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism! We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism! We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers. We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. "Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!" We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism."

America has blood on its hands. America, as Martin Luther King said, "is the greatest perpetrator of violence in the world today." So what else is new?

The media use every soapbox in the country to preach uber-nationalism and vilify America's critics as unpatriotic. That's why the wrath of the media has descended on Obama like a Texas hailstorm; they're afraid he doesn't understand who really runs things in America.

Wright means nothing to the media or to the men behind the curtain. If he didn't provide an avenue for denigrating Obama, he'd be treated with the same indifference as the thousands of other blacks who were herded at gunpoint into the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. Better buckle up. Obama has entered the crosshairs of America's criminal oligarchy and things are bound to get nasty.
[/quote]

Score:
Clintonian-Republicanism (2) - Obama (1) [great speech on race]

Will Obama manage to score an own goal? Hillary would be delighted, but the real winner would be "un troisième larron".

jafrikayiti
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by jafrikayiti » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:38 am

Tankou mwen te di odepa, nou gen anpil teyat pou nou asiste nan kad eleksyon k ap fèt ane sa a.

Obama may have figured out what makes Amerikkka tick and he probably needed Rev. Wright to make this outburst in order for him to seize this opportunity to regain the votes he so desperately needs in the last leg of the primaries where "white votes" are precious.

Will it work for him?

I am not sure of anything in this election. As far as the substance of Dr. Wright's statements and the way they were conveyed, it is practically useless to discuss these matters in isolation of the consequence they have on the election, because all this is about dirty politics. Truth has no place in this game. It all about spin and deception. I am not suggesting that Obama and Wright conspired to make this scenario unfold, but by his politically astute but quick exploitation of the situation Obama has just proven that he can be as much of a snake as Hillary (the First Lady with enormous foreign affairs experience ducking sniper fire in Bosnia).

Now that Obama has renounced Wright, he is much closer to reaching Pennsylvania Avenue. In this day and age, I don't think they will also demand that he waves his hair like Sammy Davis Junior and sing "Oh What a wonderful world". However, by the time we reach November, he may have to also drop Michelle and who knows what else...?

Tout jan, limanite pran nan twa wa. Fanm osnon gason, "blan" osnon "pa fin blan nèt", Repibliken osnon Demokrat nan Kay Blanch lan...se makiyaj pou lamarye...Pandanstan, pri lwil ap monte, grangou klworoks fenk kare pete fyèl laplipa moun sou planèt la, e lamizè po ko prèt pou li chanje katye. Goumen an ap long...pa gen chimen dekoupe.

Jaf

Serge
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:39 am

Post by Serge » Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:21 pm

Jaf,

Map ekri sa rapidman, paske semèn mwen tèlman okipe mwen pa gen anpil tan. Men mwen te vle di pou koumanse yo pap ka mande Obama fè cheve li tankou Sammy Davis, paske li pa gen ase cheve, amwens li tonbe mete perik sou tèt li.......

Men pou nou pi serye, mwen pata swete sa ditou, men nou sanlè wè McCain pote mayèt, paske Demokrat tèlman okipe youn ap dechire lòt, posibilite sa ap gwosi chak jou. Se ta yon pakèt trajedi, paske McCain pa kanpe sou anyen.


Serge

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Thu May 01, 2008 10:30 am

Fim sa, se nan REx teyat mwen te kapab swiv li!
Tout kandida yo ap jwe politik. Yo vle itilize pawOl Reveran tankou se te pawOl oun moun de grenn gOch. Ala tray papa!

Mwen ka di Obama, Welcome to the ugly World of Politics. I understand his point. But, can you disassociate yourself with the great Words of Wisdom of Rev Wright? The man is speaking the truth! Well what am I saying? This is America, the World of the Free and Democracy...

You see, I still give Obama some credits for not going after Hillary's association with Rev Wright post the Monica's Affair.

Antouka, mwen kenbe menm diaz la, Amerika poko prE pou youn minorite Prezidan. Ke'l te Fi ou Gason.

Medya'a montre tout moun kilEs ki sipoze Prezidan. Men, si nou pa brase kat la oun lOt jan, se pwal MEm amou. Repibliken yo pwal feraye pi di ak Mc Cain. Ekonomy an pwal nan (jwE brezilyen'an)!!!

L

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu May 01, 2008 11:49 am

Sijè Obama an, se yon sijè mwen gen lontan mwen te bezwen tounen ladan l. Tankou Leonel, mwen te di okòmansman ke Etazini poko pare pou yon ti nwa kòm presidan. Rezilta premye eleksyon yo lan Iowa avèk "caucuses" lan lòt eta yo fè mwen santi'm pa konfòtab pou kontinye menteni pozisyon sa a.

Sepandan, mwen pa si ke Hillary Clinton se sèl moun ki dèyè menteni afè Wright lan cho lan laprès amerikèn an. Daprè reaksyon McCain e deklarasyon rès Repibliken yo, il parè ke yo deja konsidere se Obama ki pral reprezante Pati Demokrat lan. Se ki vle di, se lè pou yo pase a faz 2 plan an. Faz 1, se te pou elimine Hillary Clinton. Repibliken yo, daprè menmenm, te panse li tap pi difisil pou bat Hillary lan eleksyon jeneral lan ke Obama, paske misye se yon nwa. Se sak fè yo te al kapitalize sou travay yo te fè sou li lè mari'l te prezidan pou fè moun rayil. Lan premye faz lan, yo ankouraje demokrat yo panse ke gen twòp moun ki rayi Hillary pou l ta vinn prezidan. Yo panse faz 1 te gen siksè, e ke Hillary elimine. Kounye a yo atake faz ki pi fasil lan, pou konvenk ameriken ke yo paka eli yon moun ki pa sanble avè yo. Se ekzakteman sa David Brooks, yon editor The New York Times e yon repibliken modere, te di sou pwogram TV, Lehrer Newshour,lan PBS, sa te gen de semèn aprè deklarasyon Obama te fè lan Kalifòni sou Ameriken. Obama te di ke gen anpil ameriken ki egri, "bitter," e ki mete fizi yo an ba kòt yo, epi yal lapriyè bondye, paske sitiyasyon ekonomik lan difisil kounye a lan Etazini. Brooks di ke deklarasyon Obama an montre Ameriken ke misye pa menm moun avè yo. Epi li ajoute ke Ameriken pa eli prezidan ki pa sanble avè yo. Ou ka li "antre lè liyn" sa misye te vle di.

Kidonk, demokrat fè yon gwo erè lè yo sispann di ke yo te ka vote pou nenpòt lan de kandida demokrat yo. Olyedesa, patizan chak kandida yo kòmanse ap kritike Obama oubyen Clinton e jwe egzakteman jwèt repibliken te vle yo jwe an:"Yon tiye lòt.". Sa montre m ke pati demokrat lan se yon pati ki frajil. Pa gen anpil "homogeinity" lan pati an, andotretèm, gen twòp gwoup ladan l ki gen diferan ajennda. Enpresyon mwen, sè ke Repibliken yo ap fè yon gwo erè. Hillary Clinton poko elimine. Ti souf yo bali an pou yo konsantre sou Obama an ka sifizan pou Hillary respire e genyen kandidati pati demokrat lan epi bat McCain. Se gade map gade wi!

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Fri May 02, 2008 12:43 am

Tidodo, here you go dreaming again. Hillary can only win if the Democratic Party is hell bent on self-destruction, which I admit is not out of the equation.

I am sure that there are lot of people who feel like I do: There is NO WAY... I could possibly vote for Hillary this year. Four years from now, maybe. Eight years from now, who knows? But certainly not in 2008!

It's not that I am not ready for a woman president. I feel more than ready. But I am certainly not ready for Hillary. I have had enough of the Clintons, altogether.

True, given the choice between Hillary and McCain, if I HAD TO vote, I would most decidedly give my vote to Hillary. Actually, what I would be doing is simply vote against McCain. But I am truly sick and tired of the idea of spending my entire adult life voting for the lesser of two evils. I made up my mind, and I will keep to it, that I will vote FOR a candidate that I believe in, not necessarily the IDEAL candidate (I know such does not exist), but I would most definitely feel disenfranchised if I continually voted AGAINST ANY REPUBLICAN, rather than vote FOR someone I can trust to some extent. Truth is I cannot trust Hillary to any extent. She was hawkish on Iraq (before her song and dance), she is hawkish on Iran (would "obliterate it" in fact), she would wage a war somewhere on the planet, just to show that she's got some balls too. And what about her mental stability? Ducking sniper fire... or claiming to have done that, time after time after time, until the evidence clearly showed that she LIED, and then once again she changes her story. And we could go on...

I know that I represent just one vote, and by itself, it means exactly nothing. But I feel sure that it's not only "THE REPUBLICAN RIGHT WING MACHINE" that cannot stand Hillary. The younger generation will not stand for voting for her either. If my reading is right, it's a huge problem for the Democrats.

Now with respect to the original theme of this conversation, I think -- and I thought from the beginning -- that if Obama passed up the chance of running because "the country is not ready for a black president" (as you and Leonel maintained), then he would not have the right stuff to run for president again, in four years or in twenty for that matter. That honor would be reserved fro someone else. John Kennedy did not decide not to run for president because the country was not ready for a Catholic president. I hate it when people keep parroting the line that the country is not ready for this, is not ready for that, because that is simply self-defeatist. IF YOU THINK YOU CANNOT, YOU'VE ALREADY FAILED. I know that Obama could become the first AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT, if enough of us stopped giving in to self-defeat. The only question should be: Does Obama have the right stuff?

I believe he does, in spite of the Wright controversy. I believe also that Obama has made some grievous mistakes in handling Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He has gone way too much on record, embracing him, or denunciating him, or a mixture of both. He should have stressed, obstinately, that "Rev. Wright does not speak for me and I do not speak for him" (my words, though he certainly could use more forceful or stylish phrases). The debate about Rev. Wright should never have been a debate about Obama. It's his own words and actions that count, that should have mattered all along. To me, that essentially should have been Obama's message. And yes, Obama should not be so reluctant to FIGHT BACK. He is not Jesus and no one should expect him to run a campaign in the style of Jesus. Hillary and McCain have their crazy pastor stories too. Highlight them, if one must. From what I read, as a matter of fact, Hillary has had some spiritual connections with shady characters, while in the White House, that could make Jeremiah Wright look like a saint.

A lot of people have complimented Obama for disassociating himself so forcefully from Rev. Wright. I am not one of them. Obama has no business getting so angry at Rev. Wright. Mr. Wright can be right or wrong, and he certainly is well educated to make his own points. Listen to what he has to say. He is well articulated. Agree with him or disagree with him, but stop playing this HATE GAME of transferring every thing he says to Obama's character. John Kennedy, in the White House, was sleeping with women who had KGB or MAFIA connections. Did that make him a Russian double agent or a Mafioso? Obama was married by Rev. Wright who also baptized his two daughters. SO DAMN WHAT, AMERICA??? Isn't it the job of any Pastor in America to MARRY men and women and BAPTIZE their children (if that is integral to their faith and practice) ? Stop being MORONIC about it, AMERICA! Rev. Wright is not Obama and Obama is not Rev. Wright.

If people stopped going to churches because of whatever personal objections there might be to the sermons or actions of their pastors, how many churches would be left standing? And if Obama did not go to church at all, for lack of finding a pastor that all of America would like and revere, they would pillory him on that too. What do you know, he not only does not wear a flag pin, but he does not go to church either and does not show the need for spiritual guidance!!! Who must he think he is???

Americans need to outgrow their cartoon-sized two-dimensional costumes, and GET REAL! To do that, they have to wake up to the reality that Obama has ALREADY WON the Democratic presidential race, fair and square, with a democratic delegate count. Sure enough, they can wrestle the nomination away from him, by cheating their own base. If they do that, they would be stupid to think not to expect a rebellion and to think that the base is going to react like loyal zombies. Heck, bring on McCain! If we survived eight years of George Bush, we can also survive four years of McCain! Or four years of Hillary. What's the difference?

No, I won't play that game. And that's why I am going to vote for Obama to become the next POTUS. Hillary can wait the next four years to get her stories straight.

Keep on running, bro. You've already shown Leonel and Tidodo how very wrong they were, because neither of them thought you would make it that far. Keep up the good work! When you win I'll send you WOH Anniversary t-shirts for the whole family.

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Fri May 02, 2008 5:57 am

[quote]...I am sure that there are lot of people who feel like I do: There is NO WAY... I could possibly vote for Hillary this year. Four years from now, maybe. Eight years from now, who knows? But certainly not in 2008! [/quote]

You are among the group of Non-Republicans voters that the Republican Party dreamed of! Did you see how they all rallied back behind McCain after all the bellicose votes in the primaries?

[quote]...But I am truly sick and tired of the idea of spending my entire adult life voting for the lesser of two evils. [/quote]

Unfortunately, Guy, more often than not in life, the choice is not between right and wrong, but rather between the lesser of two evils.

[quote]...I know that Obama could become the first AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT, if enough of us stopped giving in to self-defeat. The only question should be: Does Obama have the right stuff? [/quote]

Guy, you are right. This is your opinion about who should be president. But, do you mind asking the american people? Ultimately, they are the ones who decide who becomes president. Just look at their choice in the last two times!

[quote]...He has gone way too much on record, embracing him, or denunciating him, or a mixture of both. He should have stressed, obstinately, that "Rev. Wright does not speak for me and I do not speak for him" (my words, though he certainly could use more forceful or stylish phrases).[/quote]

While I wholeheartedly agree with you about that strategy, I would have hated to have missed Obama speech on race relations in America that the Wright controversy led him to give.

[quote]...Heck, bring on McCain! If we survived eight years of George Bush, we can also survive four years of McCain! Or four years of Hillary. What's the difference?[/quote]

I would not be that sure! You got lucky! Count your blessings.

[quote] ...Keep on running, bro [Obama] (my addition). You've already shown Leonel and Tidodo how very wrong they were, because neither of them thought you would make it that far. Keep up the good work! [/quote]

Yes, you are right! His success has gone beyond my wildest dreams, which I am very happy about. But, I stll have to be realistic about human nature.

Like a lot of people felt at the beginning of these elections, either of these two candidates, Obama or Clinton, could have made a better president than what we had recently. People who are progressists should have been better off maintaining those feelings instead of delving into partisan ones that self destruct. The dream for them should have been eight years of Hillary followed by eight years of Barrack. If we miscalculate, we might have neither of them, or not even one term from any of these two good candidates. That would be a shame!

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Fri May 02, 2008 7:00 am

Well said Tidodo!

Guy, I wanted to say one thing about the JFK analogy. JFK was Catholic. But, He was also White.

Now, my concerns are, when you have a Country where you don't need even a high school diploma to be the Chief of Police. When applying for a loan is based on ethnicity. Of course one has to be skeptical about it.

I would like to witness that a Black man being the next President of the US. Although, it wouldn't do jack S... for the Middle and lower class Black People. But, hey, keep hope alive. L'espoir fait vivre!

You know, I was having that same argument with my sister and sis-in-law about Obama's chances... Guess what? Each time they are showing Obama on TV, My sister-in-law is saying the same thing: " Nou refize bay ti nEg la oun chans". Then, my Brother and I had to remind her that We voted for Obama. But, we still think that He won't be President. I believe that is our Right.

Then, We (my Brother and I) were telling her:
[quote]Ou pa bezwen fE bagay yo nan menm keksyon Patizan an. Si ou di oun bagay de Duvalier, sE ke ou se pou Aristide. De mEm si ou di oun bagay de Aristide, sE ke se Makout ou ye[/quote]

I don't know if there were anything else I could add. Except, that, Mirage is not real!
Oun peyi ki pa prE pou oun nEg pran promosyon nan travay li kote li pi kalifye ke sa ki anlE'l yo. Eske l'ap posib pou yo bay oun nEg plas Prezidan?

I am very proud of Obama. But, Reality is evident.

Kaka je pa linEt,

Leonel

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Fri May 02, 2008 7:02 am

[quote]People who are progressists should have been better off maintaining those feelings instead of delving into partisan ones that self destruct.[/quote]
Hmm... perhaps, someone should have suggested that to Hillary Clinton.

I believe that it was her campaign strategists who said openly (with no hint of disapproval from Hillary) that McCain would make a better Commander in chief than Obama!!! Based on that statement alone, do you think that Hillary care at all about the Democratic Party? Or does she ache for the position so badly that SHE is willing to destroy everything in her path in order to get there? If that is the case, what is then the imperative to support such a megalomaniac candidate?

What really turned me off is that right after she outdid herself to portray Obama as not having the right stuff, she then suggested that he could become her VP! Wow, think one minute about the contradiction inherent in her positions. She literally turned a DREAM TICKET (not mine, but possibly the winningest one) into the IMPOSSIBLE TICKET. For all their dirty trick expertise, the Republicans never stooped that low.

[quote]Guy, you are right. This is your opinion about who should be president. But, do you mind asking the american people?[/quote]
Yes, I am an American too, as far as I know. And American people do not speak with just one voice.

What you seem to be saying is: let's do away with elections. Let's just run a poll, so we know what American people are ready for or not.

[quote]Ultimately, they are the ones who decide who becomes president.[/quote]
Really? ? ?

[quote]Just look at their choice in the last two times![/quote]
Well, in 2000 it was Al Gore, and in 2004... who knows? It may or may not have been George Bush. Did you follow the grave patterns of cheating in Ohio? Many serious people would argue that the American people got cheated of their votes, at least once and likely twice.

And now you wish for the superdelegates to deny Obama the nomination, when it is (mathematically) certain [so, the experts say] that he will have won the majority of elected delegates. Great ! All democratic principles should be sacrificed to Hillary's altar. For the sake of having a woman president... or just a Clinton?

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Fri May 02, 2008 7:37 am

[quote]Then, my Brother and I had to remind her that We voted for Obama. But, we still think that He won't be President. I believe that is our Right. [/quote]
Leo, I don't think that anyone suggested that it was not your right to vote for Obama, Clinton, or Donald Duck. Of course, it is. But you are such a merchant of doom that I doubt that you would influence another soul to vote for Obama. How many people are willing to have their voting mind and their voting hand so misaligned with each other? But certainly, it's your right! No one is disputing that.

By the way, was your "America" ready for Civil Rights in the sixties? Or should they have waited another 8 (or 80) years...to be ready?

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Fri May 02, 2008 10:13 am

[quote]
[quote]Guy, you are right. This is your opinion about who should be president. But, do you mind asking the american people? [/quote]

Yes, I am an American too, as far as I know. And American people do not speak with just one voice.

What you seem to be saying is: let's do away with elections. Let's just run a poll, so we know what American people are ready for or not. [/quote]

Guy, you should have understood what I mean in my statement. You are one vote, and only one american vote like mine. But, the majority of the americans who voted, or better, the majority of the United States Electoral College, determines who becomes president. When I say:"The American people" I am referring to the majority of people that makes up the majority of the electoral votes, which is not even the majority of the voters, as we were painfully reminded in 2004 with the Gore debacle.

As far as the poll you suggested, it would be meaningless since I was trying to use history and my past experience here in the USA to predict the future. Not that there is no first time in history, but political polls, in general here, are not used to find out the truth, but rather to support a propaganda or to influence public opinion.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Fri May 02, 2008 10:53 am

Sorry that I did not finish my thought... I was trying to fend off Leonel's sense of inevitable doom and your remarkable faith in a woman that has been extremely partisan in the sort of partisanship that you have decried here on this forum (3 a.m. ads, Commander in chief readiness, McCain * the Republican * a better prospect than Obama, etc). What I meant to say is that, rather than let the candidates distinguish themselves for their valor in the field of battle, it seems to me that you might prefer a poll among political pundits, or to look into history books as you just described, to decide in advance how best to predict the future and what chances a people should or should not take.

Sorry I was not clear to you, but indeed I meant a rather limited poll, of the highly sophisticated, erudite variety. The kind that may tell you that America will be ready for a woman POTUS in 2008, a black POTUS in 2016, an Asian-American POTUS in that decenny or the other - or a Haitian-American POTUS in this millenium or another.

Don't get mad, Tidodo. I am just having fun here. I am not trying to portray you as an elitist. I will just leave that task to Hillary to describe Obama as "the elitist" that she apparently is not.

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Fri May 02, 2008 2:07 pm

You know, Guy, I wish I can profess my faith in Hillary Clinton the way you do in Barack Obama. I feel like being at church now!

Like you, I am also having fun here. Exchanging ideas with well meaning forum members, especially one of your caliber, is not only fun, it is also a privilege. Believe it or not, I am not mad. My use of the word "should" in my previous post is more a reflection of my fumbling of that adopted language than a reflection of my state of mind.

By the way, as far as who started the partisanship first, Obama or Clinton, is like "looking at the trees and not the forest" if you allow me to use that parallel. The way I see it neither of them will benefit from it in the general elections. That is the reason why I went beyond the original discussion of Obama's reactions to Rev. Wright's sermons or points of view, which is a distraction and political gimmick of the far right to undermine the democratic candidates, to the real reasons behind the whole controversy. While on the surface that controversy seems to benefit Hillary Clinton in her challenge to Obama for the party's nomination, the Republicans have more to gain from it. Since the Republicans, by virtue of their wealth and ownership of the major media outlets in the USA, control what is fed to the country, it is very unlikely that they are not the ones pushing for maintaining the controversy alive in the news media.

Yes, Hillary Clinton thirst for power is undeniable. But, so is it for every politician, including Obama. Otherwise, they would not have sacrificed that much in lack of privacy, painstaking fund raising, exposure of their families, risk to their personal life, etc., to be a leader. As a politician, Clinton would not back down until she fought the last fight. But who would expect less from a leader who wants to be at the helm of the greatest power of this early part of the century? The idea that she should fold it and walk away is ludicrous. Until Obama came in, it was her election to lose. I wonder why people expect her now not to fight, just because Obama has a slight lead and no chance of winning outright the necessary delegates before the convention. The fact that her continuing the fight is weakening the chances of her party is an undeniable one. The only solution to avoid a bloodbath is for both of them to sit down together and work out a compromise. But, their constituencies' reaction that one is winning and should not cave in to the pressure of what is best for the party is the reason why compromise is difficult. "It's my way or the highway." As Haitians, we do know how this strategy does spell doom for a country. This brings me back to my statement earlier. As progressists, we are better off resigning ourselves to the fact that either of these two candidates is acceptable to us, and avoid dragging down the country in a direction that we all agree are not where we want it to go.

jafrikayiti
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by jafrikayiti » Sat May 03, 2008 8:34 am

Great exchanges guys...

I have just watched another video tape exposing the vicious and partisan nature of how the media is contributing to the war on Obama's presidency.

See:

Fox News interview of a local Priest that sides with Pastor J. Wright....
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0...0&sMPlaylistID


America is at a dangerous juncture. As time passes, more and more people will come to appreciate how this so-called Reverend Wright "controversy" is an illustration of the racism that still plagues mainstream America (the political system, the media and other power holders). A new generation of Americans will certainly refuse to follow the Democratic Party if it proves with these primaries that it is too bound to "whiteness" to even nominate a half-European half-African man to be the presidential candidate. Even when the latter has won more votes, more delegates, more states than a white woman whose husband has already been president twice. A woman who has lied and been caught lying about so many things during the campaign.

The Clintons are such hypocrites. Imagine, that Rev. Wright was the one helping these ungrateful souls find peace for their souls after Bill had his episode with Monica Lewinsky in the White House. They were even happy to be photographed with him. Now, I wonder whether Rev. Wright thinks there is still hope for the souls of this family of compulsive liars?

Like Guy, I do not think Obama should simply declare America hopeless and throw in the towel. The fact is that his persistence has already proven so far that America can be pushed - if not sweet talked - into doing things once thought to be impossible. All credit to him and his team.

However, Obama has gone beyond sweet talking. Realizing what he is dealing with, in his desire to be president, Obama is now far from keeping it real...He can say what he feels he needs to say, but the fact is that he is FAKING outrage over the truth he knows that Rev. Wright speaks but that powerful forces in the world, especially in America, do not want to hear. For instance, Obama had no business dissing Farrakhan in his latest speech about Rev. Wright. This was completely unnecessary. Silence would have done the trick. I wonder what he would have said if someone had suggested that Apartheid criminal boss Frederick De Clerc was one of the greatest figures of the 21st century?

SHAME ON YOU OBAMA!

Politicians and these white supremacists posing as journalist on Fox News and CNN will continue to do what is their job to preserve white privilege in well into the 22nd century. So, they will use every trick in the book to oppose any change, even the lame threat that an Obama presidency would represent for the status quo.

As Douglass warned us long ago "power never concedes anything without a demand. It never did and it never will". So I say to Obama, keep doing your thing and what you consider necessary to reach your goal of becoming President of the U.S.A. If I could reach Rev. Jeremiah, I would also tell the wise elder thank you for his courage and the love he has shown to our people throughout his lifetime. As, many of Africans have made the choice of speaking truth to power, they should also know that there are consequences that come with that choice. Including, the dysfunctional behaviour of our some of our own people who, by cowardice and fear of the wrath of white supremacist racism, will every now and again turn against them - helping to demonize and repudiate them, although deep in their souls they know Wright is right and is only telling inconvenient truths....

Let us all be mindful that, before this generation, there were millions upon millions of men and women who died in order for us to be men and women rather than slaves, boys or clowns.

Should we accept to play the "always happy grinning negro" - we dishonour their sacrifice, we spit on their memory.

For this, I would like to register my total contempt for this racist element in Amerikkka that is behind the current attack on Elder Jeremiah Wright.

Let it be clear that, on many fronts, this noble pastor does indeed speak for millions of honest human beings, all around the world !

AMERIKKKA MUST LEARN TO REPENT, ATONE, AND REPAIR !


Jaf

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Sat May 03, 2008 4:12 pm

Jaf,

Thanks for the comment. You said:

[quote]...A new generation of Americans will certainly refuse to follow the Democratic Party if it proves with these primaries that it is too bound to "whiteness" to even nominate a half-European half-African man to be the presidential candidate.[/quote]

If they refuse to follow the Democratic Party, which party will they follow? Certainly, not the Republican Party, for their position on that subject is worst than that of the Democratic party.

[quote]...Even when the latter [Obama] has won more votes, more delegates, more states than a white woman whose husband has already been president twice. A woman [Hillary] who has lied and been caught lying about so many things during the campaign. [/quote]

You are right! She is not perfect! Tell me who is?

[quote]...So I say to Obama, keep doing your thing and what you consider necessary to reach your goal of becoming President of the U.S.A.[/quote]

If his goal is to become president of the USA, that would be a great disappointment to many, including me. My reading of his goal is to change for the better. Becoming POTUS is a mean to that change.

Jaf, I know you mean well and your intentions are noble. But, we also need to mix those noble intentions with the reality of accomplishing them. Becoming president of any country alone, least of which the USA, is not sufficient to bring change. You also need power. And power is people, money and the will to follow the leader. Hillary Clinton and also Obama understand this. That is why they are forced sometimes to compromise. Alone, without the cooperation of the media and the institutions in the USA [public and private], they would be powerless even if they make it to the Whitehouse!

Shelony
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:37 pm

Post by Shelony » Tue May 06, 2008 10:59 am

I come to the discussion a little late since today is a decisive day in the race. But I have been watching the news closely because as a black woman, I feel I should have a particular interest in what is going on.

I have not been surprised to the reaction of the media, the public, Hillary and even Obama to Rev Jeremiah Wright statements. Politicians are politicians and will always be. The media, does objective journalism exist? I don't know but coming from Haiti I will not hold my breath for anything better. And the public, well, I may be too pessimist but I think the public is uneasy with both the idea of a black man or a woman as commander in chief. I wish I am wrong but through conversations I have had with both men and women, I feel that both racism and sexism are still present in this society. Sexism, it seems, is stronger than racism. It would have been nice if most people were criticizing or supporting Obama or Hillary because of their stands on certain issues but I tend to believe that is not the case and that the plan had been all along to destroy them one after another. One just has to look at some comments posted online to see the picture.

I wonder what would be the reaction if a former pastor of Hillary for example or a female minister who happens to support her stands and with the same tone as Rev Wright, starts telling the truth about woman situation in this country throughout its history including TODAY.

Anyway, I still support Hillary for the primary season although it is almost impossible for her to get nominated. Whatever happens though, come november, my vote has to be for the democrat and not Mccain unless something major makes me change my mind.

Shelony

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Was It Really What Jeremiah Wright Said,

Post by Guysanto » Tue May 06, 2008 11:18 am

[quote]
Was It Really What Jeremiah Wright Said, Or Was It Because He's Black?
By Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal
Posted on May 3, 2008, Printed on May 5, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/84330/

I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam: "Who's telling the truth over there?"

"Everyone," he said. "Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience."

That's how people see Jeremiah Wright.

In my conversation with him and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage.

More than 2,000 people have written me about him, and their opinions vary widely. Some sting: "Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American-hating radical," one of my viewers wrote. Another called him a "nut case."

Many more were sympathetic to him. Many asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to the shocking anger they saw at the National Press Club.

A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist.

Many black preachers I've known -- scholarly, smart, and gentle in person -- uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course, I've known many white preachers like that, too.

But where I grew up in the South, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else. A safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed.

I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched.

Or if my great-great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a Constitution that proclaimed: "We, the people."

Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Conner, and Jesse Helms.

Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic. That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances since my interview.

What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle -- forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy.

Hardly anyone took the "chickens come home to roost" remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences.

My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.

But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. public health service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test.

Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide for yourself, but at least it helps me to understand the why of them.

In this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media -- the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content.

So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help -- people who, for their own reasons, set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the warmongering, Catholic-bashing Texas preacher, who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins.

But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right.

After 9/11, Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Jon Stewart recently played tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the Oval Office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America.

This is crazy and wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.

Which means it is all about race, isn't it?

Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school.

What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship.

We're often exposed to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this -- this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner played out right in front of our eyes.

Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race.

It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said, "beware the terrible simplifiers."


[/quote]
Bill Moyers is managing editor of the weekly public affairs program "Bill Moyers Journal," which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

© 2008 Bill Moyers Journal All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/84330/

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Tue May 06, 2008 11:37 am

I would not mind voting for Bill Moyers any day. Perhaps he will be selected for a major role in the January 2009 Obama administration. :-)

Shelony, we could give a one-two punch to sexism and racism by voting for Cynthia McKinney. As for Hillary, we can always pay her to answer the phone for the President at 3:00 am. That's a very important job and Hillary is uniquely suited for it.

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Tue May 06, 2008 12:33 pm

Guy,

Thank you for posting this article I would have missed if it was not for your research. It is the ultimate addition to this thread and the response that we all wish could have given to the original article on the subject.

[quote]....I wish I am wrong but through conversations I have had with both men and women, I feel that both racism and sexism are still present in this society. Sexism, it seems, is stronger than racism. [/quote]

It seems to me that women, primarily white, have benefitted the most in the past three decades of the affirmative action policies, greater participation in the sharing of power in public government, and openness in the so-called "glass ceiling." The reason has been because there seems to be more women as senior management in the corporate world, more as owners of businesses, more in congress than blacks, not to mention a woman speaker. I don't know if there ever was a black Speaker of the House! But, as a woman, Shelony, you may have been following woman's acceptance more than I did. For that reason, I will defer to your opinion on the matter. But, I would be fascinating to find the results of any serious study on the subject as to which one is stronger, racism or sexism. Unless, you are referring mostly to sexism against black women, which include perpetrators, such as black men and white women as well! In that case, I will have to have no doubts about your assertion.

[quote]Shelony, we could give a one-two punch to sexism and racism by voting for Cynthia McKinney.[/quote]

Great pun, Guy!

Leoneljb
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Post by Leoneljb » Tue May 06, 2008 2:15 pm

I second Shelony's that Sexism is worst than Racism. Although White Women are in better jobs Today. But, their pay shows the difference.

I have to Acknowledge that all of You did a wonderful job. It is wonderful! But, I am really skeptical on the acceptance of both Candidates by the Electoral College. Like Tidodo, I can predict another GW's term en l'occurrence de Mc Cain. For, the nastiness of the DNC primaries. Unlike Guy, I can not compare having a black president, who would need the voting of millions of People to the Civil Rights during the sixties.

This was done by amending the US Constitution by a few hundred Congressmen and Senators.

Mwen pwale, paske mwen an tijan pri. Donk ma tounen pita.

Leonel

jafrikayiti
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by jafrikayiti » Tue May 06, 2008 11:14 pm

Magouy...?

Kouman fè Hillary gen tan fè diskou nan yon eleksyon ki sere sere konsa?

Nan moman m ap ekri sa a gen yon Majistra, patizan Clinton, ki di li pa konprann pou kisa rezilta yo pot ko pran lari pou Hammond, paske sa fè lontan yo te anrejistre yo ak otorite ki la pou sa.

Ki magouy k ap fèt la a?

Clinton tèlman odasyèz, li fè komsi li genyen.

Antouka, si ane sa a, Obama pa prezidan, mwen pa konnen nan ki ane yon "nèg" ap pral chita sou chèz boure sa a.

Bri kouri McCain ka chwazi Condi pou vis-prezidan... Nan peyi Hollywood sa a, Obama ta tou chwazi pitit fi Kennedy a pou visprezidan. Oudimwens, sinema pou sinema, li ka chwazi pitit fi Elvis la.

Jaf

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Wed May 07, 2008 9:49 am

Tidodo, some personal circumstances have prevented me from following up right away on some points of contention and (surprisingly enough!) solid agreement as well. For instance, you argue that a candidate should want power badly enough. I agree and I certainly have not argued against that ever [though I do make a distinction between an ultimately self-destructive lust for power and a healthy constructive desire to attain power]. In fact, I made your current argument to you [forward to the past or back to the future?] about the desirability of a quest for power on February 15, 2007 (that's right, more than a year ago). Here's what I wrote then:
[quote]The main issue for me is that Barack Obama should run for the Presidency of the United States now if he has the stomach for the race, and not listen to people who would discourage him because of political calculations (which can misfire). Win or lose in 2008, he should ride the crest of his political popularity now and see how far that will take him. Even if he is let down, when the wave comes back he will be at a further point than he was, say six months ago. I see no reason why a black man should sacrifice his political opportunities just to favor the chances of another "minority".

Having a white woman in the White House as President would not necessarily improve the chances of getting a Black man or woman in the same position. In fact, not at all. You've got to take your chances when they come, or be gone in the footnotes of history.

Colin Powell had his chance and did not take it... they are gone, baby! (never to come back again)

In as far as Obama's candidacy being a threat to Hillary's ascension to the presidency, I would say that if, at this point, Obama represents too much of a threat to Hillary, I really have to wonder about the overall strength of her candidacy, especially when we get to the final months of the campaign when the Republicans traditionally let loose the Dogs of War (Willie Horton, Swift Boat Veterans, Hanging Chads, Welfare Queens, Lee Atwater, elatriye). If Hillary cannot withstand the Obama challenge this early in the campaign, she would have no business being there in the first place.

In fact, the Obama candidacy should be healthy to Hillary. Both Obama and Hillary have to handle it right, however. This is where the Democratic Party is traditionally shaky when compared to the Republicans. Obama and Hillary should campaign against each other, not in a negative sense but based on their records, their individual charisma, and what-have-you. But they should not aim to destroy each other. In fact, each of them should keep an eye on the other as a possible ticket-sharing electoral partner among others, based on his/her ability to deliver the votes. Furthermore, each one of them should understand that winning the Democratic Party nomination is not even half of the battle. It is only a small and passing victory compared to what lies ahead. The Republicans understand that very well. The Democrats, on the other hand, always seem happy to be swinging at each other, while the Republicans simply lick their lips in anticipation (of raw meat served on a silver platter).

... It is not a foregone conclusion that Hillary is the strongest candidate for the Democratic Party, her connection to Bill Clinton notwithstanding. She has to prove it.

... I agree that the Democratic Party candidates need to emulate their rivals in terms of keeping their eyes on the real prize, and not destroy each other in the process. I want to be fully supportive of the political emancipation of the black race in America, not with an automatic gift of my vote to any black candidate, and right now I am trying honestly to evaluate the potential of Barack Obama. I do not want to tell him "wait for your turn". In a lot of ways, this is a championship season and the eventual winner must want it badly enough. No one is going to just hand it to either Obama or Hillary. The first woman president or the first black president has to take on the challenges as they come and cannot simply wish them away.

The time for strategic concessions will come later. We have nearly two years ahead of us.[/quote]

Sorry for extensively quoting myself. But reading our past discussion, it is really interesting to see how the arguments that were offered to urge Obama to drop out of the race at the beginning (when he was the underdog) have been reworked to plead the case for Hillary not to drop out of the race now. I do agree with this point entirely. Hillary would have no business quitting at this point. She should stay in the race until the last primary is over. Obama is almost "battle-tested" now. He has learned how nasty a political campaign can be, and should be able to defend himself much better against the super-nastiness that will be unfurled against him by the Republican War Machine. In the end, Hillary will have done Obama a favor.

For the sake of the Democratic Party though, I hope that after all the primary votes have been accounted for [the only real issues here are Michigan and Florida] that Hillary will bow to the will of the people and not try to subvert this quasi-democratic process with the forceful imposition of a "party bosses" overrule (the super-delegates). Super-delegates, my foot! I want my vote to count. I want every primary voter's vote to count. Otherwise, you might as well strip off the remaining veneer of democracy in this shell game of "now you see it, now you don't".

Cheers to Hillary's tenacity (her testicular fortitude, as one writer put it). But even greater cheers to her when she graciously bows to the will of the people, come convention time in July.

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Wed May 07, 2008 11:18 am

Guy, I agree with most of the things you have said in these two posts. I already admitted that I was wrong underestimating Obama at the beginning when he was not better known. And, I, certainly want us to keep our eyes on the prize in November. I am not sure the country can continue on that same path it is now and keep the respect of the rest of the world. Still, I have not changed my position as to who I would rather have as president or the candidate of the democratic party. My dream is for the two of them to get together and make sure they spend the next 16 years in the White House.

On a not totaly different subject, "lese frape" between Clinton and Obama could have been avoided have the democratic party be more prescient in making their rules. I don't seem to see in this election the benefit for the party by distributing delegates based on who wins the districts, instead of the states. That fratricide could have been avoided by now, and we would not have learned about the superdelegates. Howard Dean, Donna Bazile and company did us a disservice. I miss Ron Brown! After these elections, the party should have another look at their rules.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Wed May 07, 2008 11:59 am

Well, the biggest problem for the Democrats will come in determining what exactly to do in the cases of Michigan and Florida. Hillary is totally disingenuous (odasyèz, as Jaf put it in a different context) when she tries to pin the problem on Obama. Barack acquiesced to the rules. So did Hillary at first. Then she sneaked in opportunistically and tried to get all the delegates in her sack, in the dark of night (probably around 3:00 am) while Obama was sleeping. And now she wants people to blame Obama for the Democratic Party's refusal to add her loot to her private account. Odasyèz indeed! However, I do agree that it is most unfortunate that the ordinary citizens of Michigan and Florida will likely pay the price for the actions of some dumb asses in their respective [local] administrations.

Supposedly it was too late or there were not enough resources to organize new primaries. Bagay sa se yon zo ki kole nan gòj demokrat yo. Inosan ap peye pou koupab. I don't see how they are going to get around this honorably, do you?

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu May 08, 2008 8:46 am

[quote]Well, the biggest problem for the Democrats will come in determining what exactly to do in the cases of Michigan and Florida. [/quote]
I don't know about Michigan, in the Florida case it is a very clear one, as I will explain below.

[quote]..Hillary is totally disingenuous (odasyèz, as Jaf put it in a different context) when she tries to pin the problem on Obama.[/quote]
When Clinton started raising the question of sitting the Florida delegates, the Obama supporters raised hell - I heard the issue for the first time on the Randi Rhodes' show, a fierce Obama supporter - and they opposed afterwards any effort at sitting them, including one to redo the elections by mail, which in my opinion was ill-advised. While Obama may not be responsible for the whole fiasco of fixing nothing that needs to be fixed, he shares some responsibilities in it, which is what Clinton was pointing out.

[quote]Barack acquiesced to the rules. So did Hillary at first. Then she sneaked in opportunistically and tried to get all the delegates in her sack, in the dark of night (probably around 3:00 am) while Obama was sleeping.[/quote]
Being a Floridian, it is not clear to me which rules Hillary broke in Florida. Both Obama and she suspended active campaigning in Florida, after the ill-advised actions of the Democratic Party leadership decision. When I went to vote in Florida, both names were on the ballot.

[quote]However, I do agree that it is most unfortunate that the ordinary citizens of Michigan and Florida will likely pay the price for the actions of some dumb asses in their respective [local] administrations.[/quote]
As a Floridian, I felt insulted that the party would decide to try to cancel my vote cast in all fairness and with the benefit of all info available on the candidates. But, as much as I don't agree with the leadership of the House and Senate in Florida, they were elected by the people of Florida. The same way that I don't agree with what G.W. does, but he was elected by the American people . The decision of the local leadership in Florida was the decision of the people of Florida. Unfortunately, the arrogance of the leadership of the Democratic Party led them to try to disenfranchise the voters in Florida. This is a classic example when the administrators in the federal institutions think they are superior to the local people and their representatives.

[quote]Supposedly it was too late or there were not enough resources to organize new primaries. Bagay sa se yon zo ki kole nan gòj demokrat yo. Inosan ap peye pou koupab. I don't see how they are going to get around this honorably, do you?[/quote]
There was no need to organize new primaries. The elections in Florida were the most democratic and the best that took place during these primaries. They were organized without the influence of "big money" elite and established parties' machines. I believe the way the Florida elections were organized is the way all elections should be, when decisions are made based on information searched for by voters instead of big money ads and propaganda press coverages. The Florida delegates should be seated, because the elections were fair and no candidate was unfairly represented the way it happened. Like I said earlier, I cannot talk for Michigan, as Obama fearing defeat there may have withdrawn his name, knowing that his strength was in caucuses not in statewide elections. Very convenient, indeed!

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu May 08, 2008 10:15 am

Tidodo, thank you for your informed, well-educated opinion. I have read differing perspectives though. However, I enjoyed this one, coming as it is, from a passionate political analyst in Ann Pale.

There is a curious American expression (I wish I knew more about its origins) about "having one's cake and eating it too". It seems to me that is what you and Floridian supporters of Hillary Clinton are trying to do. Go ahead, Tidodo, have your cake and eat it too!

What do I mean by this? Well, it's obvious. The State Party can completely ignore the rules established ahead of the electoral campaign by the National Party. Then, they would expect to pay no consequence whatsoever. They can even be described in such a lofty way as [quote]The elections in Florida were the most democratic and the best that took place during these primaries. They were organized without the influence of "big money" elite and established parties' machines. I believe the way the Florida elections were organized is the way all elections should be...[/quote]
I am amazed to hear about those Florida elections being the model for the Nation, when the word "Florida" had become synonymous with "eleksyon magouy" previously. Even more remarkable would be the fact of this happening without particular favor to any of the candidates. But, for the sake of argument, let me take your word for it because, I admit, you are a lot closer to the scene than I am.

But, wait a minute, if the State parties can get away with organizing primaries as they please, on their own schedule, without the National Party's authority, why would any other state abide by the rules next year??

You also used the term "convenient" to describe Obama's campaign management reactions to those elections. Hmm... What about Hillary's arguments AFTER she won those unconventional state primaries? Does the term "self-serving" come to mind?

Frantz
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:06 pm

Post by Frantz » Thu May 08, 2008 10:47 am

Tidodo,

You wrote:
".... When I went to vote in Florida, both names were on the ballot. "

Yes, indeed they were on the ballot but how many democrat voters didn't cast a vote? Floridian democrats went to the poll specifically to approve or disapprove the proposed property tax amendment. A good majority of them were well aware of the Rules. For an informed democrat voter why bother casting a ballot knowing that it will not count?

frantz

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu May 08, 2008 12:54 pm

[quote]Yes, indeed they were on the ballot but how many democrat voters didn't cast a vote[/quote]

Frantz,

1.750 million of Democrats cast a ballot in the elections. That number is 200 thousand short of the number of Republicans who are in majority in the State. On the Republican side, 1,949 million of voters cast their ballots.
Because of the property tax amendment, the turnout was very high, as you indicated.

In comparison, during the past three presidential primaries, only 25% of the electorate, on an average, turned out to vote. In the elections in January 2008, 41% of Florida registered voters went to vote, representing 4.2 million of voters. The rest of the voters who did not cast a ballot for a democrat or a republican are independent, since in Florida there is no open primary elections.

Frantz, with these numbers, it is hard to argue that the voters decided it was useless to vote and skipped the presidential part of it. Here are the results of the voting from the State of Florida Department of Elections website:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/electio ... &DATAMODE=

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu May 08, 2008 1:06 pm

[quote]..What do I mean by this? Well, it's obvious. The State Party can completely ignore the rules established ahead of the electoral campaign by the National Party. Then, they would expect to pay no consequence whatsoever. [/quote]

As far as I know, the Democratic Party in Florida does not decide when the elections are held. That is the responsibility of State Government. Once the State makes that decision, the local party leaders have no choice because of costs and other issues.

[quote]I am amazed to hear about those Florida elections being the model for the Nation, when the word "Florida" had become synonymous with "eleksyon magouy" previously. [/quote]

You are right that Floridians seem incapable of coming up with such an ideal voting system. It was just an accident! But, I would argue that having an election, devoid of campaigning by the candidates, and devoid of "big money" and media propaganda disguised as news and reports, is by far a fairer and more representative system than what we have today.

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Thu May 08, 2008 1:26 pm

I thought the whole controversy centered on the Florida Democratic Party holding its primary ahead of the official primary season, as defined by the National Party... Only 4 exceptions were allowed, and Florida was not one of them.

You seem to be saying now that the Democratic Party in Florida had nothing to do with it???

Is this a case of "se pa fòt mwen"? [You, Haitians, must have a lot of influence down there!] But, seriously, educate me, brother.

Tidodo
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:07 am

Post by Tidodo » Thu May 08, 2008 2:20 pm

[quote]I thought the whole controversy centered on the Florida Democratic Party holding its primary ahead of the official primary season, as defined by the National Party... Only 4 exceptions were allowed, and Florida was not one of them.

You seem to be saying now that the Democratic Party in Florida had nothing to do with it??? [/quote]

What I am saying is that the decision to hold the elections in January was made by the State Legislature, which is currently controlled by Republicans. The latter was also penalized by the National party. But, it was not a factor in the Republican primaries. If my understanding is wrong, I would be glad to correct it. Meanwhile, here is a clip from CNN on the issue, under "Primary Process".

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html


[quote]Eligible voters in both the Democratic and Republican parties go to the polls on primary day, January 29, 2008, and cast ballots in their respective contests. Each party uses its own formula to determine how to allocate delegates to their national conventions based on the outcome of the vote. Since Florida officials moved up the primary date in violation of both national Democratic and Republican party rules, the number of delegates each party may send to the national party conventions will likely be cut significantly. [/quote]

User avatar
Guysanto
Site Admin
Posts: 1289
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Post by Guysanto » Fri May 09, 2008 12:48 pm

[quote]...which is currently controlled by Republicans. The latter was also penalized by the National party.[/quote]
Penalized how? I loved the Florida Republican primary by the way, in that it spelled the end to the Guiliani candidacy.

Anyway, thanks for the above explanation, Tidodo. I was assigning the blame to the wrong parties for the debacles in Florida and Michigan. You correctly identified the culprit as the State Legislatures. Nevertheless, I think that both of our impressions still stand: "convenient" on the part of Obama's camp (your assertion), "self-serving" on the part of Hillary's camp (my assertion).

This does not bring us closer to a resolution of the problem.

Hopefully, comes May 20, the problem will go away all by itself (zo pwason an ap koule an dous nan gòj demokrat yo) if Obama manages to attain the "magic number" of delegates required to become the winner of the Democratic Party elections [or, according to Leonel Jean-Baptiste, the designated loser of the National Elections in November].

Hopefully, comes May 20, the potential overruling of primary results from the super-delegates will simply vanish for the sake of party unity.

Jimmy Carter said that it would be "a national disaster" if the super-delegates picked the candidate with the lesser amount of elected delegates. I happen to agree with him 100% on that point.

As I said before, "super-delegates, my foot!" so not to use a different part of my anatomy.

Come November, either Obama will win or McCain will. If Obama wins, this will be a historic change for the entire world. Not necessarily a change in the basic foreign policy of the United States, which has not essentially changed since Woodrow Wilson defined its ideological structure. No, that fight will have to be carried on still for another day. The U.S. hegemony will rise and will fall, to make room for other hegemonies in the long run but perhaps not too distant future. But for now, what I am looking for is a shift towards humanitarian policies rather than supremacist ones. I believe that Obama is the one most likely to bring this about. If McCain wins, it will be like living with George Bush again for another 4 to 8 years. But I am absolutely certain that we can and we will survive that too. We may have to come and taste a bit of the misery Haiti has endured in the past two centuries, but just as Haiti still survives today so will the rest of the world, after Gengis Khan, after Napoleon, after Belgian King Leopold, after Trujillo, after Fulgencio Batista, after Somoza, after Papa Doc, after a possible "Bush/McCain" etc. Evantyalite sa pap ebranle-m paske si se pa etap sa pou nou pase, then so be it. WE WILL SURVIVE, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THE ONLY QUESTION IS: ARE WE READY TO BE HUMAN AGAIN?

If you feel like you are in Church right now, Tidodo... you've only seen the beginning. I am saving my best for last.

By the way, here is a humorous look at the current state of the campaign: http://www.hillaryis404.org/. But as I mentioned before, I do not want Hillary to surrender. She does not owe Obama any favors. I do not think that Obama will need them either. This man offers hope and all of us who have come to support him demand it.

Guy

Post Reply