US Elections 2008 - II

[acharya]

<img src='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00292/car385_292795a.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[acharya]

Frankfurter Rundschau,Germany

Race, Class and Gender


By HELMUT MÜLLER-SIEVERS

"The triangle of race, class and gender never really functioned on a completely equal footing."

Translated By David Vickrey

6 March 2008



Germany - Frankfurter Rundschau - Original Article (German)

Every mathematical analysis would seem to indicate that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have the requisite number of delegates by August for securing the party’s nomination in Denver as the Democratic presidential. The question is now whether the campaign can be conducted until then in such a manner so that the winner is not weakened when he or she goes up against John McCain.

Last week has shown that Hillary Clinton is not bothered by this. She put out campaign ads that raised doubts about Obama’s crisis management abilities; only when forced did she discount the rumors that her opponent is Muslim; she indirectly accused him of anti-Semitism; and she stated that he had less experience than John McCain . The Republican opponent will certainly make good use of these attacks.

These are tactics that the Clintons have picked up in the many political campaigns over the years, which have also made them into a mirror image and favorite target of their Republican opponents: never give up, focus on the next fight, make virtues out of tenacity and comebacks, divide voting blocks, build up networks of political dependents: the Clintonistas and the Republicans are forever locked in combat with each other, to the detriment of the nation. Left-liberal and moderate commenters in the blogs pray that this nightmare will finally be over, but it doesn’t look like it will happen anytime soon.

But what is the source of this animosity against Obama – which besides Clinton is shared by a considerable number of intellectuals and academics? To some extent there is some understandable concern that such a young and inexperienced candidate will be torn to pieces by the Repbulicans in the general campaign in the fall. Clinton, it is felt, has been through this already. But there is also a general perplexity with the new generation of voters and how they organize and communicate with each other through Facebook, YouTube and diverse blogs. Clinton’s favorite medium is the televised debate, where she can display her knowledge of policy details and control her message. Then there is the constant criticism that is expressed over and over again in different formats: Obama may have charisma, but Clinton represents the promise of rational governance.

This criticism contains many implications which cannot be explicitly expressed; it places Obama along side black preachers, who sound threatening to white voters; it sexualizes him as a rock star; it makes him the kids’ candidate, with the same lack of maturity. What’s behind the criticism is Obama’s great oratorical skill: the fear is that he overpowers and intoxicates the listeners, depriving them of their critical faculties.

People are attracted to Obama’s speeches because for the past eight years we have lived through a rhetorical drought, brought about by the cacophony of the partisan hue and cry. Up to now young voters in the US have never heard a politician speak so well, and that includes both Clintons. But the notion that Obama whips his audience up into a frenzy is most certainly wrong, and completely misses the pathos and even hymnal quality of his speech. As the criticism of empty rhetoric has gotten louder, Obama has reverted in his speeches more and more to the easygoing cadence of a speaker who doesn’t mind being interrupted. Still, in this hard-fought campaign there are advantages that one will not give up completely.

But this criticism of charisma and oratory, which is almost always made by those who possess neither, is probably not the most important concern about Obama by progressive intellectuals. Prior to his rise as a political force they had invariably backed Hillary Clinton, in large measure because she was able to assert an exalted level of discourse while her husband was president.

The 90s were a decade in which all discussion – at first in universities, but soon also in radio and television – was impacted by a mild constructivism, in which nothing is received as fundamental, but rather filtered through the lenses of race, class and gender. During this decade universities couldn’t stop establishing professorships and academic departments for women’s studies, for post-colonial studies, for gay and transgender studies, or for African-American studies. The implicit understanding was that both the students and the instructors in these departments had to belong to the groups being studied. The movement was an attempt to make amends for past injustice – an atonement for historical evil -, at least within the ivory tower.

But the triangle of race, class and gender never really functioned on a completely equal footing. For example, it was no coincidence that Harvard president Larry Summer was chastised not when he tangled with the black professors Cornell West and Henry Louis Gates, but rather when he let slip comments concerning “essential” differences between the sexes. It was in any case difficult to separate the categories of race and class from each other, and the usefulness of the concept of class, with its Marxist implication that classes are the progressive subjects of history, was questionable after Bush won two elections.

That left the issue of gender – or, more precisely, the issue of women’s equality – as the final Topos of atonement movement, and this was personified by Hillary Clinton. Her time had arrived, was what we heard up until just a few months ago. And then this black man appeared on the scene and competed for her place.

In her latest televised appearances Clinton has tried to blunt the sharpness of her attacks by pointing out how wonderful it is that either a black or a woman will be the candidate of the Democratic Party. Obama’s ice cold silence in this respect demonstrates not only that he views the relationship of race and gender as far less symmetrical but also that he wants to keep questions of atonement and reparation out of his campaign.

The next weeks will show whether Obama and his campaign will draw the necessary lessons from his losses in Ohio and Texas and go on the counter-attack against Clinton and her negative campaigning or if they work out a new strategy. His speech on the evening of his loss in Texas would seem to indicate the latter: he didn’t mention Clinton’s attacks at all, rather he wanted to start a grand conversation with John McCain, whom he admires, concerning the future of America. Whether he will be leading this as his party’s candidate remains to be seen.

[acharya]

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/06...on-about-obama/

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tim_wa...the_border.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml...09/bomur109.xml

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/08...ad-john-mccain/

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&...&d=6&m=3&y=2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961322.html

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/...aid=950&faqid=9

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/trail...s-for-obama.htm

<img src='http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/10/09/PH2007100902495.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[acharya]

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/04...ma-for-germany/

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/02...another-dallas/

[Guest]

Check these two petition, read comments <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Pledge to vote against Obama in the General Election</b>
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pledge-to...tion#signatures

<b>Petition For Howard Dean to Resign as DNC Chair</b>
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/65/petition...gn-as-dnc-chair

[Guest]

Missisippi results

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/livecoverag...ed_in_miss.html

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There was little doubt that the Illinois senator would prevail in a southern state with a large African American electorate. <b>Voters in Mississippi divided starkly along racial lines,</b> according to exit polls cited by the Associated Press. Roughly 90 percent of black voters backed Obama while roughly seven in ten white voters went for Clinton, the AP noted.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Now this race is black and White 100%.
Blacks voted 91% for BHO (openly they had claimed) but it seems 95% actually did
White voted 69% for Clinton (openly they had claimed) but it seems 98% actually did.
Asians voted for Clinton.

[Guest]

<b>Race Man</b>
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008

[Guest]

Here is part of email sent by Barack Hussein Obama to his followers -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"But just turn on the news and you'll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.
They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you.
Over the weekend, an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as 'boutique' states and our supporters as the 'latte-sipping crowd.'"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

from differnt fora -
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>When the Chickens Come Home to Roost</b>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Obama is downplaying the percentage of votes he is receiving from African-Americans because he knows it is about playing the race card. His cunningness to fool black folks into believing that he is really “down” with our cause is as offensive as wearing black face. As a black person, I am also sadden and bewildered by so many African-Americans not caring about the real issues of this campaign. In my viewpoint, Obama set this whole racial campaign up to benefit winning at any cost. When Obama didn’t denounce the false allegations against President Bill Clinton, I began to smell trouble ahead. Needless to say, the cable brigade ran with the lie and is still using it as if it was factual—when all those who have ears to hear and eyes to read, know that the “fairy tale” dealt with Obama’s lies.

Here stands the problem—no one seems to call Obama out in front of the African-American community and challenge him on his supposedly stance for black folks. When someone has questioned Obama about his sincerity to help black folks—they are deemed as being a “uncle tom” or speaking for the "man" or conservatives. Perhaps the best way to deal with this situation is that the media and Hillary and yes, John McCain supporters needs to scrutinize the “reverse race card” that is being played in this election. We should be unified on if nothing else, stopping Obama from polarizing our country. Obama and his wife Michelle should be ashamed of themselves—but they aren’t. If this gets them the Democratic nomination and the possibility of their names being written in history and into the White House, then it will happen at the cost of family, friends and neighbors being lost—let’s face it, this racial divide is bringing them nothing but good times [no spun meant] and his winning in heavily populated African-American urban and rural areas will only cause more harm than good in the future.

African-Americans who are supporting and drooling over the Obama-man [blindly] will be left out in the cold concerning American elections after 2008. As a black person, I have concluded that there will be no longer a point in considering our vote as a “political must” in future elections. From the stats that I have been reading of late, Hillary is receiving votes from Whites, Latinos and Asians and these voters have given her the biggest wins and have also overshadowed the black vote. Republicans are not courting the ‘African-American vote” because they have arrived to the conclusion, and it is a fact, that a majority of blacks just aren’t going to vote for anyone Republican.

One should also understand that when that large segment of African-Americans who voted for Obama find out that he would rather have cocktails and Brie with a Republican than have a coke and soul food with a brother or a sister, then my dear friends, the chickens will have come home to roost. Unfortunately, Obama will not acknowledge the detrimental harm he has already caused my brothers and sisters in the African-American community. Obama has no real history of struggle in this country [Indonesia and Hawaii]. He truly doesn’t understand that his selfish acts to win an election of this great magnitude have come at the expense of racial discord in this nation.

Lastly, Obama has indeed spoiled the hard work, sweat, blood and tears of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. and those who have sacrifice their lives in the civil rights movement. Obama has put race relations back in just a period of three months. This proves that he is not an agent for change or hope. And as far as his speeches on unifying this nation—well, Obama’s words ring hollow. Look at what he has done for his selfishness ego. “Our unified nation of races has been divided so deep and wide, that it may take generations for it to come back together.”

The media should call Obama on this and it is my prayer that sooner than later. With truth comes courage and with God all things are possible.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Shambhu]

The article just above this one (#50) is right on. I approve that message!!

[Guest]

Enjoy Lou Dobbs response to false attack by Barack Hussein

[Guest]

This from Black magzine - BlackCommentator.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b> Barack Obama and Euphoria of Madness </b>

Those who ignore reality and the lessons of history do so at their own peril. Ignoring reality, whether in a state of euphoria or not, is nonetheless a sure recipe for disaster.

It is both sad and simultaneously horribly fascinating to observe so many euphorically pinning their hopes and dreams on Barack Obama, a chameleon who speaks liberally of “change” but who is, himself, beholden to the very same blood-sucking corporate vampires (including Lockheed and others) who are ravaging the peoples of America, and the entire planet. It seems we have moved euphemistically from Dracula to a corporately repackaged Blackula in the person of Barack Obama. In the very name of “change,” Obama is moving America euphorically backwards.

All of America, but most especially we Black, Brown, and Red peoples, need to pay heed to the unfolding debacle known as the “Obama phenomenon.” This so-called “phenomenon” is propelled by blind euphoria, while being steeped in double-speak and disinformation. The danger in this is self-evident.

Never mind that Barack Obama is a stalwart supporter of apartheid / corporate Zionism and is beholden to the Zionist corporate lobby in the US, which wags the people of America as a whole to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars from the coffers of this nation. It should be noted that Barack Obama made it quite clear in The Jerusalem Post newspaper (Israel) of January 29, 2008, that the Palestinian people whose lands are, and have long been, illegally and militarily occupied by Israel, “do not have the right of return.” Similar to the wanton genocide that America carried out against the indigenous, so-called “Indian” peoples on this North American continent under the cover of Manifest Destiny, so it is that the Zionists are simultaneously carrying out de facto apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people. Black, Red, and Brown peoples should pay close attention to this horrible reality, which is supported by Barack Obama, and no amount of Obama double-speak can obfuscate this outrage. Black Americans must realize unequivocally that every Israeli or Jewish person is not necessarily a Zionist, just as every German was not necessarily a Nazi (Adolph Hitler in fact also murdered thousands of non-Jewish Germans who opposed him). However, make no mistake about this: Nazism, Zionism, and apartheid are inextricably tied together. Moreover, it should be clearly understood that Semitic peoples include both Arab and Jewish peoples, including Palestinians. Thus, the constant tactic of depicting any who criticize the actions of Zionists as being “anti-Semitic,” is inaccurate, diversionary, and ridiculous. Barack Obama is deeply beholden to apartheid / corporate Zionism at the expense of the Palestinian people and peace with justice throughout the so-called Middle East.            

<b>Never mind that Barack Obama, contrary to corporate myth, was never in reality a so-called grassroots, political, “community activist,” but was in fact a financially paid, funded, and comfortable opportunist who did not lay his life on the line in any serious manner for disenfranchised people. Moreover, his alleged “volunteer” work in Chicago was anything but the stuff of legend in serving the people, though one would never learn this from his current supporters in the corporate media. Indeed, Barack Obama is himself the beneficiary of the many serious and committed women and men grassroots, political, community activists who went before him, and who often paid for their activism by tortuous jail/prison time and/or death. Serious community activism is no joke and will never be hailed or supported by corporations or the corporate media.

Never mind that Barack Obama has indicated both verbally and in writing that he favors “unilateral” US military actions against other nations, which is both dangerously absurd and in direct contravention and flagrant violation of international law. Notwithstanding the constant double-speak of Barack Obama, his admiration for Ronald Reagan (who despised US working men and women and who unilaterally militarily invaded the tiny Black nation of Grenada), and his warm relationship with William Daley of the infamous and racist Daley political machine in Chicago, should, at bare minimum, give people of good will (of all colors) serious pause for thought.

Nevertheless, and despite all of the foregoing, there are those who insist, regarding Barack Obama: “At least he’s black!” Is he? What is Blackness and what does it really mean in America? And how is being bamboozled, pimped, and disenfranchised by a black person any better than being emaciated by a person of any other color? Think about it as if your very life depends on it, because, ultimately, it may.

The January 31, 2008, Daily Sun of Nigeria, in an article entitled, "Barack Obama May Win, But He’s No African American," poignantly stated, in relevant part: “There are several fundamental issues that must be clarified to understand the importance of Obama’s candidacy. First of all, strictly speaking Barack Obama is not an African-American - but an African who is American. He’s not a descendant of the enslaved Africans who built America without reward or respect for their contributions… But there is a side to his character that well-illustrates the differences between himself and the average ‘Black American.’ For instance, when speaking of his heritage he points proudly to his living relatives [in Kenya]… He doesn’t have the burden or challenge of discussing how his ancestors overcame prejudice within the very society he’s striving to rule. He doesn’t have to refer to the disenfranchisement and dehumanization of his ancestors when he speaks of the legacy that he represents…” Nor does he have or relate to the collective suffering and ongoing struggle of a physically and emotionally brutalized Black America. 

Many Black Americans and our Brown and Red sisters and brothers will, I fear, come to be deeply disappointed in Barack Obama, once he demonstrates who he really is. There will be no peace or justice under an Obama Presidency, should such come to pass. Even the majority of white Americans, with the exception of the corporate liberals and conservatives, may yet come to realize that Obama’s interests are corporate interests; they are not the needs and interests of everyday people, who represent the overwhelming majority of this nation and the world.

It must be reiterated that the Democrat and Republican Parties have consistently sold out Black, Red, Brown, Yellow, and White peoples in America. There is no doubt that the blind euphoria being experienced by those who are presently not critically thinking - is also being experienced by the elite of the US corporate/military/media apparatus - except that their euphoria is not blind. It is callous, calculating, and cold-blooded. 

We need to be about the business of thinking and acting outside the box and building political parties that are outside the box, parties that serve the economic, social, and political interests of the masses of people. This is precisely why the candidacy of former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for President and the Power To The People Coalition is of such enormous importance for the present and for the future. This coalition is all about collectively laying the foundation for systemic change - which is the only way that we can enjoy real change.

Blind euphoria notwithstanding, those who ignore reality and the lessons of history, do so at their own peril. Now, more than ever, is the time to be critical thinkers, not blind followers.</b>

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member, Larry Pinkney, is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker, by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book) Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/10...american-style/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,539607,00.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer...6994-qqqx=1.asp

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/09...ilified-easily/

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/...nest-game/

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/op...on_racism.shtml

http://watchingamerica.com/News/2008/03/12...-his-good-luck/

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2855

http://www.namibian.com.na/2008/February/c...08EBA67B42.html

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Democratic caucus tactics disruptive</b>
BONNIE ERBE
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
link
Search the Web for "caucus disruptions" and allegations of caucus-vote disruptions lodged against supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton predominate among the first 20 links that come up. I have obtained a copy of a memo written by a Clinton campaign volunteer in Washington state intended only for other Clinton volunteers in subsequent caucus states (specifically for Texas campaign volunteers). It warns them of "caucus disruption strategies" by supporters of Sen. Barack Obama.

The memo was written by a University of North Carolina professor emerita of anthropology who served as a volunteer Clinton precinct committee officer in the Washington state caucuses last month. It warned other volunteer organizers about so-called strategies alleged to have been observed by herself and by Clinton volunteers in Iowa and Nevada. The volunteer, in a phone conversation I had with her, asked that her name not be used. Granted, these events were "observed" weeks ago, but are still worth considering. Here are the relevant parts of the memo:

"1. Individuals arriving all at once in large groups can disrupt the caucus by making it difficult to keep track of sign-in sheets, among other things. It created crowding in one caucus site that I am aware of and there weren't enough chairs for people to use. Other behaviors that can make it difficult for the caucus to run smoothly are deliberate disruptions with things like chanting, sign waving, dancing or singing. The Precinct Chair (or Caucus Chair) will need to insist on order.

"2. Individuals may arrive who are not registered to vote in a particular precinct with the story that 'they just moved there.' Some places where this has been observed, the person really didn't fit the picture of somebody who had 'just moved into' the precinct. They were allowed to register to vote and to caucus. (I do not know whether this individual's vote has been certified or not.) Bottom line: know your precinct demographics and make note of individuals who are registering to vote on site. (If they are so excited about participating, why haven't they registered before?)

"3. Supporters for a particular candidate, such as Senator Clinton, have arrived at caucus sites early to decorate and organize and been told that 'the building was locked.' When they are finally allowed into the building they see that signs for other candidates had already been posted. Bottom line: know who you are dealing with in terms of the caucus coordinator ... This will usually be some volunteer for the local Democratic Party."

This memo is important in that Obama has fared way better than Clinton in caucus states on the whole and such tactics may have figured in those successes. From a balance perspective, it is equally important to keep in mind that similar countercharges are circulating to be sure among Obama volunteers -- it is just that none of this nature has crossed my desk in particular. If I receive any from reliable parties, I will be happy to write about them in subsequent columns.

It is further important to note that this professor is a volunteer, not a Clinton campaign official. All that said, since Clinton's victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries, much has been made of her ability to win primary votes and Obama's ability to win caucus states. How much of his ability to win caucus votes has been predicated upon these alleged tactics? I have no answer to that question and pose it to you, dear reader, to answer for yourself.

Given the above information and the fact many of the states Obama has won so far have been "reliably Republican ... such as Idaho, Utah, Georgia and South Carolina. Democrats have no chance in those states come November. Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio ... " (this written by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathan Last this week), the question of "electability" must be revisited.

And although many polls have shown Obama to be the tougher competitor against Republican John McCain in a general-election match-up, one wonders whether that continues to be the case.

Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Interesting piece. More then anything it prob gives an insight into how white Obama supporting folks think ?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. </b>Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. <b>A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm.</b> A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The best speech Obama has ever given was not his famous 2004 convention address, but a June 2007 speech in Connecticut. In it, he described his religious conversion:

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>One Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ.</b> I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, he would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama is deeply aware of how he comes across to whites. In a revealing passage in his first book, he recounts how, in adolescence, he defused his white mother’s fears that he was drifting into delinquency. She had marched into his room and demanded to know what was going on. He flashed her “a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry.” This, he tells us, was “usually an effective tactic,” because people


<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->were satisfied as long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved—such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jesse Jackson voiced puzzlement that Obama was not at the forefront of the march. “If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,” he remarked. The South Carolina newspaper The State reported that Jackson said Obama was “acting like he’s white.” Obama didn’t jump into the fray (no sudden moves), but instead issued measured statements on Jena, waiting till a late-September address at Howard University to find his voice. It was simultaneously an endorsement of black identity politics and a distancing from it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And this perhaps is a very important insight into why whites like Obama ?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama’s racial journey makes this kind of both/and politics something more than a matter of political compromise. The paradox of his candidacy is that, as potentially the first African American president in a country founded on slavery, he has taken pains to downplay the racial catharsis his candidacy implies. He knows race is important, and yet he knows that it turns destructive if it becomes the only important thing. In this he again subverts a Boomer paradigm, of black victimology or black conservatism. He is neither Al Sharpton nor Clarence Thomas; neither Julian Bond nor Colin Powell. Nor is he a post-racial figure like Tiger Woods, insofar as he has spent his life trying to reconnect with a black identity his childhood never gave him. Equally, he cannot be a Jesse Jackson. His white mother brought him up to be someone else. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard R<b>everend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” </b>And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
<b>Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

<b>"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, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." </b>

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"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," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.
....

"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I strongly think Barack Hussein Obama race is over. After Ferraro, all those who were supporting BHO because of latte label had started jumping ships.
Yesterday, Buchanan said "Shut up" to black BHO adviser on TV during discussion on Ferraro. Yesterday and today Mr Rush and other Republicans on Radio are on full throttle. Suddenly they are in love with Hillary. Traditional democrats loved Ferraro and it is not going well among big group. ABC, CBS and Fox are coming out with investigation on preacher, Rezko and how BHO Chicago style corruption. He is playing election worse then Mushy. He had crossed Laloo level long time back. Even dead people are voting for BHO. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you imagine four counties were under federal monitor during MS election to check irregularities?
For Caucaus he was bringing people from Illonios, Alabama etc. His homb and winks are working, all codes are in full swing.

Today Hillary added 13 new super delegates in her kitty.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Delegate from Colorado
As a county and now state delegate I would like to say that there is no set delegate count for obama here in CO.  During the first caucus obama won 70% - 27% of the caucus delegates, at our county convention it changed 60% - 40% giving Hillary an increase because we actually get to vote and do not have to vote for who won at the first caucus.  I suspect Hillary will gain again at our state convention in May, and that is when delegates will be pledged.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Check how things are changing.

[Guest]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/ob...h-in-hot-water/
<b>Obama’s Spiritual Mentor May Put Church in Hot Water</b>

link contain audio also

[Guest]

June 3 Is Target for Mich. Do-Over Vote
They are still debating about Florida. After the FL 2000, one would think that Democrats are taking FL a bit more seriously.