US Elections 2008 - II

[dhu]

these groups are specifically anti-white and not much else. they do not hold any interest for india, for or against. let him rail against whitey and give whitey heart attack.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->they do not hold any interest for india<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His advisery team is all anti-India/anti-Hindu.

Yesterday, one of his die-hard supporter called Hindus and child molestors in same sentence in Steven Colbert Report, Only Steven dragged him that why you have used them together, are you suggesting Hindus are child molestor. BHO supporter was Arab Muslim and very proudly saying we share same name Hussein.
BHO is not Bush lite but ....

[dhu]

ok i get it. being minority plus savior figure plus anti-india is bad combination.

[Guest]

here is Colbert Report transcript
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Colbert : Let me tell you why it shouldn't matter, that Barack Hussein Obama is a muslim and that is... well I'm hearing that he is.. lately

Hussein Ibish : He says he is not, so he's not. There is no reason to doubt it. He's not.

Colbert : Okay.. I am sorry I misspoke, a secret muslim. ok.

Hussein Ibish : There's is no reason to doubt it, " if some one says to you, that you are a secret Hindu or perhaps a child molestor are we to take this on face value ?"

Boos from the crowd

Colbert : Sir .. No .. No.. No I'll take care of this one.. I find this offensive that you are implying that all Hindus are child molesters ?

Cheers from the Crowd

Hussein Ibish : I'm not, ofcourse I'm not ..

Colbert : You just .. Your words..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

So "RACE" is finally in by Barack Hussein Obama. Tommorow he will give speech on "RACE" and "Wright". His poll number had gone real down, I doubt he can recover now.
Let see what he will say on speech, whether it will cut n paste from Malcom-X, Martin Luther King, Farrahkhan, FDK, JFK, Lincoln, or some school kid note from net.
His condition is same as Sonia's best quote during Gujarat election "Maut ka saudagar"

[Guest]

Check pastor language<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In September of 2002, Obama traveled to the annual Congressional Black Caucus conference in Washington DC to try and drum up support for his potential '04 Senate bid. On page 160, Mendell describes an interview with Wright in which the Reverend talked about Obama's trip:

<i>But what truly struck Wright from that meeting was Obama's astonishment over the black caucus event in Washington. It opened Wright's eyes once again to just how innocent and idealistic Obama could be about the world of politics. [snip]
"He had gone down there to get support and find out who would support him and found out it was just a meat market," the pastor said in an interview, breaking into a laugh. "He had people say, 'If you want to count on me, come on to my room. I don't care if you're married. I am not asking you to leave your wife - just come on.' All the women hitting on him. He was, like, in shock. He's there on a serious agenda, talking about running for he United States Senate. They're talking about giving [him] some pussy. And I was like, 'Barack, c'mon, man. Come on! Name me one significant thing that has come out of black congressional caucus weekend. It's homecoming. It's just a nonstop party, all the booze you want, all the booty you want. That's all it is.' And here he is with this altruistic agenda, trying to get some support. He comes back shattered. I thought to myself, 'Does he have a rude awakening coming his way.'"</i>

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

In last two days lot of race issues came out,
Black Chruch are claming
1) Whites injected AIDS in Africa and black
2) American Government injected syphilis to African American
3) They are more attached to Palestian cause
4) Salvery

Any evidence on 1), 2)

[Guest]

Now new Black Gov of NY is in trouble,
link
again Gov. Paterson admits to sex with other woman for years

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2) American Government injected syphilis to African American<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a well known scandal that caused a lot of embarassment to US gov't but they did not infect them, they didn't treat them and left them to die since they wanted to see how the disease progresses:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html

[Bodhi]

from above link by BV:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The PHS did not accept the media's comparison of Tuskegee with the appalling experiments performed by Nazi doctors on their Jewish victims during World War II. Yet in addition to the medical and racist parallels, the PHS offered the same morally bankrupt defense offered at the Nuremberg trials: they claimed they were just carrying out orders, mere cogs in the wheel of the PHS bureaucracy, exempt from personal responsibility. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

and:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A race that's all about race

Sandhya Jain

In a fundamental sense, the Democratic Party's dilemma between race and gender has been settled firmly in favour of race. It no longer matters whether it is Mr Barack Obama or Ms Hillary Clinton who secures the Democratic presidential nomination for the November 2008 election. Thanks to tactless shoving by the Clinton co-presidency aspirants, Democrats will have to consciously decide if they want to help a Black man win a job coveted by a White woman. It's as basic as that.

This was partly inevitable because gender is too artificial to sustain; you can't delink a woman (or man) from family and social group identity. But race is intrinsically segregationist; indeed, White colonialists and slave traders in Europe and America devised the concept of race precisely because of its potently divisive appeal. Colour may be only skin-deep, but it's too in-your-face to be missed.

That is why former President Bill Clinton could effortlessly suggest to a public fed on the clash of civilisations and apprehensive of creeping Islamic influence among Afro-Americans that the Illinois Senator play second fiddle to his wife. He sugar coated the insulting suggestion that Mr Obama was not good enough to be President by calling the Hillary-Barack team "an unstoppable force," adding that Ms Clinton could win rural voters and Reagan Democrats, while Mr Obama could attract urban and upscale voters.

The New York Senator was quick to second the motion. Unacknowledged 'friends' had already released a photograph of Mr Obama in traditional African gear while on a trip to Kenya, and made much of his middle name 'Hussein' to raise the 'Muslim' bogey. So much for American pluralism and 'melting pot' culture; the message of the Clinton campaign clearly states that Blacks can become Christians, but they can never become White. Sadly, Hindu Americans of African origin have failed to speak for racial equality and dignity.

Mr Obama has done well to dodge the deadly race trap and resist the urge to prove pure Black or half-White credentials. The studied silence of his wife shows this is deliberate. Concentrating on charm and rhetoric, Mr Obama has deftly put the Clinton campaign on the back foot by pointing out: "I don't know how somebody who's in second place (in delegates and popular votes) is offering the vice-presidency to somebody who's in first place." He underlined his resentment to this unsolicited patronage by declaring: "I am running for President of the United States of America, I am not running for Vice-President." This is wise, for as David Broder has warned in The Washington Post, coping with Mr Clinton's ego in the event of his wife's victory "would truly be (a) cruel and unusual punishment for Obama".

Ironically, the running-mate issue has created confusion in the Clinton camp as well. While military supporters attest to Ms Clinton's ability to be commander-in-chief, an aide has questioned the sagacity of projecting Mr Obama as Vice-President while claiming he was unqualified to be the commander-in-chief. American Vice-Presidents are expected to have the ability to be C-in-C of the US armed forces in case circumstances propel them to the Oval Office, a la Gerald Ford. The Clinton campaign made things worse with the 3 am telephone advertisement, which many saw as naked racism and hate-mongering.

Then, as public opinion began to get edgy, the Clinton camp had a fit of verbal diarrhoea. America was treated to the spectacle of Ms Geraldine Ferraro giving an interview suggesting Mr Obama was successful only because of his ethnicity. Previously also, Ms Clinton's friends had complained that the media was kind to Mr Obama because of his colour, but this was a little too stark for American public discourse. Ms Ferraro had to quit in the furore that followed, though she tried to hang on; Ms Clinton tried to suggest both sides has made such mistakes, which is simply untrue.

As Democrats spar, Republican candidate John McCain is trying to consolidate his position with a visit to Israel later this month to firm up his American-Jewish support base. The Arizona Senator is reputed to be popular in Israel and with the Jewish Diaspora for his hard-line foreign policy. An unwritten rule of American foreign policy is that support to Israel helps and opposition hurts.

Mr McCain has already hinted he will favour continuity in the White House. Thus, despite his record of hostility to torture in military camps, he supported President George W Bush's recent veto of legislation prohibiting the CIA from using physical force in interrogations, particularly the gruesome technique of water-boarding and other inhumane and degrading methods of extracting confessions from prisoners.

It bears stating that the near-invisible men who actually control both political parties, work to ensure the continuity of respective party administrations and policies. Although Mr McCain's staff would not release the names of his advisers, a list compiled by The Washington Post last year included two former Secretaries of State, Mr George Shultz and Mr Colin Powell; retired Lt Gen Brent Scowcroft (National Security Adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George HW Bush); Mr James Woolsey (former CIA director), and Mr Richard Armitage (Mr Bush's former Deputy Secretary of State, famous for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame and causing the imprisonment of Scooter Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff).

The Democratic Party has been equally coy with names. Press reports suggest Ms Clinton's advisers are mostly the old boys and girls of Mr Clinton's White House years. They include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Mr Samuel Berger (Mr Clinton's National Security Adviser); Gen Wesley Clark (NATO commander in Yugoslavia); Mr Richard Holbrooke (Mr Clinton's envoy to the UN); Mr Martin Indyk (former envoy to Israel); former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Ms Plame's husband), and Representative Joseph Sestak (a retired Vice-Admiral).

Mr Barack Obama has also received a share of Clinton Administration veterans, namely Ms Susan Rice (Mr Clinton's Africa specialist at the State Department); Mr Anthony Lake (National Security Adviser); Mr Dennis Ross (chief West Asia negotiator); and Mr Robert Malley (West Asia envoy).

Obviously the more things change in Washington, the more they remain the same. Mr Clinton began the unjustified NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; Mr George W Bush initiated the ugly war in Iraq and upped the ante on Iran's nuclear programme. He has also recognised the 'independence' of Kosovo. Whoever succeeds him at the White House this winter is sure to maintain the continuity of America's imperial quest for world dominion.

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...t&counter_img=3
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

My Webpage

The best explanation I have seen for why BMO appeals to whites.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> OPINION

The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008; Page A23

Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.
[The Obama Bargain]
AP
Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, June 4, 2007.

But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.

The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").

How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

New video is out, very effective - by Republican supporters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N-1-g90b...re=related

[Guest]

<img src='http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5885/achickencomeshometoroosnm9.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

[Guest]

<b>Did Tuskegee damage trust on clinical trials</b>?<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- The infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a government experiment that charted the effects of the untreated disease on mostly poor and uneducated black men, was conducted for 40 years before it was exposed and ended in 1972 amid widespread condemnation.

The Tuskegee study plays a modest role in producing distrust, says Dr. Thomas LaVeist, study co-author.

A number of participants in the study died of the disease, which the men spread to women and to children at birth.

But does it still take a toll on the health of new generations of blacks?
.............<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Feedback after Obama speech and race issue -How whites are reacting
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama chose to solidify the black people with his speech. He united them together by saying that the anger of the Black people is justified. And then he turn the black people against the white people. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He's telling the white people that you are dumped and ignorant that you don't know racial tention exist in this country. We have the right to be mad because of white people's action. We are the good guy here. So if you want to be good, join us. If not, you are one of the racists like my granny, Ferrarro, and the Clintons.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So his speech aims to solidify the black vote, and "retain" the white vote using guilt conscious. I'm saying retain because I don't think he will gain any new white vote because of this speech.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This strategy will work only if there are a lot of white people who feel guilty that they were part of the white racist. This group of people will buy Obama speech. The young generation fit the profile. They blame their parents generation for the white racist  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Any white people who have sympathy with black people but don't see that they have contributed anything to continue the racism, but actually trying to improve it, will find Obama's speech very offensive. I hope that this is the majority of the American people . She might pick up new vote here.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Any white people who is the actual culprit and practice racism would never ever vote for Obama to begin with. So no gain here for him.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why I think, no matter how beautiful and articulate his speech was, it has little impact to gain any new vote for Obama. He will actually be losing some of the white vote after his speech.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Basically, this speech is a damage control tactic. It's the best that he can do given the circumstance.
Hold on the the strongest group of support with the audacity of hope that the other groups won't jump ship. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Shambhu]

http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/read/1/34299.html

Read the comments to BO's speech.

Sample:

I voted for Obama - but if I have to do it again - I will vote for Clinton or McCann - and I am black. I have come to realise that he is just a very glib talker. An intresting point is that I personally know of 6 people who will not vote for Obama again and maybe an equal number who are worried (Obama supporters). I am afraid it may be the beginning of the end, if not with Hillary - in the general election.

[Shambhu]

Cut pasting one Pete Kent's reaction. Link is above.

I just read the speech that Barack Obama delivered this morning in Philadelphia and I must say I found it shocking, provocative and disturbing. Obama admits that there are strongly and widely held, anti-white, anti-establishment views in the Black community. He makes no apology for them; indeed he seems to credit their source as having been born in our imperfect Constitution and a product of a society that imposed slavery and Jim Crow on the people for years.

Never does he suggest that perhaps it is time for the madness to end, that the Black community must turn the page. Instead he suggests that he must come to the larger society and heal it of its racist beliefs and tendencies. In his cool, egomaniacal way he declaims that he himself embodies the healing that is necessary.

Should he not be working, agitating even, within his own community, starting in his Church, to end such divisiveness?

Or is he simply the emissary, a Trojan Horse perhaps, sent to educate and heal non-black America and make us atone for our sins, while ignoring the sins of his own people, starting with his Pastor, Reverend Wright?

When will it end? How much is enough? We have passed law after law and affirmative action is employed both in the public and private sector to help those once disadvantaged. It seems by candidate Obama’s lights America will not be healed, indeed cannot be healed, unless he is elected our President. And that we must accept him as he is, the product of a racist community and Church, taking him at his word that he is above all the cacophonous rancor that spills out of the mouths of pastors and preachers and agitators like the Jeremiah Wrights of the world.

The sanctimony and arrogance of the man is galling and appalling. It never seems to end and has reached a new zenith today.

[Guest]

Remember that 10 point and 15 point lead Barak's had over McCain earlier.
It's gone the route of Bears Stern stock.
Latest Reuters poll
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Here is Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ -- New Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds H<b>illary Clinton with a 49% to 42% lead over Barack Obama </b>in national Democratic voters' presidential nomination preference.

<b>This is the first time Clinton has held a statistically significant lead in over a month</b>. She last led Obama in Feb. 7-9 polling, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. Since then, the two candidates have usually been in a statistical tie, but Obama has held a lead in several of the polls, most recently in March 11-13 polling.

Obama's campaign has been plagued by controversial remarks made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama delivered a major speech on race Tuesday to try to move beyond the controversy. The initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton's gaining momentum, as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night's polling as compared to Monday night's polling.

[Guest]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=J7KQnD1nXUI&feature=related
Barack Obama Keeps Pressing The Wrong Button?