-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/open-thread-whats-up/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Did you know that she was in the vanguard of Microloans before it became an accepted practice?
I've had my fill of Tavis. He's so multi-faced, I'm getting whiplash...
As for Rev. Al defending Obama publicly, that's a damn sight better than pretending to be neutral and presenting hit piece after hit piece...Tavis...Earl Ofari Hutchinson...you know who you are.....
So much about Obama's candidacy ain't even about Obama anymore. It's about transparency from folks.
We got Black folks.
We got Negroes.
We got Black folks that we thought were Negroes.
And we got Negroes we thought were Black.
Black folks are sitting back, quietly and silently observing and taking notes, not really speaking up unless it gets out of hand (like Tavis and the SOTBU).
There will be some bills to pay once this is all said and done. And some folks don't have the money to cash the checks they've been writing, if you get my drift.
Should she become first lady, she said she’d focus on family issues.
“If we don’t wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership…for how we want this country to work, then we won’t get universal health care,” she said.
“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
Obama wants to extend the power of the federal government over choices that have nothing to do with a Constitutional mandate. Obama wants to spend more money and expand systems that already fail to operate efficiently and deliver on their promises. And Obama wants Americans across the board to give up more of their income to pay for bigger bureaucracies.
Obama is not a moderate, center-left politician. He's a statist, and he makes the same basic mistake of all statists.
First, it assumes a “pie” of static proportions. That’s only true in statist systems. In a free-market economy, real expansion of wealth can and does occur. The best way to lift the standard of living across all economic strata comes from private enterprise and not public bureaucracies. The latter saps investment capital by rerouting funds from the markets which generate wealth into government, which not only consumes wealth but offers unresponsive and inefficient services in return. Those services kill competition in those industries, since the government supplies the services for “free” — even though the actual costs skyrocket through massive inefficiencies.
Want an example? Look at the VA. For that matter, look at the education system Mrs. Obama wants to expand. We have increased federal spending on education by 58% since 2000 (after inflation), and no one in their right mind would argue that education has improved 5.8%, let alone 58%. We’ve increased VA spending by 59%, and few would argue that we have received our money’s worth from that.
In fact, American families will pay $4,000 more per household in taxes this year than in 2003, the highest level since the last year of the Clinton administration. We have already given more of the “pie” for government expansion. If that was the solution, then the Democrats should be arguing for a continuation of the Bush administration, which has expanded federal spending by 30% after inflation in just seven years.
We’re paying more and getting less. Obviously, the statist model doesn’t work very well — but the Obamas and the Clintons want to convince voters that the solution is even more government confiscation of capital for the purposes of redistributing it even less efficiently.
Any thoughts?
Why is that we can openly talk about misogyny but racism is hands off? Both groups, blacks and women, were treated horribly in the past. Is slavery as Condi Rice describes a "birth defect," and we will have that milestone around our necks for the rest of U.S. history, preventing us from ever addressing race?
Another question stemming from the discussion of sexism: why is it when blacks overwhelmingly support Obama, we're being racist? But no one questions a woman (as the former mayor of Pittsburgh did today) for openly supporting HRC because she's a woman? Eyebrows aren't raised, in fact it's expected that women should support women. But let Colin Powell say he's endorsing Obama because he's black, and Obama's political career will effectively be over.
Anyway--I thought the John comment was interesting for its double standard (which HRC claims has been happening to her with regards to the press).
Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending
This family really cares about the American people.
A smart political operative said within earshot of me yesterday that if Hillary has more metaphorical bombshells to drop on Obama — and this operative has heard secondhand that she does — she'll do so between April 16, the date of her next debate with Obama, and April 22, Pennsylvania's primary day. The timing, of course, is so she doesn't get asked about it by the moderator or confronted by Obama.
Hillary's numbers have actually been inching up a bit in the Keystone state lately. At the beginning of the month, Public Policy Polling shocked the world by suggesting Obama was ahead by two points. Their latest poll puts Hillary up by 3. In the Insider Advantage poll, Hillary's lead has increased from three percent to ten percent. In SurveyUSA, she's gone from leading by 12 to leading by 18. Some other polls show no change or a slight loss of ground.
____________________________________
I do believe Hillary will try something...anything...
Methinks he falls into this category:
Hillary's Appeal - The Diva Theory
If you can, read the comments. I posted a few choice words about Hillary.
Now the latest is apparently Rev. Eric Lee (“What other kind of Rabbis are there, but Jews?” “The Jews have made money on us in the music business and we are the entertainers, and they are economically enslaving us.’”), one of the designated co-sponsors of a Feb., 2008 “Obama—Get Out and Vote Rally” in Los Angeles, who on April 4th went on a public unhinged anti-Semitic rant about Daphna Ziman, the recipient of the Tom Bradley award.
The point is not to what degree Rev. Lee is directly involved in the Obama campaign (the usual official distancing will follow), but rather three other considerations:
First, once Obama failed to condemn Wright and offered contextualization, the flood gates of extremism were thrown wide open. Now any hate-monger, it seems, can go on a public racist rant, with the expectation that there will be no credible and absolute public condemnation. You see, our potential next President has already weighed in on Rev. Wright’s hate speech by citing his past good works, the commonality of such talk among all our religious figures, the special nature of the black church, and the unfair snippets that are replayed—all of which, of course, will offer the same “context” of mitigation for the Eric Lee hatred. We can imagine the accolades to come in the next few days concerning Lee’s public benefactions.
Second, when one collates what Wright, Meeks, Lee, and Sharpton have said, and then compares those “snippets” and “loops” with the cheery characterization of the unique protocols of the black church by Obama, then one realizes that the public is supposed to accept that African-American pastors are exempt from the sort of no-go speech zones that everyone else rightly accepts. It seems that we are rapidly reaching a sort of scary situation in which the black pastor will say whatever he wishes, no matter how anti-Semitic and racist, and then almost dare anyone to challenge that hatred, knowing that his congregation will support him, African-American intellectuals will contextualize him on television, and politicians like Obama (cf. Hillary’s past hugs of Sharpton) will defend him.
Three, these incidents will only continue until someone of stature in the civil rights community issues a zero-tolerance speech of the sort Obama should have given but failed at. In isolation, each subsequent outburst is explicable; in the aggregate they paint a picture of a deep-seeded racism and hatred that have been encouraged by the absence of any censure—the appeasement that we know so well from the Obama/Wright controversy.
1. Hillary playing her gender card whenever convenient but Obama has to be soooooooooo careful about anything in the race area and lets admit it, she and her surrogates like Lanny Davis who have no shame can bring up Rev. Wright endlessly, BUT, Obama’s campaign can’t get close to saying anything about her playing the gender card. My God, Elton Jon was the worst at the gender stuff whine......! And how many times do we have to see her on Ellen Degeneres playing the victim before the media calls her on it....oh gosh the boys want me toquit.
2. The Clinton’s huge history of embellishments being downplayed by the press as oh we expect this from the Clintons, huh, that makes it OK???......yet if Obama did a “Tuzla” equivalent bold faced fantasy, Clinton would already be the Democratic nominee.
3. How convenient it is for Bill Clinton to take $800,000 to support CAFTA and Hillary gets to say she’s against it. If she was so anti CAFTA she couldn’t tell her husband “I’m serious about running for the presidency so I’m asking you to not compromise my candidacy?” I’m sorry but that whole scene doesn’t pass the smell test with me. I am convinced the Clintons want it both ways here. And don’t let some pr person say on the one hand they are their closest advisors and confidantes for her "experience" resume claim and then tell me she didn’t know Bubba was getting $800,000 for supporting Columbia’s stand.
They wanted the dough and would worry about the outcome later. Or maybe they think voters are too stupid to add 2 + 2 and maybe they will be right if she wins PA by big numbers. Oh, and top this on all that India outsourcing!!
Which raises another question, if the answer is she can’t control and doesn’t know what Bubba does, then imagine him having free rein as “first hubby?” That alone should be enough for Democrats not to vote for Hillary.
4. Anyway, you asked.
He took 800 k
Penn getting 300k
Wolfon getting 40k/month...
and somehow, we're supposed to trust her position on this Colombia trade deal?
Sure, I believe it.
NOT.
I believe nothing less from them. Ever. I expect it. Everyone expects it. No surprise.
The galleys of my new book are out--the Darker Mask. Endorsed by everyone from Tom Fontana (creator of Oz) to Zane. Gary Phillips and I are now worried if any of the thug lit reading thugs and junior Beyonces will read it.
My sister got laid off from a lucrative healthcare consulting/compliance and HR audit job. No warning. Anyone got a job in Charlotte.
My cousin who's never held a job is getting his benefits increased. he's got three kids by three different baby mamas and a 72 inch plasma TV and HALO 3. We had to suffer IVF and I am yearning for just a 36 inch flatscreen. And the difference between is why Barack Obama will not win this election...
by the way.....this is also VERY interesting in the Clinton's sly ways....it really is deceptive in my opinion. How easy it was for her to estimate only over $1,000 earned on her husband's deals!! She's selling us on her intellect and experience and now we are supposed to believe she didn't know her husband was going to earn many hundreds of thousands let alone many millions on these deals!!! Where is the msm on this story?
read the whole story at www.consortium.news
Hillary Low-balled Bill's Pay in Forms
By Robert Parry
April 6, 2008
In her disclosure forms for the U.S. Senate and her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton downplayed Bill Clinton’s income from two key financial backers, billionaire investor Ronald Burkle and consumer-data executive Vinod Gupta, when compared with the Clintons’ recently released tax filings.
Sen. Clinton’s earlier disclosure forms listed the former President’s compensation as “over $1,000” each from Burkle’s and Gupta’s firms – when the actual amounts ran into the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars, according to the tax returns.
The Clintons received as much as $15 million from Burkle’s Yucaipa investment firm from 2003 through 2007, starting with $1 million a year in 2003, peaking at $5 million in 2005 and leveling off at more than $2.5 million the past two years, according to tax forms and other data released by the campaign on Friday.
www.consortium.news
We all expect it. Maybe another ad (paid for with the money Elton raised for her) that runs in PA starting Thursday or Friday that will try for a knock out punch to give Mrs. Nixon her big PA victory.
we aren't political professionals and yet we know some of this stuff...I would hope the Obama campaign professionals are doing something, they have the money!!!! I'm not in PA so don't know how all this is playing out. If nothing else, the labor unions should be all over these issues re Columbia, India ,etc.
Link to article
I never fail to laugh when I see you call her Hillary Rodham Nixon.
anonymous,
do you honestly think they know how to do anything BUT LIE?
Obama isn't totally against free trade, but she's got her hands in too many deals and if the working-class Pennsylvanians can see past her race to the sociopath that she is, there's no way she'd get the majority of their votes.
And this is why I don't think she's got any "bombshells" on Obama:
1. She would've used it. If they wait too long, the scandal won't get to everyone before the election. Remember, she wants a blow out in PA. And that Lanny Davis is still whinning about Rev. Wright at the WSJ means they've got nothing.
2. Obama has been really "nice" to her so far. If she tries to dish some dirt on him, all he has to do is compile an ad of all Clinton's lies, all the money the Clintons have made by talking out of both sides of their mouths, how poorly she's run her campaign, and how she sucks as bad as he does at bowling. Am I missing anything, y'all. He could toss the kitchen sink and the dirty dishes at her.
I personally would've kneecapped Clinton a long time ago, but then I wouldn't be as far as Obama, either.
Pennsyltucky is one state that has borne the brunt of economic loss in terms of NAFTA, CAFTA and any other -AFTA; if one thing they know how to worry about is managing their money, and someone should ask how they can put their confidence in someone who can't pay their bills on time, especially when they have the money, or access to it?
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID;=66612125&blogID;=375417043&Mytoken;=EF30E231-773B-43D3-910D8357961C61F09873860
Barack Obama, however, does not pay poll workers anywhere, and says he won’t do it in Philadelphia. That may give an opening to Hillary Clinton in the one area Obama needs to win big in eleven days:
Fourteen months into a campaign that has the feel of a movement, Sen. Barack Obama has collided with the gritty political traditions of Philadelphia, where ward bosses love their candidates, but also expect them to pay up.
The dispute centers on the dispensing of “street money,” a long-standing Philadelphia ritual in which candidates deliver cash to the city’s Democratic operatives in return for getting out the vote. …
It is all legal — but Obama’s people are telling the local bosses he won’t pay.
Obama’s posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict.
This could turn into a fiasco for Obama. The demographics in Philadelphia are as favorable as any he will see in Pennsylvania. The city has a heavy African-American presence, and Obama counts on a lopsided victory in Philly to win in the primary.
As the Los Angeles Times reports, some of these ward bosses see this in racial terms, and not to Obama’s benefit. They see Obama spending millions of dollars on advertising: television, radio, and the Internet. As state Rep. Dwight Evans puts it, the money has gone to white people. Why won’t Obama give street money to the African-Americans who are doing the ground work for his campaign in Philadelphia? One ward boss says that a lot of poor people live in his neighborhood, and he’s not about to ask them to work for free while the campaign spends that kind of money elsewhere.
Should he pay?
That blog you linked features fear, front and center.
What's the point, really? Do we honestly think Obama hasn't considered all of this already? He would have considered it before he ran, but he ran anyway and while he'll never be able to stop everyone from believing he's a Muslim, he's doing his best by keeping focused on the issues.
Why an Obama supporter would operate from fear at this point in the campaign is beyond me.
I ask that the spiritually inclined keep it positive. LIke Alice Walker said, don't fret about the outcome.
Whatever will be will be.
Democrats Repudiate McCain Surrogate's 'Tiger Woods' Comment
Here is an excerpt:
Carol Ann Campbell, a ward leader and Democratic superdelegate who supports Obama, estimated that the amount of street money Obama would need to lay out for election day is $400,000 to $500,000.
"This is a machine city, and ward leaders have to pay their committee people," Campbell said. "Barack Obama's campaign doesn't pay workers, and I guarantee you if they don't put up some money for those street workers, those leaders will most likely take Clinton money. It won't stop him from winning Philadelphia, but he won't come out with the numbers that he needs" to win the state.
This is a repugnant prostitution of the democratic process and I hope he stands his ground, and if that means taking a loss in PA, so be it.
Way to go Sen. Obama!
www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9535.html
bill trying to make true a lie with a lie. simply amazing.
(pd: bosnia after 95 was no combat zone. war was over. not a single skirmish, hardly any rogue elements. most feared were landmines -those thingies the klintons didn't want to ban. hardly anything you run into on a plane, or on the tarmac of an airport.)
and there's another one:
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/11/clinton-laughs-off-colombia-questions
hillary thinks it's better to not respond than to lie. if that's how she wants to represent millions of people and be held accountable by them through the press then the only conclusion is to boo her off the stage.
cheers.
sun-sentinel.com/entertainment/sfl-0411smiley,0,7283813.story
Brothers Talking about Obama Part 2
http://thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/brothers-talking-about-obama-part-2/
Thought Merchant
www.thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com
Politics and Commentary for the thinking person of color.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/11/113212/039/528/493728
1. He never had a positive word to say about Obama
2. He never had a negative word to say about Hillpatine's race-baiting
3. He condescended TO Black folks, as if we had the collective IQ of Forrest Gump.
Do I believe constructive criticism of Obama is good? Yes. You want to take a look at constructive criticism, check out Roland Martin. Roland has, from time to time, throughout this campaign, been stern with the Obama campaign on what he thought were problems.
Roland, though, never condescened to his radio audience.
It's been painful listening to Tavis, because, basically, he was telling Black folk that they were stupid. And, then, with love, Black folk thought they had told Tavis to tone it down. Did he? No. He clowned more around the State of the Black Union. Him disrespecting Michelle Obama was the last straw for me, and just in case, tuning in to see him patronize Black folk for voting ' emotionally' with regards to Obama = me DONE with him.
What he's done on the radio, is what Earl Ofari Hutchinson's done in his columns.
I've been mad ever since I saw it on Countdown. First of all, all bi-racial folks don't look alike. Second of all, it was a denigration of Tiger Woods and Barack Obama. Third of all, it completely negates what was supposed to have been the purpose of McCain going to Memphis, unless you're willing to admit that there was no sincerity in him being there, then it all falls in line.
You either be down or you need to lay down.
You either support Obama or become a social pariah.
Didn't our parents and grandparents die so we could vote for whomever in the hell we wanted?
I hope that the Obama supporters are happy with themselves: Bullying people like John Lewis, Uncle Toming people like Sheila Jackson-Lee, threatening Tavis Smiley. These are people with documented commitment to African Americans.
Seriously how many of the Obamites have pledged $11 let alone $11 million to black anything. Tavis has.
It's as if Obama supporters have no idea of consequences of their tactics. Obama hasn't offered anything to Black America but symbolism. As a people (and a nation) don't we deserve more.
Let's be real. The general election was over when Obama couldn't explain why he stayed in Wright's church for 20 years. It's like when Mark Furman called OJ a nigger. McCain will just have to show up. You can't blame Nadar and Clinton for that.
Don't be so narrow minded in your devotion to Barack to see what's happening.
"Smiley, who hosts a PBS show, joined the syndicated radio show in 1996, according to host Joyner. The announcement was made by Joyner on this morning's show."
"Some callers into the Tom Joyner Morning Show expressed dismay that Smiley would no longer be on the show. Reportedly, Smiley left because of response from some fans of the show that he was too harsh on presidential candidate Barak Obama, with a couple of callers saying that Smiley was "jealous" of Obama."
"Joyner denounced that Smiley was jealous of Obama, saying that Smiley felt so hurt by that impression that he decided to not be on the show."
-Translation: WAHHHHHH!
They're mean to me!
WAHHHHHHH!
-What has Hillary offered?
Experience?
What experience?
The ability to dodge sniper fire at Tuzla?
Sure you see this coming....but I know the guy who made the comment, and I'm part of the group who held the rally.
He's not racist in the least; it was just a comparison of two great Americans that are held in high esteem.
Put this way: you can have the sports hero of the moment as a role model; I'll take a man who has spent his life in the service of his country, and whose body bears the scars of the price of freedom.
And don't act like women who support Clinton aren't doing their own form of bullying to people that don't support her.
I had the same reaction! Reverend Wright, an American who ELECTED to put his life on the line for this country, is not allowed to attack the racism that he was subjected to, but a foreigner is allowed to call America misogynistic on American soil?
The most galling thing about it is there is no one more misogynistic in modern politics than Bill Clinton. And Hillary Clinton was his co-hort having been one of the architects of the 'sluts and nuts' defense.
It's absolutely astounding!
Excellent article!! and I linked and quoted you on my blog. Tavis had some thoughtful commentaries but his self importance and perhaps jealousy got the better of him.
"Bill Clinton Retells Hillary's 1996 Bosnia Story
April 10, 2008 7:10 PM
ABC News' Sarah Amos and Eloise Harper Report
Clinton then criticized the press, saying, “You woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."
This is hillarious..besides the fact that Bill is adding to the Tuzla lies.. he is also basically saying his wife is old and senile....which is exactly the way the Democrats will try to paint John McCain with all his lapses.
Her support among white women is nowhere near the 95%+ support Obama is receiving from Black America.
By demanding that we hold Senator Obama to a hire standard than his white peers, he was perpetuating white supremacy. It's bad enough that were expected to perform twice as well as a our white peers to get half the respect, but when one of our own expects this, it's hurtful.
Tavis' weekly beat down of Obama began more and more to resemble a display in clinical obsession.
Get some help, Tavis!
I think the support of Hillary among white women is generational and based on econmics. Younger or more affluent women are supporting Obama and older and less affluent women are supporting Hillary.
Her support among white women is nowhere near the 95%+ support Obama is receiving from Black America.
__________________
So you're okay with her getting 75% of the white vote? Why is it that we can't vote for Obama because we think he's the best candidate? I'd wager most of us are not simply voting for him for superficial reasons, and as was previously stated, it's insulting to imply that we are.
And let's not forget when this whole thing started she was winning the African American vote, so we don't automatically vote for the black guy. SHE lost the votes just as much as Obama EARNED them.
Got to weigh in on that one...
I think there's a fairly significant number of the black population-and probably more than most of us are willing to admit-who will vote for Obama just because he's black.
A couple days ago, I was discussing Obama with my mom (who's a supporter), and she said that when a black man has the chance to be the "first black" and make history, then we should all support him.
I responded that that was monolithic and inherently undemocratic, and her reponse was "so?"
That attitude's out there, and it's not getting the news, but I'm willing to bet there's a good number of people who feel the same way.
Angela, this means you.
Ya'll chill. Obama's gonna a lot of White votes in Pennsylvania. I smell a death spiral and that means you, Hillary. There's lots of Whites like me who can't stand her either. No more Bush lite.
That's the only thing that would explain the herd mentality that is being display among us.
I know people black people who were never interested in politic before but when they saw Obama might have a chance to win, they started wearing the pins. They might have studied his positions later but from the gate it was because he was the brother who won in Iowa.
I bet the topic of the black support of Obama is a great non-fiction work or dissertation waiting to be written. Why black people needed white validation in Iowa to vote for Obama should be examined.
The fact that Barack didn't attend
the State of the Black Union summit in New Orleans, he has the audicity to get offended - - - ARE YOU GETTING ME!!!
Hopefully Tavis is the first casualty, with more to come...
Me: Well if things don't work out this time, he can run again in 2012.
Him: See, that's why Hillary needs the drop out. Obama can't run again. The jig is up.
Yeap, no one will seriously consider a black candidate for at least 30 years.
"Next he'll be putting out an ad that says "vote for me, I don't steal cars.""
Gaffe? I don't think so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn7Gq_8YxtE&eurl;=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bill-clinton-i-dont-steal-cars/3419211794
Got to weigh in on that one...
I think there's a fairly significant number of the black population-and probably more than most of us are willing to admit-who will vote for Obama just because he's black.
A couple days ago, I was discussing Obama with my mom (who's a supporter), and she said that when a black man has the chance to be the "first black" and make history, then we should all support him.
I responded that that was monolithic and inherently undemocratic, and her reponse was "so?"
That attitude's out there, and it's not getting the news, but I'm willing to bet there's a good number of people who feel the same way.
____________________
I didn't say all, I said most. I'd be interested to see how many Clinton supporters are actually supporting HER as opposed to "Bill's Wife" and how many are supporting her just because she's a woman and it would be "historical." I'm willing to bet you'd find a lot of her supporters fall into those categories. Or when Black people were largely supporting Clinton, do you think it was because of her own merits, or because Bill was the "first black president"? Why is it that only Obama, especially young and/or black, supporters get charged with making emotional choices, but everyone just assumes that Clinton supporters support her for her policies?
"He's not racist in the least; it was just a comparison of two great Americans that are held in high esteem.
Put this way: you can have the sports hero of the moment as a role model; I'll take a man who has spent his life in the service of his country, and whose body bears the scars of the price of freedom."
Nice try, but BULLSHIT!
I understood him to say that you can have your fake-ass white guy, but I'm going for the real thing!
When I say that he's done, on radio, the equivalent of what Earl Ofari Hutchinson's done in his columns, I mean that. It was subtle, in the beginning, but as Obama's campaign has gotten stronger, the subtlety was thrown out the window, and the HATERADE has been in full force.
I've told y'all for me. I had no problems with Black people who sided with Hillpatine over Obama, in the beginning. They were going with a known quantity. But, I'll repeat this - hell no, I have absolutely NO RESPECT for any of her present Black supporters. Because them standing by her, as she's carried on this campaign of race-baiting against Obama - uh uh. Naw, son. That just can't be overlooked.
It is their SILENCE that has been most notable, as they've used RACE to try and take this Black man OUT.
And, I've also commented on the SILENCE of the ' usual suspects' with regards to the race-baiting. I will repeat..
IFFFFF
A Republican had carried on the campaign against Barack Obama that Hillpatine has done...
Oh, 'the usual suspects' would be front and center all up in arms.
But, you know what?
When the GOP comes after Obama for being the Black Bogeyman, they can keep their mouths EQUALLY SHUT because they will have no leg to stand on anymore.
Tavis is part of The Usual Suspects, and his SILENCE with regards to Hillpatine's race-baiting was very instructive.
It's what you DON'T SAY in combination with what you DO SAY and who you choose to ATTACK that said a whole lot to Black folk.
There is a difference for Black folk between:
1. Keeping Barack ' Honest'
2. Doing Hit Jobs on Him for Hillpatine, carrying water FOR her.
Black folk will respect #1, and skin you alive for #2 because of the utter hypocrisy seeing that you perpetrate that you're such a 'Race Man'.
As I said above,so much about Obama's candidacy isn't even about Obama anymore. It's about transparency from folks.
We got Black folks.
We got Negroes.
We got Black folks that we thought were Negroes.
And we got Negroes we thought were Black.
Black folks are sitting back, quietly and silently observing and taking notes, not really speaking up unless it gets out of hand (like Tavis and the SOTBU).
There will be some bills to pay once this is all said and done. And some folks don't have the money to cash the checks they've been writing, if you get my drift.
I think we'd both agree that there's a siginificant number of Clinton/Obama supporters who are supporting just for a chance to be on the right side of history.
But let's remember: hlaf the country already said they'd never vote for Hillary. So she was doomed from the start....and I'm sure those numbers have only gone up.
Obama's supporters get that charge because the majority of them are-in my opinion-overly emotional. You have the ones who can make a "for" argument based on fact, but there's a lot more who are quick to lash out of emotion with nothing to back it up.
that's going to the Wiki.
She said she supports it because she believes everyone will be covered under the mandate. She then pretty much echoed Hillary regarding the costs to covered Americans for those who chose not to be covered but still sought medical treatment.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think this is an attempt to show that wives can have different opinions than their husbands. I wouldn't be surprised if Hill makes it a talking point in her attempt to move away from the fact that Bill supports the CTA and she doesn't.
Everything someone makes a reference to Obama's race does mean that they are racist. If Obama wins, is he going to say he can't push legislation through because he is black and the Congress is racist.
But Obamists don't understand how their accusations translate to others.
Point well made.
I wish someone would ask her about those women that Bill used and she abused.
It would be fitting to ask since she's running a campaign as an injured woman.
That's what I thought.
Fauntroy, be careful.....
Ignore fan of fauntroy.
He's drunk on haterade.
Elizabeth is perfectly aligned with John Edwards on healthcare, and the only reason she prefers Hillary's to Barack's is because Hillary's is the most like Johns.
I am the last person to cry racism and it has been said of me that I am more conservative than liberal, however, I do not hesitate to call a spade a spade.
I also use logic when making a determination. It is more logical that a group of McCain supporters (real ones and not just the ones who want to be accepted by the "group" as I imagine you do) are of the group that supported him over the years when the policies he supported were detrimental to minorities.
These are the folks who supported him when he attempted to deny a federal holiday honoring Dr. King.
It is also logical to assume that when race is interjected, it is foremost on the mind of the person that introduced it.
Please explain to me why the comparison of Obama and Woods had to be made at all?
Your "golden boy" explanation does not work as there are many golden boys that Obama could have been compared to that are both black and white?
It just doesn't make sense.
Also, I don't believe that every criticism of Obama is racism.
He probaly would not ever cry racism - even if it were the case. I'm sure he will experience it though.
Thank you Tavis
It was announced Friday morning, April 11, that Tavis smiley will leave his twice-weekly perch as a commentator on the Tom Joyner Morning Show (TJMS). I think this is a big loss (disclosure: I've appeared on Smiley's PBS television show). His departure is disappointing and reveals what happens when one has the audacity of independent thought. Tavis has the temerity to think for himself, ask Black people difficult questions, and avoid the temptation to look at matters through rose-colored glasses. No good deed goes unpunished and Smiley's prize has been blistering, often off-based criticism from some longtime TJMS listeners who think that Tavis has crossed the line for not joining the fawning over Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Undoubtedly, the listener reaction to his position helped push him out of the door. I know it's being played as a scheduling thing, but the reality is that Smiley speaks to more people on the TJMS than on his radio and television shows combined. Consequently, I don't believe that he wanted to give up access to such a large audience; but it appears that he had to.
read the rest at www.michaelfauntroy.com</br>
You wouldn't think of it if you heard him on WVON1690. I bet his weekly listeners on WVON would be surprised to read Dr. Fauntroy's columns. If he spoke on the radio the way he's been writing, well.....
I read it as:
You can have your 'celebrity', we'll take our experienced leader.
He could have easily replaced Hannah Montana for Tiger Woods and made the same point.
Independent thought driven by corporate interests?
I believe there is a old guard of civil rights (Jesse, Al, etc) and those like Tavis. They fancied themselves as the gatekeepers to Black America. Obama comes along and without asking for permission to rise- does so in ways that NONE of them saw coming.
Makes me sad that Tavis Smiley cannot be proud of what Barack Obama has accomplished (ie raising money, defending himself politically and personally,) and so on without feeling he needs to insert some negativity.
One thing Tavis DID do that I appreciated. He had a few people pn his show to discuss the context of the "social gospel." On the show he mentioned that Rev Wrights comments were mild compared to some other preachers black or white. Fair moment... but in general I don't care much for him (and never have.)
"He could have easily replaced Hannah Montana for Tiger Woods and made the same point."
Well.. he should have, it would have left less for fodder, but then we wouldn't have this race thing to discuss.
It was clearly intentional and irresponsible and Hillary-like.
Trust me.....it wasn't. The only people who took it as racist are....Obama's supporters.
Neither myself or anyone else at the rally took offense to it. Hell, I thought it was a pretty good comparison.
I don't think it was only "Obama supporters" who were offended.
Obama Clashes with the Machine...In Philadelphia.
Another take from Illinoisans.
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/04/11/obama-clashes-with-the-machine-in-philadelphia/
I don't look at everything from the viewpoint that 'most people are racist' and I think that is at the heart of our disagreement on this.
"Elizabeth is perfectly aligned with John Edwards on healthcare, and the only reason she prefers Hillary's to Barack's is because Hillary's is the most like Johns."
I meant differ in that she is publicly endorsing and he is not.
Lots of talk here in Chicago about the Woods Foundation, former terrorist bomber Bill Ayers, and PLO sympathizer Rashid Khaladi, as well as Saddam Hussein associate Nadhmi Auchi, business partner of Tony Rezko.
This may be the coming line of attack from Hillary. Let's face it, politically destroying Obama with a scandal is her only hope.
Tavis Smiley quitting the Tom Joyner Show
And...
Bill Clinton Covering-UP Lies...WITH MORE LIES...THE INFAMY!
People love Tiger because he is a great golfer!
Racists exist, and they will not vote for Obama. Racists were against Obama the minute they saw him. Period.
However, to continue down your path of reasoning is to say that 'most whites are racist' and that is a viewpoint I find very disappointing and insulting.
Excellence, success and individual achievement, especially in the face of adversity, are qualities admired by Americans.
I can admire people of all races, including both Obama and Woods for what they have accomplished, yet not vote for Obama. Does this make me racist? I say, of course not.
I haven't read in any of the comments that most people are racists - why are you trying to hold this line?
We are speaking of a certain incident where I believe racism was sought after.
She better come with more evidence of wrongoing than you just did for it to be credible. Innuendo will not be enough. Especially with the people she can be tied to.
Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that the Tiger Obama comparison was meant to invoke feelings of racism.
Again, I disagree. Everything should not be view through the prism of race.
If the tables were turned, and two whites of extreme talent and success were compared, would we even be having this discussion?
Your comment, 'the Tiger Obama comparison was meant to invoke feelings of racism' is pure conjecture and projection.
"You can keep your phenom, celebrity...We'll take experience."
"You can keep your phenom, celebrity...We'll take experience."
If would have been acceptable to me and left a lot less to the imagination. Maybe the presenter should have followed up his comments with an explanation - or, at least, explained them once it became a controversy.
You seem to be a reasonable person so I assume you can understand that in an election where race has become a significant issue, the comments were irresponsible and could be deemed an attempt to interject race.
I wish things didn't have to viewed through a prism of race, however, we have not trascended race and it still matters to many - both sides.
It has been proven that race has been an effecive political tool to sway voters.
"If the tables were turned, and two whites of extreme talent and success were compared, would we even be having this discussion?"
No we wouldn't because race couldn't be an issue where race is the same.
So what.
There are women who will vote for Mrs. Nixon because she's a woman.
So what.
There are white people who will vote for her just because she's white.
So what.
There are white people who will vote for John McCain simply because he's white.
So what.
There are military people who will vote for John McCain simply because he's a war hero.
So what.
People can vote for candidates for whatever reason they want: emotional, intellectual, superficial, identity-based reasons, etc. and they can vote AGAINST people for the very same reasons.
I don't see what the big deal is.
He could simply have said "You can have Barack Obama..."
That would have been less loaded. But he had a point to make and calling Barack Obama by his own name wouldn't have made it.
You see he also then went on to say that John McCain was the real audacity of hope for what he endured in Vietnam, which is to suggest that Obama is not.
So if we want to extrapolate further, he was making the point that Obama is not real and is therefore interchangeable with any other mixed-race Black man in the minds of Americans.
You may argue the statement isn't racist it the least, you may argue that it's the height of attitudinal racism. Only one of those arguments is valid from where I sit.
Perhaps next time he'll say that Tiger Woods doesn't steal cars but he should be taken out into an alley and lynched anyway.
Just saying.
The man made an idiotic remark and it deserves to be picked apart.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
That's not an idiotic remark, it's the truth.
Why is it that people like you can't hear the truth. Why must the untidy truth be swept under a rug rather than dealt with?
Sorry that the real world is interfering with your cush little existence.
This remark is offensive and condescending on so many levels. The sheer breadth of the sterotype, if a white politician had made a similar sweeping caricature of blacks, would send Team Obama screaming from the rooftops.
You have just spent that last couple of hours admonishing a McCain supporter as racist for comparing Obama to Tiger Woods. Yet you are blind to the offense in these remarks.
Exactly how much Obama-aid did you drink?
"This remark is offensive and condescending on so many levels. The sheer breadth of the sterotype, if a white politician had made a similar sweeping caricature of blacks"
You keep trying to make this an argument about race.
Obama did not make a caricature of whites - he was talking about people and he was telling the truth.
Stop it with the gotcha bullshit!
What? Could Obama be bewildered and frustrated that some people 'are just not that into' him? If they don't get him, it must be because they are just gun-toting, bible-thumping, bigots.
I've heard this statement made several times during the last few months.
Unbelievable.
Do these people really believe that they did blacks a favor by forcing our ancestors to live in a foreign land where they didn't not speak the language, were worked like and treated as animals; lynched, beaten, forced to remain in the South to help build their wealth for less than they could have been paid in a better place and on and on and on.
He did!
ART MOORE, WORLDNET DAILY - Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.
The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.
Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.
[Campaign finance director David] Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign $35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.
Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat.
WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2007 - As Sen. Hillary Clinton grapples with the burgeoning scandal surrounding disgraced fund-raiser Norman Hsu, she can't quite shake a fund-raising controversy from her 2000 Senate campaign. Mrs. Clinton's entanglement with a thrice-convicted felon named Peter Paul is proof of how long campaign-finance problems can haunt a public official. Mr. Paul became a problem for Mrs. Clinton when his criminal past became public shortly after he helped organize and finance a gala Hollywood fund-raiser for her in August 2000.
AND THERE'S MORE. . . .
WE'VE reported much of this before, as well as concerning a video that shows Hillary Clinton acting as though she knew exactly what Peter Paul was up to.
But there's another curious aspect to the story: why didn't Bush appointed prosecutors press the caser harder?
Here you have a huge potential case against the then leading Democratic candidate and the Bush Justice Department goes after a minor figure, blows the case and the partly admitted offense is settled for a puny amount.
The two most logical explanations for such behavior in politics is a deal or blackmail. Whether either was involved in this case, we don't know but the pattern is curious to say the least.
The chief of the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department was a man named Noel Hillman. Here are some interesting facts about him:
there's much more...How can anyone vote for Clinton?
http://www.paulvclinton.com/Latest