<p>id–How exactly was the above explanation “convenient?” … I know how much you revel in portraying THE ONE as a terrorist/terrorist sympathizer/evil hypocrite/hate-filled flip-flopping racist antichrist (or fill-in-the-negative-blank) and I hate to spoil your party, but you know the old saying: “There’s a very thin line between love and hate.” I have hope for you yet. :)</p>
<p>Hindoo:</p>
<p>Trust me, you really don’t want to talk about Alice Palmer and Barack Hussein Obama. She is another in a long list of his friends and associates that now have bus tire tracks up and down their backs. This guy makes Richard Nixon look warm and cuddly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This from someone who insists on slandering Obama via someone else’s actions that took place when Obama was six years old. This strongly suggests to me that you are unable to fairly distinguish here when your opponent is actually lying. I’m sorry. I will have to make the judgment myself, after seeing the actual statements including their context. Without this, I have little choice but to summarily reject your comment here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course you and a great many Americans think as you do about ads that fail to discuss policy, but that instead are nothing more than ad hominem attacks, “against the man". To you, this sort of obvious fallaciousness is not the low road. It is just par for the course. You deserve John McCain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well of course you will not accept the premises. McCain simply ‘opened eyes’ in your view. But any reasonable person on planet earth would agree that calling Obama “The One” and nastily associating him with Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and all the other sorts of nonsense that McCain is doing, are nothing but low class, ad hominem and bad company fallacies-- personal attacks that are quite fit for the American public. This is precisely why Americans have responded so “positively” to them. They deserve this sort of debauched discourse. McCain knows they deserve it, and so he gave it to them, rather than lead them toward the high ground.</p>
<p>McCain is a worthy leader-- a most worthy leader.</p>
<p>id–We can find evil in just about anything or anybody, if we’re so inclined. Remember how the Clintons were accused of everything–including murder?</p>
<p>Alice Palmer did herself in by filling her petition with fraudulent signatures. Obama had sharp elbows to be sure. But he did not steal votes from her.<br>
Do we want a president as marshmallow? I thought we wanted someone who was tough (like Hillary?) and could engage in negotiations without giving away the bank and the shirts on our backs?</p>
<p>Marite, I really don’t see why such questions should be avoided. This is an anonymous discussion board and you’re free to post or not as you want. The fact that I ask such questions about Obama’s relationships (or, to be fair, possible relationships) should be of little moment. They were not unfairly put nor structured in such a way that a reasonable reply would be precluded.</p>
<p>Both sides will end up playing the race card as well as any other card in the deck. The campaign that plays them the best will win. Welcome to the political reality of the USA!</p>
<p>Sad, but true.</p>
<p>I have the strongest suspicion that the question was not asked out of a simple desire to know. Sorry if I don’t swallow this line. </p>
<p>But since you ask, I think Obama is being held to MUCH higher standards than white candidates. Obama is getting a lot of black support; should we be surprised? Isn’t support the reason why certain individuals are considered as candidates or running mates? But do other candidates have to account for the past activities of their supporters? Are you concerned about McCain’s courtship of Hagee (whom he later dumped when Hagee’s more outlandish and hateful statements came to light?). Obama did not seek Farrakhan’s endorsement. He has expressed reservations about Farrakhan in his book and criticized the award given by the Trumpet to him. What else should he do in order to allay your concerns?</p>
<p>The one person I felt Obama needed to account for was Rev. Wright because of his close and long relationship. And he has done so, whether one feels it is enough or not.</p>
<p>Your criticism of my question is not unexpected. Others have had the same reaction: </p>
<p>*Thus, when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote last week about the troubling facts about Obama’s membership in a Chicago church, whose pastor was a friend and supporter of Louis Farrakhan, the racist and anti-Semitic head of the Nation of Islam, he raised a question that some people didn’t want to hear.</p>
<p>In response to queries about his closeness with Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose Trumpet magazine once lauded Farrakhan as a man who “truly epitomized greatness,” Obama subsequently made it clear that he didn’t agree with his church and strongly condemned Farrakhan. The candidate repeated his disgust with anti-Semitism in a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech in King’s own Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.</p>
<p>That was more than enough for the ADL. And though some might still ask why he belonged to such a church (would any candidate get away with belonging to, say, a country club that practiced or advocated discrimination?), the case seemed closed.
So for all the distance we have traveled toward King's vision of a colorblind society, it appears that some view any questions about a black as inherently tainted by prejudice. This is the same sort of false sensitivity that turned an otherwise unexceptionable statement from Hillary Clinton about the roles of both King and President Lyndon Johnson's in passing civil-rights legislation into a controversy.</p>
<p>**But if Barack Obama is to be elected president, he can't be treated as a racial icon who must be treated with kid gloves and spared the examination to which other contenders must submit.*** </p>
<p>From: [The</a> Audacity of Criticism](<a href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0108/tobin012408.php3?printer_friendly%5DThe">http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0108/tobin012408.php3?printer_friendly)</p><p>
</p>
<p>I think the comparison is very likely specious. Please show me one piece of legitimate evidence that shows Wright’s church practiced discrimination? Show me one racist statement. I have asked repeatedly here for this, and no one has shown it. I am beginning to think that what we have here is so much unresolved hatred against blacks that when a black guy states things we do not wish to hear, we condemn him for those things in addition to things of which he is not guilty.</p>
<p>Please show me where this church uttered racist statements. I have looked for them and at the very most have only been able to find Wright’s complaints, legitimate complaints, about unresolved historical injustices against blacks by whites, injustices that actually took place and that actually affect blacks to this day. I have also found statements that condemn some of the behaviors of this country. I have found not one statement from the man claiming that whites are disagreeable or anything like it. I do not claim it does not exist, but that after reviewing everything I could find, especially the infamous comments that FOX News played ad nauseum, I saw no racism. Yet the man is being accused of racism in this article and elsewhere, and Obama is being accused because of his association with the man. Once again, I would like someone to present evidence for it . Post a link, or otherwise direct me to it.</p>
<p>I ask, yet again, where is the evidence of anti-white racism in Wright’s church? If you cannot find it, then perhaps you have an answer to the question of how Obama was able to sit in the church for twenty years. I think it is quite likely that as he sat in the church, he never heard the racism that so many racists in America are so willing to project on him, this, because it simply was not there.</p>
<p>But, of course, if I can find the racism of the sort mentioned in the article, where the church literally discriminates against whites then I would be more than eager to admit that the church is racist. Where is the evidence, parent2noles? I ask this of ANYONE ANYWHERE. Where is the evidence supporting your claims?</p>
<p>p2n:</p>
<p>No, Obama should not be treated with kids’ gloves merely because he is (half) black. My contention is that he is being held to higher standards than previous and current candidates for POTUS. Is anybody bringing up Hagee any longer? No. McCain repudiated him, and that’s fine by most people. But Obama keeps on having to “explain” why Farrakhan is supporting him when he has criticized Farrakhan already.
Obama is not beholden to Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Bill Ayers, etc… their support of him (and I suspect Jackson will vote for him, despite his ugly outburst) will have no impact on Obam’s decisions should he be elected POTUS. I’d be far more concerned about lobbyists loaded with money.</p>
<p>Now, I’m quite happy to criticize various policy statements Obama has made. I don’t like the windfall tax, for example and I have no idea how much the $1000 he proposes to give out of the windfall tax would help struggling Americans. My suspicion is not much. I did not like his cave in on FISA. There are other policy issues that concern me. </p>
<p>But we’re not discussing those, are we?</p>
<p>
Source: [Bill</a> Moyers: Shrink-Wrapping the Theology of Rev. Wright](<a href=“http://www.counterpunch.org/moyers05032008.html]Bill”>http://www.counterpunch.org/moyers05032008.html)</p>
<p>Where is this imagined “free pass” for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Many voters feel these guys are total nutjobs and, indeed, hold it against politicians who cavort with them. Just as I reject Barack Hussein Obama on the basis of a 20 year spiritual mentor/father relationship with a nut job preacher. I don’t personally want lunatic fringe religious nuts having a finger on the nuclear trigger, thank-you very much.</p>
<p>And, in what bizarro universe does Bill Moyers represent mainstream American values?</p>
<p>^^
</p>
<p>I actually think his opinions should be judged harshly. Some of the things he has said are true, but they are said in such a spirit of anger that many people will be unable to receive them. Other of his opinions are just pure stupidity, and ought to be condemned and reject, certainly by blacks. They are poisonous.</p>
<p>Still, I see no racism involved. I see that Wright is a culturist, but of a culturally abominable sort. Wright sees blacks as victims, oppressed in a white country. He has ample and legitimate reason to think as he does here. America certainly is has never been controlled by blacks or anyone else. Whites control it and always have. Wright thinks that blacks can be in freed by nurturing a cultural identity that rejects the sort of behavior that was responsible for such things as anti-black racism, oppression and war, the sort of behavior exemplified by America’s enslavement and mistreatment of other people, and by her bombing of other nations.</p>
<p>I agree with his view of the problem. Blacks live in a white country, where everything from beauty to God Himself is defined as white. I completely reject his solution and its tone. The culture with which he wishes blacks to identify is an angry culture. What he apparently thinks is black thought is in my view inferior. I think he warrants condemnation, along with a great deal of Black Liberation Theology. But to call the man racist is to betray ignorance of his context.</p>
<p>Marite:
</p>
<p>I agree. I don’t like the tax because history has shown such taxes do not work. Oil producers will not simply allow $1000/family to be taken out of their pockets without passing the expense back to us. Now, I think I have just heard that Obama is not really proposing a tax, but rather an end to outdated tax breaks for oil companies. If that is the case, then perhaps suchh breaks are in order, since those companies did enjoy nearly $200 billion in profits.</p>
<p>I also think McCain’s plan to drill domestically is worthless. It really will take too much time to bring new production online, and that new oil is not so plentiful that it will saturate the market to such an extent that we all feel pleased to buy fuel. We will eventually end up with a nastier environment and fuel costs that are the same as they are. I think the truth is, we must change our lives so that fuel use and consumption in general, is cut to a minimum. That is the near-term solution, and there are very many things the local and federal governments can do to help this take place at once. Long term, we must think radically about adopting new energy sources. We are working on technology that in many areas is terribly outdated. We need to think out of the box here and get off of oil.</p>
<p>This is the debate we should be having. It would elevate America and perhaps even inspire young minds to work toward a solution. But McCain has dragged the entire country into a cesspool.</p>
<p>As far as oil goes, some economists think that Obama’s proposal to release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserves could cut the price of oil in half: [Obama’s</a> energy plan, short-term and long - Aug. 4, 2008](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm]Obama’s”>Obama's energy plan, short-term and long - Aug. 4, 2008)</p>
<p>There are currently 700 million barrels of oil on reserve, and the reserve has a total capacity of 27 million barrels-- so Obama’s proposal would only diminish the reserve by 10%. In other words there still would be plenty of oil left in the reserves.</p>
<p>This article is worth reading. When I travel abroad, I am amazed at how far behind we are in terms of conserving energy.</p>
<p>[The</a> Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME](<a href=“http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes]The”>http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes)</p>
<p>Marite, McCain did not have a 20 year close relationship with Hagee. McCain did not write a book about being inspired and mentored by Hagee. Hagee did not marry the various iterations of the McCains, nor baptize their children. </p>
<p>To push that point repeatedly - that McCain’s overt political attempt to appeal to evangelical voters in late Feb 2008 is equivalent to Senator (and Mrs) Obama’s 20+ year relationship with Pastor Wright and possibly Louis Farrakhan is quite unpersuasive and weak. That is an obvious attempt to deflect legitimate questions, such as mine, into the background of Senator Obama, a man who wants to control the nuclear trigger.</p>
<p>*By Michael D. Shear
SAN ANTONIO – Sen. John McCain picked up the support of Texas pastor John Hagee, an evangelical Christian who has made support for the state of Israel a centerpiece of his ministry.</p>
<p>Hagee endorsed McCain today, saying he did so because McCain is a pro-life, pro-Israel politician who has pledged to secure the country’s borders.</p>
<p>“John McCain is a man of principle,” Hagee, a televangelist and the pastor of Cornerstone Church, told reporters. “He does not stand boldly on both sides of any issue.”</p>
<p>Hagee’s endorsement could be of particular help to McCain in Texas, where the Arizona senator will face former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee next Tuesday.
*</p>
<p>Source: [Hagee</a> Endorses McCain | The Trail | washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/hagee_endorses_mccain_1.html]Hagee”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/hagee_endorses_mccain_1.html)</p>
<p>What I want to see is realistic and verifiable evidence Obama is not a closet racist and anti-Semite and that he would represent all Americans. He’s not being held to a higher standard, he’s just new and has not been thoroughly investigated as anyone would be who is running for president.</p>
<p>Once done with that we can discuss his liberalism…and ego. Note that when fresh information erupts these same questions may be explored again. It will not be easy for him - or anyone running for president.</p>
<p>p2n:</p>
<p>McCain COURTED Hagee. Did he not know the man’s ideas? And if he did not, should he not have researched them before courting him? </p>
<p>How do you prove a negative? How can anyone look into a closet anyway? You are asking for the impossible. Basically, you’ re saying you think Obama is a liar. That’s what I mean by Obama is being held to higher standards than any white candidate who has run for POTUS. No one has ever been asked to prove a negative.</p>
<p>If that is your attitude, there’s really nothing to discuss because beliefs such as yours are impervious to evidence or lack thereof. Go ahead, believe that Obama is a (closet) anti-semite. I bow out of this futile discussion.</p>
<p>You are aware, aren’t you, that Obama’s backing when he ran for the state senate came from prominent Jews? That he was criticized in some quarters for being too close to his Jewish constituency? That when it came time to redraw district lines, he pushed to have his district redrawn so that it encompassed areas where more affluent whites and Jews lived, and fewer blacks? </p>
<p>For you to even suggest that Obama might be an anti-Semite is simply ignorant. For you to extrapolate a relationship with Farrakhan out of nothing – suggesting that it is somehow connected with Wright – well… the only thing the three men have in common is their hometown and their race. Why would you invent some sort of “connection” with Farrakhan and ignore Obama’s close connection with prominent Jews like Robert Shrayer and Lester Crown? </p>
<p>You know, you have a man who was raised by whites, grew up in Hawaii, attended a high school where he was the only black student, has spoken and written endlessly about a desire to bring people together, specifically rejected divisive or exclusionary politics in a book he wrote before he was ever elected to public office (which I quoted for you) – and you want him to prove a negative? </p>
<p>What about McCain’s statement as recently as 2000 that “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.”? What about McCain’s efforts to keep the confederate flag flying in South Carolina? and his opposition to Martin Luther King Day and subsequent efforts to rescind the holiday after it was established in his state? Why does McCain still associate with and employ Richard Quinn, a bigot and apologist for slavery?</p>
<p>With no shred of evidence you accuse Obama of “closet” racism and anti-semitism, yet you give McCain a pass? Why? Because you think that its ok for white people to harbor racial bias or associate with those who do, but you are terrified that a biracial man might harbor some resentment, even if he has spent the past 15 years speaking out against it?</p>