The NY Times, in its surprise endorsement of Barack Obama, accuses the McCain campaign of racism:
In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism.
The Times does not offer a hint of evidence backing that charge so it is difficult to rebut them. Whatever. There was time when the charge of racism carried some weight. As the Times demonstrates, it now comes so casually from the left as to not require justification or evidence. Nor need it be taken seriously - many times, "racist" simply means "disagrees with me" or "doe not support Obama.
Too bad. I suspect there is a lingering problem with racism in this country, but the term is so overused and politicized as to be meaningless.
FUNNY: I loved this:
Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of “drill, baby, drill.”
Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.
In other words, Obama said "Me, too" to offshore drilling but we can count on him not to mean it. Of course, McCain has touted his "all of the above" energy plan, but so what.
WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT TOYS THEMSELVES...
This made me laugh in August and gets funnier every time I read it:
In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, “Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.”
From "The era of big government is over" to keeping our toys safe - thank heavens Dems have their eye on the ball.
Oh, geez, a distraction - there is a cat stuck in a tree in the front yard. I've been watching for over ten minutes and no one from the federal government has intervened. Time to vote for change.
NYT endorses losers on a regular basis.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Typical of the junky old gray lady; Obama has run the most racist campaign ever, and look how it's reported.
Hillbuzz has a nice letter about Obama stealing the Dem caucuses.
==================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 08:56 AM
McCain is running on Class Warfare?
You gotta be kiddin me.
Who's the one wanting to spread the wealth around?
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 24, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Jonah Goldberg on Obama and racism:
LUN
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 09:02 AM
Michelle Malkin thinks NYT will be asking for a bailout for themselves.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 09:04 AM
Michelle Malkin thinks NYT will be asking for a bailout for themselves.
Well, we're one step away from State banks. Why not State Media?
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 24, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Good riddance to the NYTimes. They have become a disgraceful newspaper. May their profit margin drop to zero.
Posted by: bio mom | October 24, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Po, if Obama becomes president, most of the media will be state media.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 09:10 AM
O/T
Sarah is wearing different glasses. Someone's gonna bitch about the cost.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 09:11 AM
The NY Times? People still actually read that trashy tabloid?
Why support it in any fashion? Why quote it? Why analyze it? It is worthless junk, not worth anyone's brain cell loss even thinking about.
Posted by: centralcal | October 24, 2008 at 09:12 AM
May their profit margin drop to zero.
What bio mom said. Significantly less would be even better.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 24, 2008 at 09:24 AM
I suspect there is a lingering problem with racism
The lingering problem with racism is the use of the word as an epithet thrown to stifle conversation.
Racism is ignorant overgeneralization. It can only be identified by example.
Hurling the word without explanation is exactly ignorant overgeneralization. The New York Times' accusation of racism is racism.
Posted by: sbw | October 24, 2008 at 09:27 AM
I think the fact that our side doesn't care one bit about Senator Obama's race has driven the other side absolutely batty.
Posted by: Stealth Gay Conservative Academic | October 24, 2008 at 09:35 AM
From Sweetness & Light today:
"But their news is worse than junk. It is poison — injected directly into the body politic of the United States on a daily basis.
In a better, more just world they would pay a price for their treason to our nation and to the truth itself."
Posted by: centralcal | October 24, 2008 at 09:39 AM
Hey! I think long threads (No Next/Previous) are back again.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Posted by: sbw | October 24, 2008 at 09:41 AM
I think the NYT new bldg could easily be converted to much needed rental apts so foreign nationals like Bianca Jagger could once again find rent stabilized apts when they jet into town,instead of being evicted to make room for like you know Americans who live full time in NYC.
Posted by: clarice plumber | October 24, 2008 at 09:50 AM
This is so retarded. The overwhelming majority of republicans will not vote for Obama because he is a liberal democrat. It is democrats that are racist. Apparently. Clue to the NYTs. Americans rejected Kerry, the whitest of white (deathly white) white man. Because he was a liberal democrat. Get it? Liberal. Liberal. Liberal.
Posted by: Sue | October 24, 2008 at 09:51 AM
This is my favorite part:
What are these far reaching reforms? The NYTs tells us:
Why do those not sound like far-reaching reforms that will protect American business? They sound more like reforms that will soak American business.
Mr. Obama's foray into educational reforms has not been so very sucessful in the past, even if at $150 million they were expensive rather than expansive.
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Appropos of thatMayBee---
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_monied_left_under_obama.html>Does high end business know which side of the baguette is buttered?
On another note, Daddy--it appears there's a problem with another Stevens' case juror--Her father has died, she left town and doesn't know when she'll return:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/stevens.trial/?iref=hpmostpop
Posted by: clarice plumber | October 24, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Regarding the NYT endorsing Obama; Krauthammer endorsed McCain, and we shouldn't expect two surprises in one day.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | October 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM
It is true that racism does still exist. I will not vote for Obama because I cannot tolerate his Marxist/socialist politics. However my in-laws in Minnesota will NOT vote for him because he is a black man. They are all democrats and always have been---good news though my republican husband has convinced them to vote McCain this year. They were going to not vote. He told them not voting IS a vote for Obama. So that's about 8 more votes for McCain. Small steps.
Posted by: thelonereader | October 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM
As Steve Gilbert notes, it was just a mere ten months ago that the NYT' editors had such nice things to say about John:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html
Posted by: clarice plumber | October 24, 2008 at 10:22 AM
All this recent talk of racism is, IMO, a set up for an excuse why the Messiah didn't win.
And you don't come up with an excuse if you don't see the potential for needing one.
I feel a righteous wind at our backs folks.
Posted by: Soylent Red | October 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I'd bet a whole lot of money that many more people are voting for Obama because he is black than are voting against Obama because he is black. White guilt is the new racism.
Posted by: Jane | October 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Soylent,
I thought that too. Excuses on why The One didn't win.
Posted by: Sue | October 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Oh, Soylent , how I hope you're right!
Posted by: clarice plumber | October 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
"All this recent talk of racism is, IMO, a set up for an excuse why the Messiah didn't win."
The New Yorker set it up with their infamous cover cartoon; we're smearing Obama with racism and a bunch of other stereotypes too.
If Obama loses, it WILL BE because of our hateful smearing, not because the American voters reject an empty resume and an empty suit on policy grounds.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | October 24, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Now that the NYT is officially JUNK--perhaps we should drive a stake through its heart.
How about a tasteful, well organized boycott of all its advertisers? I think it's only fair. They are helping to elect a socialist who is going to take our money, including 401ks, away.
Posted by: Verner | October 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Approximately 95% of blacks will vote for Obama. Ergo, it ain't the whites that are the racists anymore.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 24, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Jane-
I agree, I am just saying that racism does still exist-it exists in both directions, and I say the majority of the racism is located in the democratic party not the republican. And the Obama campaign is using this racism to the max. On the one hand most blacks (including Colin Powell) are voting for Obama because they consider him black. On the other hand they yell racism at republicans if they don't vote for him. What they are probably finding out with their internal polling is, that the white on black racism is in their own party and and there is not much they can do about that.
Posted by: thelonereader | October 24, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Since the middle ages, the middle class has struggled to free itself from oppressive, power-hungry government. Now, invoking the name of the poor as cover, another generation of selfish, power-grabbers would throw the poor further into dependency on the government, and strip from them their chance to ever become middle class.
After 700 years spent collecting our liberty, they would steal it back.
My question of any candidate so engaged is whether they are the willing accomplice or the dupe.
Posted by: sbw | October 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Excellent, Clarice.
I must admit Vanity Fair had me baffled when they snarked at Cindy McCain's expensive clothing at the RNC. Piaget and Harry Winston should have pulled its advertising in protest.
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
NYTs:
Is it legal to use the campaign plane to fly to Hawaii to visit his grandmother?
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2008 at 10:54 AM
The cries of racism will backfire. All those feeling liberal guilt about race already support Obama. The undecided muddle will not decide on this account. Rather, if their indecision about Obama is because of not enough information, then any more information they get about Obama will turn them against him.
I think the biased MSM has screwed it up again. They only wanted McCain because they thought he'd be easy to beat. They didn't count on Sarah, and they didn't count on Obama being such an empty suit.
I mean really, Democrats; Gore, Kerry, and now Obama? This is the best you've got?
===================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Don't be silly, MayBee, it's racist not to consider Obama above the law.
============================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
You know Clarice and Maybee, when Jackie O wore Chanel and Oleg Cassini, we nominated her as queen of the USA. And Jeez, remember when Oprah sold the contents of her closet? And it ain't like Michelle Obama wears Target and TJ Max.
Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman. The fashion industry should jump at the chance to dress her. She wears clothes beautifully--as does Cindy Mccain.
The fashion industry should be all over this nonsense.
Posted by: Verner | October 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM
And ten lawsuits in ten states about his identity is just a slick lynch mob. Where's the justice?
===========================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM
via Hot Air [h/t Tina]:
That's from an NYT piece, so everything must be proceeded with 'if they have their facts straight' but I believe this to give rational validity to bio-mom's continuing call to 'ignore the polls'. It's not just the 'Mickey Mouse' registrations, it's the registration of bums, derelicts and low lifes who won't show up on election day. It's not just ACORN, it's every group comprised of 'community organizers' following Alinsky rules and registering people who will very likely not show up.
It's the creation of an illusion which the polling companies must address but cannot. The polling companies know that an increase in registrations has meaning but if they don't know the actual percentage of duds registered, they have absolutely no way of tuning their turnout models accurately. This doesn't mean that all polls are totally useless but it does mean that the actual MOE may well be 6 rather than 3.
If you're thinking 'that can't be right', I would suggest that you may think that AGW is true because of "the consensus of scientists" and that Peak Oil has actually occurred - or that housing prices can actually go up 10% per year indefinitely.
It's a tough race and Sarah and Mac need your support. Send money, get on the phone, write some emails. Triple down if you live in a battle ground state.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I'm voting against Obama because he's white.
The first black president was white, too, and I think he was an unmitigated disaster.
Then again, they both share another characteristic that influences me to vote against them, the content of their character.
Oh and sure, those damnable liberal and dangerous policies. Those play a role, too.
But sure, call me a "racist". I just politely request that you use the scare quotes around it to properly identify it for what it is: bull shit.
Posted by: hit and run | October 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Did Michelle and the girls go to Hawaii? I would assume if grandma is dying they are making the trip also.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 11:02 AM
h/t
"Exactly"
Posted by: thelonereader | October 24, 2008 at 11:05 AM
What I particularly like about the IBD poll is that undecideds still are over 10%. The shift in the last three days has moved those for Obama into those for McCain, functionally, even if it truly is movement into and out of the undecided pool. I also think the undecided pool is where the Bradley effect is. I think they're for McCain and afraid to say it. With all the racism hurled about by the Obama campaign, I suspect the major effect has been to corrupt the polling. We shall see, won't we.
If I'm right, the Congressional races won't be as bad as predicted, either.
============================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM
The NYTs endorsement:
Race matters to the NYTs.
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Sure, Grandma is in trouble, but I don't think she is even in the hospital, anymore. There is some other reason for this trip, what, I've no idea.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Thanks. MayBee. I proposed a boycott of the NYT's rich advertisers a long time ago, but it's way too complicated to pull off. It doesn't matter, the advertisers are losing money so they buy less; the NYT is losing market share, so it can charge less. As if two men were anchored to eachother and thrown overboard the paper and its rich advertisers are sinking together. Ain't that sad.
___
Rick and Bio, et al I've been harping here for a long time that the pollsters have a harder time than usual this year, in part because of the vaunted new registrations--how to calculate early on that they are fewer than touted, faker than fake and will be caught out and stopped and finally, how to say what a poster here last night noted--even if the registration is real and the new voter shows up, how to calculate for the fact that so many cannot follow the basic voting instructions because they are illiterate and their vote is pitched.
Did you see BTW that gallup says the early voters appear evenly split by party affiliation?
Posted by: clarice plumber | October 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I give the world six months to be very unhappy about the face of America that Obama presents to the world. Whether they realize it or not, Bush's face to the world has been benign and productive.
===================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I feel a righteous wind at our backs folks.
Beans for dinner last night?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 24, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans FROM American business.
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to RID Americans OF American business.
Etc.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 24, 2008 at 11:13 AM
bad- no, Michelle is campaigning for Barack. Apparently she doesn't get the campaign plane to do it in, though.
I'm really curious about this. The savior of the downtrodden is taking a big private plane funded with campaign donations on a personal visit. Why is that a smaller deal than Sarah Palin's clothes?
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2008 at 11:16 AM
ha, Jim.
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I, for one, am voting against Obama's white half. Because that half is typically white and racist.
And I'll have none of that.
Posted by: Soylent Red | October 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM
bad,
No, the family did not go with him.
Posted by: Sue | October 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM
There is some other reason for this trip, what, I've no idea.
Bill and Hillary are sitting in a rowboat off Diamond Head, bobbing up and down, trying to figure out how to aim a Stinger missile.
Posted by: Soylent Red | October 24, 2008 at 11:20 AM
The industry should be defending her , Verner, but they're not. Guess they're afraid to speak out.
BTW the news today is that most of those clothes were bought in three sizes because the campaign wasn't sure what would fit and most of it is still on the back of the campaign plane untouched.
The fashion industry and retailers are going to take a major haircut and they deserve what they get for consistently touting the left.
Posted by: clarice plumber | October 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM
and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
If I'm understanding this correctly the Times must have endorsed Alan Keyes in his race against Obama and his runs for the presidency because he has two black parents rather than one and would therefore present an even newer American face to the world. Maybe I missed it?
If only Alan had known his color would only come in handy if he directed his loopiness away from the constitution and God and toward mainstreaming traitorous terrorists, making us proud to be Americans for the first time in our lives and standing at the seaside with his staff declaring where the boundary of the waters would stop.
Posted by: Barney Frank | October 24, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I'll tell you an interesting statistic and that is that 15% of people who fracture a hip are dead within six months, and that figure has not changed in 30 years despite dramatically improved care of fractured hips. The reason? A sixth of people who fall and fracture their hips are dying, and the fracture is just an episode in the decline.
======================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:24 AM
We all knew who the NYTs was going to endorse thats no big surprise. Let's see if anyone is left willing to endorse McCain. How many paper's that endorsed Bush in 2004 have endorsed McCain -- how many has a he lost? The flood-gates are opening on republicans bailing the sinking ship. Seriously TM -- this is a joke post. Republicans are out-right bailing ship on McCain and endorsing Obama publically. Several running ads saying they agree with Obama. Are you seriously whining about the NYT endorsing obama?
Posted by: Jor | October 24, 2008 at 11:24 AM
and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
You see this is what separates the NYT and their ilk from me: I don't need a new American face!!! I'm quite happy with the one that we have. These simpleton prigs all need therapy badly because they want to project their inferiority complex onto the nation at large and guess what: We don't have that effing problem!!!
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I voting for McCain because I HATE BIG EARS !!!{good thing you can't see mine} Kim you would be suprised how many times the race card can be played.It is constantly used in my town and works every time.It is a shame to see what has happened.No progress only simmering discontent from all sides
Posted by: jean | October 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM
There was once a time when a candidate who suggested that we become more like the sh1tholes that most Americans fled from would have been laughed back into obscurity.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I just had an odd thought. What if Hillary campaigning in Pennsylvania for Obama actually gains more votes for McCain. The PUMAs are hot, and motivated to stop Obama.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Jor, you call McClellan and Powell Republicans? I know it's a big tent, but not big enough for those two asses.
============================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM
jor. At this point in the media's decline, smart candidates should be bribing editors NOT to endorse them.
Kim--that is an interesting statistic. I only knew one person who broke her hip--she swore it broke before she fell. She was in a small town in France and the hospital simply doped her up heavily all day and held her immobile until she recovered, but not terribly long after that she died of heart failure.
Posted by: clarice | October 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM
It used to be that the elderly who broke their hips would often develop pneumonia while laying in their hospital beds recovering, and this was the actual primary cause of death.
Now, doctors get them up and walking much sooner, and this improves their recovery and chances for survival.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM
An emergency trip for a broken hip?
Something stinks here. A broken hip could wait until November 6th.
Posted by: Jane | October 24, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Obama's grandmother is not expected to live through the election per Obama according to Fox News.
Is that code for he may need to go back to Hawaii?
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Jane,
She broke her hip a few weeks ago.
Posted by: Sue | October 24, 2008 at 11:33 AM
trying to figure out how to aim a Stinger missile.
"OW! Dammit Hillary, why'd you do that?"
"Sorry, I didn't know it was attached to the spring thingy."
"Maybe if we try putting the tube thing back on."
"What's this thing do - " BLAM!!!
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM
clarice, that is a typical history for a pathological fracture, caused by metastatic cancer, though it can happen with severe osteoporosis. The odds are that the congestive heart failure gave her an arrhythmia, which caused the fall. Yes, she was probably dying, though, from the dropsy.
Another huge cause of spinal vertebral compression fractures? The extra push to attempt to raise a stuck window. It's remarkable how often that shows up.
=================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM
The hip usually breaks first,from being brittle.Then the fall.The patient doesn't die from the hip.Because of age and prior health problems they get pneumonia.Obamas GM could be fine or near death .Unles she does die we will never know
Posted by: jean | October 24, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Obama flying to Hawaii ... thoughts of Tom Hanks in "Castaway" .... rescued too late and everyone's moved on ... package delivery far in the future.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I wish they hadn't come out with that "may not make it to Nov 4" business. She better not let O rearrange her pillows for her.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 24, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Yes, she was probably dying, though, from the dropsy.
Now there's a fine old word you don't hear much any more.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Notice there has not been one word from her this campaign. She has secrets to tell, and my guess is that Obama is trying to keep her lips sealed. God knows what might come out in her delirium. It'll come out that he's arranging around the clock nursing care, but he's vetting the care, right now, I'll bet.
=============================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Yes, marvelous word, it's a contraction of 'hydrops' because of the swelling in the feet and ankles.
========================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I wonder if she can confirm exactly which hospital he was born in, either of the 2 disputed ones in Hawaii, or the one in Kenya?
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Bohner just sent a letter to Bush requesting him to require DoJ to enforce the HAVA Act in Ohio.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM
There's a lot she could confirm; notice she hasn't? Obama's restricting her First Amendment rights, as we speak.
===================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM
We're misunderestimating Hobama. He is no doubt making this trip to ask his grandma who his daddy REALLY is and where was he REALLY born.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 11:48 AM
It's possible that Obama simply believes what he was told, which may not be the whole truth.
And perhaps elements of Berg's suit are a genuine revelation to him.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Kim, she couldn't confirm anything not in favor of Hobama. Remember he told us she is a racist, therefore suspect.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Yes, fd, I think Obama himself doesn't know the truth of his early life. Berg now claims he'll release an audiotape of Obama's paternal grandmother claiming he was born at Coast Hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. Of course, he also claims to have a copy of the Kenyan birth certificate, which he hasn't revealed.
==============================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM
And perhaps elements of Berg's suit are a genuine revelation to him.
And would make him a victim of a conspiracy of white people, the Dunhams.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM
If "Toot" was truly racist, she would have done what most white Americans would have done in 1961. Turned her daughter and her daughter's black child out in the street. That she didn't, that she loved him, that she provided for him, that she gave him, as he said, everything she had to give him, says Obama is using Toot to his advantage. And I find lots of shame in him though he finds none in himself.
Posted by: Sue | October 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM
fdcol63,
I heard Berg on the radio last night during my 5 minute drive from the gym to home - with commercial breaks.
He didn't sound all that nutty, but I'm not sure that was a valid sample.
Posted by: Jane | October 24, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I agree Sue, that is more compelling evidence than anything else.
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The really nutty ones sound perfectly sane.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Did the elder Barack Hussein Obama gain any kind of extended visa stay advantage by marrying Stanley Ann? Did he pay child support?
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I would personally donate $1000 to the McCain campaign if he would come out on TV and call Obama's trip to HI a "distraction".
Posted by: Soylent Red | October 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM
More than a hint of racism--though it comes from Obama's lips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fi8STNlxM
Posted by: clarice | October 24, 2008 at 12:01 PM
...call Obama's trip to HI a "distraction".
An erratic distraction...
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM
So who on SNL will portray Michelle?
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 12:06 PM
" heard Berg on the radio last night during my 5 minute drive from the gym to home - with commercial breaks"
Jane, remember he brought wuit earlier against the WH caliming 9/11 was an inside job. Several counts of his complaint are ridiculous misstatements of the law and his argument on Admissions is, as JimRhodes and I noted against local practices we are familiar with.
I grant you that the failure to produce the birth certificate is odd and that there seem to be major flaws in the COLB he provided.
Posted by: clarice | October 24, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Personally, I just find it very damning that Obama could be born of a white mother, raised with white grandparents, and yet become so militantly black separationist that he could sit in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, and write this in his book "Dreams From My Father":
"I'm not black," Joyce said. "I'm multiracial." Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. "Why should I have to choose between them?" she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. "It's not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they're willing to treat me like a person. No - it's black people who always have to make everything racial. They're the ones making me choose. They're the ones who are telling me that I can't be who I am ..."
"They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people ... "
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
**Suit...CLAiming****
Posted by: clarice | October 24, 2008 at 12:11 PM
... he could sit in Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, and write this in his book "Dreams From My Father":
He didn't give Bill Ayers the right information?
Posted by: bad | October 24, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Even hypochondriacs get sick, and even nutjobs sometimes have a case. There are ten cases nationally about Obama's identity. Something stinks.
================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Extraneus writes
In 2004, according to the exit polls, 88% of blacks voted for John Kerry. link. So, at best, you could argue (if Obama gets 95% of the black vote) that 7% of blacks are racist.I suspect you could find 7% of whites that are racist as well.
It does your argument no good to argue that blacks are racist.
Posted by: Antimedia | October 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM
fd, you might want to look up another fine old term, "reaction formation."
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 24, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I find it very interesting that the 'Fight the Smears' first fight was the COLB, and at best they got a draw. Unless, he's laid a beautiful trap, there is something about his birth certificate that is either disqualifying, shameful, or politically harmful. In any case, the people have a right to know, and since the people are not being allowed to know, I'm almost certain there is something there.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | October 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM