Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Can $200m Obama win vital votes of 'poor white folk'?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 June 2008
THEIR fight was long and often ugly, but Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were preaching messages of unity yesterday as they embarked on a new battle for the soul of the United States.
With Mr Obama finally victorious in the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, a sudden outbreak of civility and conciliation set the tone for the five-month general election campaign to come.

Mr Obama has a tough opponent in John McCain, and was embarking yesterday on a strategy to overcome the geographic, demographic and generational hurdles on his path to the White House.

On his first day as the Democratic presumptive nominee, Mr Obama phoned Mrs Clinton and repeated his offer to "sit down when it makes sense to you" to discuss the way ahead. But analysts agree it will take more than a peace accord between the two to beat the Republicans.

Mr Obama must connect with white, working-class families in the south and in the so-called Rust Belt, the north-eastern states such as Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia where the recent economic slump has hit hard. He struggled for support in many of those areas, including some Democratic "blue" states where Mrs Clinton picked up the majority of her party's votes.

How he stacks up against Mr McCain in a key number of "red" states won by the Republicans in the 2004 election could also be decisive. Among them are Virginia and Georgia, with growing numbers of African-American voters, and Colorado, with its mix of younger, liberal voters. Just a few of those, along with the states John Kerry won four years ago, would be enough.

"I'm probably the only candidate who can actually redraw the political map," Mr Obama said during campaigning last year.

So who else does Mr Obama still need to convince that the US is ready for a black president? "A lot of poor, white people," said Erwin Hargrove, professor emeritus of political science of Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

"We don't yet know how thin is the veneer of racial tolerance in this country," he added. "With the younger generation there's no problem, but there are still a lot of older people who are not comfortable with voting for a black man they don't know.

"He's going to have to go out into those states, campaign and do it for himself. I don't think his vice-presidential candidate will help him that much, unless it's somebody like Bill Richardson (governor of New Mexico] who could help persuade Latin and minority voters in places like Florida and California. The truth is we don't know until he tries."

Mr Obama's win was a milestone for a nation where, just decades ago, racial discrimination was so severe blacks in some states were barred by law from eating at the same lunch counters as whites, and many had to fight for the right to vote.

His accomplishment drew the attention of Condoleezza Rice, a Republican, who said his victory was an "extraordinary expression" that the first words of the US Constitution, 'We, the people' is beginning to mean all of us."

Another election issue could be the generational one, and to a certain extent, the cultural gap between the candidates.

At 71, Mr McCain has a quarter-century over his 46-year-old opponent and has made frequent reference to Mr Obama's "lack of experience". Yet Mr Obama's relative youth is a selling point for the Democrats.

"McCain could struggle because of his age," Prof Hargrove said. "While he needs a running mate to help him take Democrats and independents away from Obama, he also needs somebody younger, a world-class athlete who can succeed him if something happens."

Financially, Mr Obama's war chest to fight the campaign is far healthier than Mr McCain's, and experts say he will have no trouble raising the estimated £100 million he will need. As of 30 April he had raised £136 million from mostly smaller donors to fund his primary and general election campaigns, according to figures from the Federal Election Commission. Mr McCain has amassed only £50 million.

Last night, Mr McCain challenged Mr Obama to join him in ten meetings with voters between now and the Democratic National Convention in August, with the first proposed for 12 June in New York. Mr McCain shines at question and answer sessions. Mr Obama's skill lies in sweeping rhetoric. Yet the feeling is, that barring any upsets Mr Obama is the man of the hour.

"It's the Democrats' campaign to lose. But they can lose it," Prof Hargrove said.

From slavery to threshold of presidency in 143 years

KEY points in the rise of black Americans:

• 1865: End of American Civil War and ratification of 13th amendment to US Constitution, abolishing slavery.

• 1869: Congress passes 15th amendment: gives African-American men right to vote.

• 1870: Mississippi voters make Hiram Revels first African-American elected to US Senate. Joseph Hayne Rainey becomes first black member of House of Representatives.

• 1954: Segregation ruled unconstitutional by US Supreme Court.

• 1955: Rosa Parks refuses to give up her bus seat for white passenger.

• 1963: Martin Luther King delivers "I have a dream" speech in Washington DC.

• 1965: Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on race, national origin, religion or gender in voting, public places, schools and workplaces.

• 1972: Shirley Chisholm becomes first African-American to run for Democrats' presidential nomination.

• 1984: Civil-rights leader Jesse Jackson wins 3.3 million votes and five contests in run for Democratic nomination.

• 2004: Barack Obama elected to Congress from Illinois, becoming only fifth African-American to serve in US Senate.

• 2008: Mr Obama becomes first African-American to run for president.

Key policies accentuate the crucial differences

THE policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were extremely limited – those between Mr Obama and Republican rival John McCain are much more pronounced:

• IRAQ Mr McCain, a staunch supporter of the war, says the United States could maintain a peacekeeping military presence there indefinitely, similar to the ongoing deployments in South Korea and Japan. Mr Obama opposed the war before he was elected to the Senate and says he would withdraw US troops within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

• DIPLOMACY Mr McCain advocates a more vigorous US role in international diplomacy after the two terms of President George Bush and promises a push to rebuild frayed relations with the US's allies. Mr Obama emphasises negotiations rather than military action, and has said he would talk, without preconditions, with the leaders of hostile states, including Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela.

• HEALTHCARE Mr McCain would end tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance and instead provide a refundable tax credit of $2,500 (£1,280) per person, or $5,000 for families, to help people buy health policies. He would promote competition by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and make it tougher to sue doctors in some cases. Mr Obama has proposed a national insurance scheme to allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health care, similar to that available to federal employees, funded by a tax on employers who don't provide coverage. Individuals would not lose coverage when they switched jobs.

• TAXES Mr McCain would maintain Mr Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that he initially opposed. Those tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. He advocates cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent from 35 per cent and would allow businesses to immediately write off capital expenses. Mr Obama would let tax cuts for the wealthy expire. For the middle class, he proposes a $500 (£255)-per-person tax credit, or $1,000 per family, to offset payroll taxes. He would eliminate taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000. He also advocates simplifying the tax-filing process.

• CLIMATE CHANGE Mr McCain favours a cap-and-trade approach to . He sponsored legislation in 2007 to cut emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2050. Mr Obama would cut carbon dioxide emissions to 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and require fuel suppliers to cut carbon content by 10 per cent by 2020.

• OIL USE Mr McCain has set no specific targets. He has said he will unveil a strategy to reduce reliance on foreign oil sources. Mr Obama would reduce overall US oil consumption by at least 35 per cent, or ten million barrels per day, by 2030 to offset imports from Opec nations.

No surrender but Clinton divorced from reality

IT WAS billed by the pundits as her concession speech.

Instead, the cry from Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night was "no surrender". Her supporters loved it, chanting "Denver, Denver" at one point, urging their heroine to carry the fight for the Democratic party's presidential nomination all the way to the party convention in August.

Mrs Clinton's defiance was startling and her speech, though lacking grace, was the best she had given in the campaign, even if it was divorced from reality.

Though she has been beaten, she is not going away: "I want … the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, and to no longer be invisible" she said.

She told reporters she was "open" to the idea of serving as vice-presidential nominee.

A unity ticket was endorsed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton supporter.

It is by no means certain that she wants the job.

Nor is it clear that Mrs Clinton would be best served by being vice-president. Her own conviction that Mr Obama will lose to John McCain suggests that her interests are better served by waiting until 2012 for another tilt at the presidency.






The full article contains 1662 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 June 2008 12:05 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: US elections
 
1

Angus Ogg,

04/06/2008 22:52:45

Some posters on these Boards ridiculed the idea of Hillary Clinton being the Vice Presidential candidate, but it looks likely this will now come to pass for so many reasons on so many levels. Not least because Mr Obama appears to have some possibly fatal electoral weaknesses on his own. Mrs Clinton seems able to help shore any shortfall up.

The very best of luck to Barack Obama. Whatever else, he is a breath of fresh air.


2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 00:52:59

I don't think it will last, History tells us this.

Without saying it, things may happen.
3

Bill Clinton,

NY 05/06/2008 01:13:16
Can $200m Obama win vital votes of 'poor white folk'?

What a racist headline.
4

Scullion,

Canada 05/06/2008 01:23:25
#3 Please do not look for things that aren't there.
Obama and Clinton would make the world look at the U.S. in the way it used to do-as a beacon of light, the shining city set on the hill.
Good luck to them both and let's hope they bring America back to the liberal democratic principals she was founded upon.
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 02:21:34
bring them on re~5,

I cant "Say It" as I think it maybe a case of,
"Comment Removed"!

I wait in anticipation, and hope it wont happen, but,...?
6

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 05/06/2008 02:23:31
#4. Obama will not win the White House, and very likely will not take on H.R.C. as the V.P unless pressured to do so by the DNC Black caucus and others.

He would need a full time food taster should she be V.P.

Obama is a liberal mythical figure conjured up by the leftist media.Many of whom never really believed he would beat H.R.C. The vultures are waiting, and stand back and enjoy the advertising.

The election will be entertaining, and if McCain selects the correct VP. He will win in a cantor.

All the best.
7

Barbara O'Neill E.,

Las Vegas, NV 05/06/2008 02:39:15
Obama is scary and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. McCain is weak on the economy that's scary in itself. Out of 300+ million citizens, these were the two best we could come up with as candidates for President of the U.S. God help us. My country is in trouble.
8

Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi,

San Francisco 05/06/2008 02:48:27
It’s funny how you have elitist Canadians and others trying to rewrite US history each night on these threads. I also laugh every time some misinformed rube blames Bush for Hurricane Katrina. You get a few people hell bent on hating the US and or it’s policies and then you add a total lack of how it’s government works and then you sit back and read the most ridiculous comments every night…..

Obama or McCain? To me it won’t make much of a difference other than Supreme Court Justice Appointments.

The ignorant left wing that say stupid things like McCain would be a 3rd Bush term are also the idiots who blamed Bush for the aftermath of Katrina even though the US Govt was waiting for the order to help but the incompetent Governor at the time sat on her hands and that is why Louisiana now has a great Republican conservative Governor Bobby Jindal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal .

McCain is a RINO, obviously the better choice over Obama who has no experience other than being a racist but I do not want a RINO in the Whitehouse. I’ll have to see how things start to shape up closer to the election, if we have more conservatives heading toward Governorships & Congress we may be able to limp by 4 years with McCain but if not I want to hold off for a true conservative the next time around. Obama and McCain would be a failure like Carter and only last 1 term.
9

Carolyn 1,

05/06/2008 02:58:50
I agree the headline is racist

Furthermore, the writer, Richard Luscombe, writes for the Christian Monitor.
??
What is he doing in Scotland writing glowing stories of a man's who's minister preaches god-damn America?
10

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 05/06/2008 04:11:52
Jimmy carter said that Obama should NOT pick Hilary to be VP. he is right. Lots of republicans & independents despise the Clintons. He needs someone like Senator jim Webb of Virginia (a white man whose son is in the war) to be his running mate. The wicked witch is done.

Hilary spent all day the news tells us consulting her advisors. I guess when the other side wins you have to consult experts to know that you've lost. She's so smart.
11

,

05/06/2008 08:10:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

JayJay,

Right here 05/06/2008 08:35:02
What I pick up from this story is the quite extraordinary sums of money that will be expended by all of the people who chose to run in the primaries, then by McCain and Obama in the run up to November. All told, we must be talking well over $1bn.
This just does not seem right. Whilst I feel sure advertisers, marketeers and tv stations love all the lovely loot, but morally, I just don't understand how all of these "god-fearing" men can spend so much money on PR. More worryingly, you have to wonder who is providing the cash, and what favours they expect in return.
13

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 05/06/2008 08:37:23
"the United States could maintain a peacekeeping military presence there indefinitely, similar to the ongoing deployments in South Korea and Japan."

It's had to think of how a military presence in Iraq could be similar to that in Japan. McCain's comment on this have seemed almost flippant at times.

"Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea; we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans -- as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it's fine with me."

Can he be elected on that position?
14

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 08:44:31
If Hillary goes for Vice President it will probably be because given the racism in The US the chances of President Obama being knocked off by some red necked racist must be pretty high and Hey Presto - President Hillary.
15

fresian,

Dubai 05/06/2008 09:37:55
Listened to Hillary's sspeach last night, and my god, whichever party gets in, the world is in trouble. She spouted on about US support of Israel. The best way to defend Israel, is to actually do something positive for the Palestinians. Only then will the terrorist group support wane. I'm quite sure that if someone was to found a new country on the east coast of the USA, the Americans would react in exactly the same way.
16

Navvy,

05/06/2008 09:42:57
PC gone mad

Obama is a WHITE man

at least he is as much white as he is black
17

Navvy,

05/06/2008 09:44:07
17
and in Germany and Turkey and England and Scotland till they left the Holy Loch though they might be luring somewhere still, Forfar? Laxavord?
18

porters at 9,

05/06/2008 11:17:07
he's not white.
i'm white and i don't look like him
19

walter,

05/06/2008 11:34:16
I said a few weeks back that the media were insinuating that,
Black Americans who voted Obama did so because they supported his policies.
White Americans who voted Obama did so because they supported his policies.
Black Americans who voted Clinton did so because they supported her policies.
White Americans who voted Clinton did so because they are racists.
Lets hope that all Americans can look at these two candidates and vote for the one they believe will be the best president.
Lets hope that Black Americans will not vote Obama just because he is Black and white Americans don't vote for him so as not to be classed racists but vote for him because they agree with his policies and believe him the best candidate.


20

Wally,

By The Rivers Of babylon (USA) 05/06/2008 11:54:34
JayJay in 16 is correct: the huge costs of US elections show how dysfunctional the people in America are & more importantly how rotten the big media companies are. The big media companies will not allow the candidates to simply communicate without bilking them of huge amounts of money. The debates in the US are carefully controlled so that candidates can't really communicate as they'd desire. the media personalities control those. the Americans themselves are normally unable to focus their minds except when a well-produced tv commercial does it for them. The most inexpensive means of communicating, by letting volunteers distribute a few pieces of paper with words on it to the people door-to-door does not work because Americans don't take such things seriously.

From 1750 to 1900 the method we used to communicate concerning politics was very inexpensive and far superior. We had many newspapers with different points of view and they would write write write. and the newspapers were distributed into bars (pubs) all over the country by citizens themselves. the newspapers would be left there by citizens for others to read. then people would read aloud the newspapers and discuss while they relaxed & drank. In this way people who couldn't read would get the benefit of the writing. Today's system by comparison is dysfunctional. The media is owned by only 6 corporations who all are on the side of the people who rule our country. very unlike how things were in the past when many points of view from intelligent people were spread far and wide for all the people to hear and inexpensively too.
21

Wally,

By the Rivers Of babylon (USA) 05/06/2008 12:04:46
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=933

this article cites a poll done by CBS recently where Obama has a 6 point lead over Mccain. I put up another link yesterday done last week by a republican pollster that showed obama has a 4 point lead. Someone tells me there are other polls showing Mccain in the lead. I haven't seen such polls cited by articles. the last 3 weeks Obama has had a big surge and many polls show him easily able to defeat Mccain. The media keeps saying he's handicapped because he's black. but there is no real evidence of this.

Whites in America always favor the Republican party by a fair margin. and blacks always favor the democrat party by an overwhelming margin. In 2004 bush beat Kerry by 17 points among white voters. Today Mccain is leading Obama by 2 points among white voters. I put up a link to a poll done by a republican pollster yesterday showing that.

The thing the media doesn't talk about is the extreme dislike Americans have for republicans right now. They had an emergency election about 3 weeks ago in a Mississippi district that has been republican for 35 years. and the democrat won. No president since polls have been done is as unpopular as Bush is today. Nixon even did not reach that low, neither did Truman. and certainly carter was always much more popular than bush today.

Republicans had a low in popularity back in 1964. then they built their popularity up until the late 1980's as people liked reagan. When GHW Bush became president they began to do things against what they'd promised. They began to build big-government, stifling police state style fascism and foreign adventures beginning with Panama in 1989. Remember the US has overthrown 6 governments by military force applied in an unprovoked and surprise fashion since 1989. The result is that today the Republicans have reached the low in poularity they had in 1964.

It is the media that emphasizes race. It is a complet
22

,

05/06/2008 12:45:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 05/06/2008 13:42:32
Angus Ogg refuses to face reality:

"Some posters on these Boards ridiculed the idea of Hillary Clinton being the Vice Presidential candidate, but it looks likely this will now come to pass for so many reasons on so many levels."

Not a prayer of it. Obama would be shrewd to pick a woman though - perhaps Sibelius.

Hillary, after re-entry to planet Earth. will be looking for a Health brief, a big Senate committee, and perhaps ultimately Senate Majority Leader.

Whether she's torn the breeks out of this by her antics remains to be seen.
24

Polly Ann,

05/06/2008 14:26:00
24 Wally the Anti-American

Where do you really live?
25

Media 1,

cape town 05/06/2008 15:06:03
The fact that he has won the right to run for office is itself testament to the will of the American people concerning colour. It is an issue, but its not that big an issue! First and foremost he is competent, charismatic and capable of bringing about change throughout the world.
What I did find MOST DISTURBING was Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday where she said that she knew senator Obama would be a friend to Israel! WHAT THE F@CK?
What does that mean? Was that some attempt to win certain votes? Is Israel really that powerful in America? And if so, isnt that what's wrong with the world and American politics. The day that America treats Israel with the DISrespect she deserves is the day the world enters a peaceful era
26

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 15:09:17
Black/White - who cares. He will end this crazy illegal war in Iraq. McCain just represents more of the same old Bush oil grab policies.
27

Wally,

by The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 05/06/2008 15:20:41
Media 1 in 29:

jews are 2% of the US population. and polling within that jewish sector of the population indicates that they are not as concerned about our government supporting Israel as they are about the economy and the war. Polling shows that the jewish population in America is pretty similar to the rest of the population on issues and most of them don't have a special concern for Israel. Remember, America has as many jews as Israel does. and all of them have been invited to go and live in Israel for decades and offerred lots of money to do so even. They've chosen not to. Today 80% of America's jews wish that the US government would pull all of the US troops out of Iraq.

Why do America's politicians uniformly bow to Israel? Because there are 6 corporations that rule the US media. and those 6 corporations are loyal to the people that rule us. and the people that rule us are loyal to a zionist agenda. If the media decides to ruin any politician, then it can do so. because as I said in 24 the American people are too stupid to think for themselves. All the media has to do is sling mud at a politician and the people will force him/her out simply to get the media to shut up. I am not exaggerating in my description - some will recall what happened to Trent Lott 10 years ago, it was exactly as I described it. Lott was majority leader of US Senate and he veered from the preferred agenda, then he was attacked relentlessly for unrelated comments to the real reason he was forced out.

You can think of America as a totalitarian system where the thoughts of the people are tightly controlled & directed.
28

presto,

U.K 05/06/2008 15:51:22
#29 - You posting garbage! Cease to be easily disturbed, boy. The day when Anti-terrorists and moderate muslims united to fight and treat jihadis and religious extremists with disdain and disrespect is the day the world enters into peaceful era.
29

Gere,

Scotland 05/06/2008 15:53:27
Post 31
Wally, by The Rivers of Babylon,

You should really read Professors Mearsheimer and Walt!

They are two American Academics who have done an awful lot of research into how the Jews control America.

Obama had to address AIPAC and swear his allegiance to the cause of Israel. During his affirmation of loyalty to Israel he uneqivocally stated that he would basically pledge the lives of U.S. military personnel to the invasion of Iran if he received the instruction from Israel to do so!
30

Sandi,

San Diego 05/06/2008 16:06:02
It must be time for me to leave the Democratic Party, although in all honesty, Donna Brazile and Obama already told me they don't want or need people like me, older, white women. We are Hillary's supporters and we're not about to start supporting the mysoginistic, racist man who has trashed her personally, and us, for the last year. On November 4, we will not forget how Obama, his campaign and many of his supporters have behaved.

#27 Stupid insulting remarks like yours are part of the reason Obama will not win. He needs the 18 million votes that Hillary got-MORE than he got, to win in November and he will not get them. I do not want Hillary to take the VP position because I think Obama would treat her poorly and blame every single thing that went wrong on her. How many times have you heard him take responsibility for his own words or actions? Let me help you out-not once, none, never.

Hillary is already on a "big Senate committee". Putting any other woman on the ticket as VP will infuriate us even more. Just another slight to Hillary. Yet, he needs both Bill and Hillary Clinton to unite the party for him. His campaign has said that.

As I said here yesterday, Hillry will suspend her campaign. This is a technical detail which allows her to keep the votes and delegates she won until the Convention. She can concede now, now that she's been bullied into doing so, but if more bad news comes out about Obama's Illinois buddies, and it will, Hillary will be ready to step in.

From the Chicago Tribune:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/69aafz
31

Wally,

by The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 05/06/2008 16:14:21
gere in 33: I am a little bit familiar with the work of those 2. I believe they were persecuted for their work, yet their work is very sound. What I was saying is that the US politicians do not grovel before Israel to gain jewish votes. The jewish votes are too few and not swayed by that. I would not deny that a group of jews exist in America who do have disproportionate power. However, I'd say that these people do not represent American jews at all.
32

Sandi,

San Diego 05/06/2008 16:18:34
Wally, I forgot to address some of your comments.

As you know, elections in the US are not ever on a national basis like the polls you quote. The presidential election is all about the Electoral College (and let's leave discussions about that for another time!). Consequently, those polls are completely meaningless. The thing to watch is the EC map, and Hillary Clinton still wins easily. The DNC has forced out the candidate that would win in November, kept their trophy black candidate, and the Republicans are very happy about it.

33

Laurette,

Carlsbad, California 05/06/2008 16:31:58
I doubt very much that Hillary will get he VP spot. the candidates AND their spouses are vetted to discover any irregularities that might pop up during the campaign. Hillary wants Bill excluded from this process and since that isn't going to happen - the VP slot is out. Bill would have to disclose the contributors of the millions he got for his Presidential Library and that is something he wants kept secret. Bill and Hillary would not make good VPs and the feeling is that together they would attempt to undermine Obama in every way possible.
Personally, I like Richardson for VP or Webb.
34

Sandi,

San Diego 05/06/2008 17:22:49
#37, I agree. Unfortunately for Obama, without Hillary on the ticket he has no chance of beating McCain.
35

Albert's in the House,

05/06/2008 18:45:21
36 Sandi

Wally is a wacko that also posts on the communist FH site, I would not trust anything he says.
36

Albert's in the House,

05/06/2008 18:49:00
34 Sandi

I'm usually vote Republican and would have voted for Hillary over McCain. There is no way I will vote for the racist Obama. If a strong 3rd party candidate does not step forward I'm staying home on election day.
37

we the people,

05/06/2008 20:18:55
what 'racist obama'? is he like obama's evil twin or something?
38

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 06/06/2008 00:39:12
'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.'

- Barack Obama

This is for all you Barack voters.


From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:


"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly
direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

This is why I left the Democaratic party and will never vote for him.



39

truthsleuth,

06/06/2008 00:56:39
The only bthing that is rascist about this headline is that it suggests Obama will pay only $200million for the POOR white vote.
How much will the OOR white vote have to pay for Obama?
40

,

06/06/2008 02:21:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi,

San Francisco 06/06/2008 03:24:19
#41 we the people

Get your head out of the sand if you think Black people, or half black people can not be racists. Obama and his wife are extemely racist.
42

Tyson J.,

06/06/2008 05:24:16
A comment I heard recently: 'It's not called the White House because of the paint job!'
43

Gere,

06/06/2008 14:31:21
Post# 35

Wally by The Rivers of Babylon,

Please do not dismiss the important part of my post:

Obama had to address AIPAC and swear his allegiance to the cause of Israel. During his affirmation of loyalty to Israel he uneqivocally stated that he would basically pledge the lives of U.S. military personnel to the invasion of Iran if he received the instruction from Israel to do so!

Remember he has yet to formally swear allegiance to the USA as President, if elected! Yet before he pledges to defend America he pledges loyalty to defend Israel, what is going on here???

I have been around for more than sixty years now and have never known an aspirant leader of any country swearing that another country's security is "Sacrocent" Notice also his first pressing engagement was to swear his loyalty to Israel to AIPAC!!!

Be warned, this should be a disturbing message to all Americans. Your Presidential candidates are now obliged to publicly declare their loyalty to Israel in front of AIPAC before declaring their loyalty to the USA after being elected!!

Someone sound the alarm!!!!!!
44

P.K,

06/06/2008 16:20:43
#47

I've dismissed the silly odd part of your conspiracy theory which you terrorist apologist are very good at spewing in order to create unnecessary anxiety and false alarm!! Nothing at all new for Obama to support Israel cause if he were to address AIPAC. Likewise, if he were to address CAIR, he will naturally stand by your Islamist friends, and speaking in favour of them. So, get use to it. That's how life is; people change to suit their political agenda.

When Americans were killed, your Islamist friends were mainly the ones dancing in the streets and overjoyed, not the Israelis.
Why create a new ID for yourself??? Use your old usual ID ---> Thorr.
45

H.O.G. Since 1998,

06/06/2008 18:18:38
48 P.K

Was this "Thorr" ID a terrorist appeaser also? This "Gere" person on other threads has been supporting terrorists.
46

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 06/06/2008 22:38:14
H.O.G. Get used to this..there are many on here with multiple IDs. It takes making a list to keep them all straight!! Most of the multiples are appeasers and apologists for the terrorists. They tend to fall into the Anti-American, anti-Israel columns also.
Just know, that when you think you are debating someone, it could be someone else.
47

Michael F. Moore,

Flint, MI 06/06/2008 22:56:05
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/20/michelle-obamas-america-and-mine/
48

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 06/06/2008 23:25:46
Gere in 47:

I will agree with you that Obama's address to AIPAC was wholly inappropriate and for much of the reasons you say. I only wanted to point out the positives in his speech. There is something horribly wrong with America's relationship to Israel. We should not give them any aid at all. We should withdraw all troops from Iraq and whereever else the Israelis want them. and next time the Israelis launch an aircraft to attack a US ship like they did in 1967 we should not only blow the aircraft out of the sky, we should obliterate the airport it toook off from, we should detain their ambassador and tell him in the strongest terms that if the Israeli leader doesn't groven in 24 hours we would destroy all their government buildings, all their military bases, all their ports, all their airports, etc. in other words we should treat them at arm's length like any other nation.

Americans don't seem to have a clue. In 1967 the Israelis attacked our navy. They killed 35 Americans in an attempt to sink a US navy ship. and our leadership took their side in the conflict. and our military was told to stand down. Admiral McCain, father of the presidential candidate, was one of the Americans who took Israel's side.

http://www.gtr5.com/
49

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 06/06/2008 23:54:58
P.K. in #48:

I beg your pardon. I ask you to respect the 35 Americans killed by the Israeli attack on June 8, 1967. The anniversary of their death is coming up. Please see the link I put up in 52.

Please read the quotes of high-ranking US officials streaming vertically in the upper-right object of that page I linked to. Both the Israeli and US investigations concluded that the Israelis did that attack, it is not a 'conspiracy theory' as you say. And evidence from both investigations was overwhelming that the Israelis knew it was an American ship when they attacked.

National Security Agency audio recordings of the conversations between the Israeli commanders and their first pilot they wished to carry out the attack confirmed this. The pilot who was born in New York City also confirmed this later with articles and speeches he gave on the subject. He flew by the target and could see it was American with a big American flag, and many Americans waving at him. He radio'd back to tell his commander that the target was American. They confirmed they knew this. He refused to attack. He landed his plane. He was immediately arrested.

Then the 2'nd pilot attacked. The attack lasted for 2.5 hours. the ship was unarmed, but for 1 gun that was destroyed right after their communications function was destroyed. Admiral McCain ordered that there be no military response to even defend the Liberty during the attack. Then President Lyndon Johnson also gave the same order.

I can't stand you stupid anti-Americans who think its cool for Americans to die in a war and oppose anyone who wants to stop it.
50

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 06/06/2008 23:58:53
P.K. in 48:

Your comment about how it wasn't Israelis who danced when Americans died on Sept 11 is false. Though there were many muslims who did celebrate, there were a certain 5 Israelis arrested in New York City that day because they also danced in celebration at the attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfowars%2Enet%2Farticles%2Fapril2007%2F230407vans%2Ehtm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

The story-line is simple. A lady saw 5 middle-eastern types dancing in celebration right after the first plane hit. She called the police thinking they were terrorists. The police arrested the 5 and found they were Israelis. They'd set up a video camera and were filming the WTC towers prior to when the first plane hit. When the 1'st plane hit they celebrated and danced and high-fived.

Under months of interrogation they admitted that they were Mossad agents, that they were sent to the US to document the event.

Don't tell me that Israelis don't celebrate when Americans die. They do.
51

bikewoman,

07/06/2008 00:38:07
Wally the liar said that Israel sent agents to the US ahead of time to document the 9-11 attack, that is sick.

"Under months of interrogation they admitted that they were Mossad agents, that they were sent to the US to document the event"
52

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 07/06/2008 00:50:40
I provided links Bikewoman, including a video.

The WhatReallyHappened link I provided is very authoritative. That site is put up by Michael Rivero who is an American jew. Please look at the supporting links embedded there. there's about 25 of them. Study that info carefully.

its just one of the many unreported stories that people would be outraged over if they were reported. here's a link listing the top 25 censored stories of 2008.

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=841



That info I provided is really just tip of iceberg. The Israelis had agents following many of the 19 hijackers as well. You should understand that these events have been investigated very thuroughly. Its just that they haven't been reported on hardly at all in the mass media.
53

Lord Killwillie,

Killwillie Castle 07/06/2008 01:42:15
56 Wally

You should be ashamed of yourself.
54

P.K,

07/06/2008 13:46:01
#52, #53

What have the 1967 incident got to do with my comment at #48??? What make you think I would take a close look at your own tiresome and boring obsessive ranting about the 1967 incident and the high-fived 911? I have never said the 1967 incident is a conspiracy theory. So, don’t ever put your own idiotic words into my mouth! I’ve noticed that is what terrorist apologists like you are very good at when you people have nothing of substance to argue in reference to my post #48. How pathetic, you have to resort to change of subject by bringing up the 1967 incident to spew your hatred at the Jews despite the fact that I was commenting on Obama and AIPAC-CAIR issue which have virtually nothing to do with 1967 or 911 incidents.

Least to say, you are darn stupid to tolerate and apologise for the Islamists who have been threatening, kidnapping and killing the Americans to this day. I am not an American but you claimed yourself to be an American. What a shame! So I ask of you as a stupid anti-American to respect the loss of lives of thousands of Americans killed by your Islamists’ suicide terror bombing in and outside mainland US!!

You are making a mountain out of a molehill over the past 1967 incident. Every fair-minded people knew it was a terrible human error in history, not done deliberately as there’s nothing to score or benefit out of doing so and because Israel is an ally. Apology and regret were accepted and matter settled amicably thereof.
But you sound like a war mongering odd fellow even suggesting big strikes at Israelis for the 1967 incident, thus looking forward to war!! If this is your strategy, why the double standard seeing that you make no complaints over the Iranians who are known to be in complicity in Iraqi-American conflict?

So tell the same to the American government, to blow out all the Iranian assets, detain their ambassadors, destroy all the Iranian government buildings, all their military bases, all their po
55

P.K,

07/06/2008 13:47:19
continued from above:

So tell the same to the American government, to blow out all the Iranian assets, detain their ambassadors, destroy all the Iranian government buildings, all their military bases, all their ports, all their airports, you name it. What more to say, the Iranians are making good use of Iraqis as proxy to kill as many Americans as possible and still at it causing terror. It’s a well known fact the Iranians have been supplying bombs and training terrorists to kill Americans!

56

P.K,

07/06/2008 13:54:40
#54, #56

You are an idiot if you think I would bother to take my precious time viewing your biased and one-sided websites. I have no time for that kind of your distorted stuff. Posters knew you only good at badmouthing the US and Jews rather than complaining about the real problems in the world involving religious fanatics and Islamists’ terrorism. So, how many Israelis celebrated Americans died and how many Muslim friends of yours worldwide celebrated Americans died?? Whatever news you gave me regarding the 911 and high-fived are yet to be officially documented, fully supported and publicly accepted as well as to confirm its authenticity.

So far, that’s what you and your Anti-Jews-Americans one-sided links said so in support of terrorism and religious extremism. These aren’t balanced facts finding sources taken to be anything of the truth of what actually happened that day except minority opinion and conspiracy theories! Furthermore, the five Israelis had been released and not charged. So, what conspiracy theories and doctored websites are you on to again??? And you expect me to take you seriously and believe there were Israeli agents following the 19 Islamist hijackers??? Islamists and Jews are arch enemies, I don’t see they can ever cooperate with each other as they have different political agenda.

The five renegade Israelis who happened to be in that building were obviously traitors. In all countries, there are people who protest their government policies and demonstrate openly in the streets. This is expected and nothing new at all as any governments cannot possibly please everyone or satisfy all their citizens at their whims and fancies. So the same goes to the Israeli government, there are always blacksheeps and critics amongst her citizens who run down their own government due to reasons best known to themselves. Like Jews betraying the trust of their country men and so, nothing new to hear of some Americans or Brits turning into
57

P.K,

07/06/2008 13:56:17
continued from above:

the trust of their country men and so, nothing new to hear of some Americans or Brits turning into traitors, slandering and terrorise their own government as well. Is this still news to you?? If so, come out of your cave and mix around more!
58

P.K,

07/06/2008 14:01:06
H.O.G

Correct, H.O.G. I have been following this one person soon after finding out the similarity of his overall posts using under different IDs, Gere or Thorr. If you read his posts constantly from present to the previous ones, you will soon come to realize both Gere and Thorr is actually one person. Same old style of writing and ideology, all come down to Jews bashings if not Americans bashings.

Lynne was right. That’s what these terrorist apologists are very good at, creating as many IDs as possible to show as if they have so many posters in support of their idiocy. They have only themselves to fool!
59

P.K,

07/06/2008 14:21:13
H.O.G

There's another terrorist/Islamist apologist creating a new identity for himself just recently. None other but Commited to Independence AKA Foulkes Off the CyberNat. He could also be Djookers.
60

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 07/06/2008 14:28:31
PK - it is difficult to respond because the conversation has become dysfunctional on your side. But I will try a limited response in good faith.

1'st, I mentioned the USS Liberty incident in response to Gere who said Israel was not our friend, that US politicians should not be subservient. I agreed with him and mentioned the liberty incident in agreement with him. Then you said that it was arabs not Israel that were our enemy, that they celebrated the sept 11 events, etc. Then I showed you that in NYC 5 Israelis were arrested on Sept 11 for celebrating those events. and I directed you to the Liberty comments to show you that sometimes Israelis attack and kill Americans as well.

Then you confused the WhatReallyHappened link with a liberty link, saying you couldn't read it out of hatred. That site is put up by an American jew. I guess you're a jew-hater. It documents meticulously the 5 dancing Israelis who celebrated the terror events of Sept 11, 2001. If you want to bury your head in the sand apparently out of anti-American hatred, that is your business.

I do resent your cold-hearted comments about the 35 Americans killed by Israeli military on June 8, 1967. The 41 year anniversary is tomorrow and you called it a 'molehill'. Your characterization that it was an accident or mistake and that apologies were accepted is simply false. Please read this letter written by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (the top US military position for all services combined) about the Liberty incident.

http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer3.htm

Also, the link I provided above put up by the Liberty survivors themselves is the best source of info on this subject. I think it insulting to them and to Americans in general that you've expressed contempt for these people's lives and their experience. Also, as I tell you a New York born jew was the 1'st Israeli pilot sent to attack the Liberty. He flew by and saw that it was an American ship. He radio'd back to tell
61

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 07/06/2008 14:29:38
Also, the link I provided above put up by the Liberty survivors themselves is the best source of info on this subject. I think it insulting to them and to Americans in general that you've expressed contempt for these people's lives and their experience. Also, as I tell you a New York born jew was the 1'st Israeli pilot sent to attack the Liberty. He flew by and saw that it was an American ship. He radio'd back to tell his commander it was an American ship. The commander acknowledged that it was an American ship and told him to attack. He refused and was thus court martialed and imprisoned for a short period over this refusal. The conversation was caught on audio recording by the NSA. And the Israeli pilot himself has spoken of it many times since. I've read an article written by him about it.

All I can do is conclude that you are a hate-filled anti-American. what else is new?
62

P.K,

07/06/2008 16:07:32
#64

If 1967 incident were in response to Gere aka Thorr as you said, then why spewed so much about that one particular story in your post directed to me at #53??? Obviously, you have not been honest with yourself and that’s what made you a big Liar. Just that you need to spew your hatred at the Jews out of frustration and to justify your Islamists killings of Americans.

What do you mean by “sometimes Israelis attack and kill Americans”??? But how many times of such similar 1967 incident occur? 10, 100, 1000 times!! The truth is, it is your Islamist friends who have been attacking Americans countless of times and you deliberately evade this issue. You are trying to paint Israel as American enemy but everyone knew your Islamist friends do not like Americans and any non-Muslims (infidels as they called) are not their friends. You are delusional if you think posters like me can be fooled!

I resent your blood thirsty war mongering comment about calling for strikes at Israel over 1967 incident, in a way to provoke and start a war. Obviously, you are looking forward to getting more lives taken whether Americans or Israelis rather than seeking for peaceful solution to settle the unfortunate accident of human error. So, you were furious Americans didn’t start a war to obliterate Israel. This clearly shows to prove your hatred for the Jews and expressed contempt for American lives!!


No, I’m not confusing your WhatReallyHappened link with Liberty link. They are clearly of different sources. So what if it’s put up by an American Jew or a non-Arab??? Prejudice and biased reports know no race and colour of people. It does not need to be a Muslim or Arab to put up one-sided link and conspiracy theory. As I said before, there are Jews and Americans alike who become traitors, betraying their own country men, and slandering their government. They are capable of anything you name it.
63

P.K,

07/06/2008 16:14:16
#65

Another garbage of lies from you intended to incite more hate and confusion! What make you think I will treat your creation of conspiracy theories as facts?? All whatever you spewed is just another fairy tale story for the children. Your Islamist friends have all this while been threatening, kidnapping and killing Americans. Yet, you make no complaints and effort to condemn their brutality. That proves to show you’ve expressed contempt for American lives and suffering!

If you are still on blinkers with your head buried deep down your ass out of anti-Jews-Americans hatred, then that’s your own problem. It’s even more insulting to the American lives that you have to resort to reposting lies after lies. The only likely conclusion about you is – full of anti-Jews-Americans hate or what else are you good at?
64

',

07/06/2008 16:58:57
65 Wally,By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA)

"you are a hate-filled anti-American"

Wally, you already wear that badge with honour, from your 9-11 hateful conspiracy comments to your endorsements of candidates that will damage your country.


65

Gere,

Scotland 07/06/2008 18:22:25
Post #52

Wally By the Rivers of Babylon

You have demonstated that least yours is one American mind that remains unaffected by the intellectual equivalent of pre-frontal lobotomy that the dark forces of subversion at work in America has so successfully effected on the greater American populace. Beware of AIPAC!!!!
66

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 07/06/2008 18:33:35
Thank you Gere in #69:

I think also that the way I am attacked so means that I'm telling it like it is. Following is an interesting video clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs26Dx6ECJw

Zbignew Brezinsky was a Harvard professor in his mid-20's and is now 82, was an advisor to both Kennedy & Carter, now to Obama. He was the author of a policy in the 1970's where he said at the time that it would instigate the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and to then lose its war there. and now he's speaking about a possible false-flag operation where thousands of Americans will be killed, then it will be blamed on Iran to force a war against Iran.

But as you can see how dysfunctional my fellow Americans are in their ability to confront the first 911, how will they confront the next one?

People have speculated for years that the US will arrange for one of its own aircraft carriers to be wired with explosives and sunk, taking down all 5,000 people aboard, and then it will be blamed on Iran to justify another war.

When you have enemies in your ruling regime, then you must take those enemies out of your ruling regime, clean house, or else they will continue to do hostile things to you. The Americans can complain, but they never seem to be able to comprehend this.

and only a fool (or an ignorant person) would say that the ruling regime in America is not America's #1 enemy.
67

Al Sharpton Jr.,

07/06/2008 18:43:19
70 Wally

Are you getting enough oxygen?
68

Imelda,

08/06/2008 03:11:30
BEWARE of CAIR and jihadis!!!!!!!!!!!
69

Imelda,

08/06/2008 04:01:46
48
P.K

For your information
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Clinton-and-Obama-in-secret.4159924.jp
70

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 08/06/2008 04:11:07
Good evening Imelda..One has to realize that Wally (if that's his real name) is NOT an American. He claims to be, but he is NOT.
I've been reading Wally (if that's his real name) for 2 years. He is hateful. He has NEVER said one GOOD word for America. Not one.
When he talks about America, or Americans, he is so detached, that you know he is not American.
Nomad makes jokes about his tin foil hat, and his UFO crashing at Area 51... this should give you an idea of what most think about Wally (if that's his real name).lol
71

Imelda,

08/06/2008 04:25:26
Hi Lynne

It's morning here in beautiful Singapore. According to my English dictionary, the name "wally" stands for foolish or incompetent person. That is to say, his ID really fits in very well for him.
Hmmm, I have learnt a lot about Wally from the posts above and in the other threads. Both Gere-Thorr and Wally are mentally disturbed! Even Gere is pretending to be so concerned about the Americans but if you care to read more of his posts, sooner or later you will find out he is actually anti-American and very pro-Arab.
72

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 08/06/2008 04:41:16
Imelda...I know, I think most of us know his other IDs. Geez, you need a score card to keep up!!
73

Gere,

Scotland 08/06/2008 16:08:52
Post #75
Imelda

Have you ever questioned why America is so supprotive of a state that came into existance through terrorism, ethnic cleansing and an ongoing policy of genocide?

On 22nd July1946 the King David hotel in Jerusalem was bombed by Jewish terrorists resulting in the deaths of some 91 people. The leader of this group was Begin, later to become Prime Minister of Israel!!I refer you to the official British Government web-site of MI5, the intellengence organisation. There you will find declassified reports of Jewish terrorism carried out in Palestine: http://www.mi5.gov.uk/print/Page337.html

Also, see the details about the Jewish mass murder of unarmed Palestinians at the Palestinian village of Dier Yassim, another of the many examples of how terror was brought to Palestine by the Jewish settlers. The Shatilla and Sabra Palestinian refugee camps saw mass murder perpetrated against the Palestinian occupants, Sharron was even censured by the Israeli Defence force for what happened at these camps.

The Palestinians worship the same intolerant Asian god that the and their brother Arabs the Jews and the Christians do!

Consequently, the Palestinians who do not subscribe to the turn the other cheek policy, like their Jewish brothers they seek an eye for an eye. In reality, they did not introduce the terrorism thing into the Middle East, their Jewish brothers did.
74

Al Sharpton Jr.,

08/06/2008 16:14:02
77 Gere,Scotland

Where is your list of Muslim terror attacks? I know the Scotsman limits how much text you can put on a comment but just keep starting each new one with "Cont'" to fill up this thread with Muslim attacks.
75

P.K,

08/06/2008 17:39:53
#77

What a garbage of lies are you spouting out again? To say the Jews introduce terrorism!! Read #78 and list up the atrocities committed by Muslim Arab terrorists attack worldwide. Don't be in for a surprise, no doubt the list is even longer than what you have spewed in your post #77. What a shame, they even make use of ambulances to smuggle weapons including suicide bombers!!

Don't forget to miss out listing Janjaweed (Arab militiamen) who had killed as many as 400,000 black civilians in Darfur, Sudan and making many people homeless. Is it because the killers are made up of Muslim Arabs and not Jews or Americans that you have to turn a blind eye to this heinous crime?? What make you think your Arab brothers are innocent without blood on their hands???

What genocide and ethnic cleansing are you making up??? You aren't fooling anyone! The Palestinian population in Israel has been on the increase as reported last year when an official su