Without noting Obama's denunciation of Hamas, Wash. Post reported many Israelis "turned off" because Hamas "expressed a preference for Obama"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post reported: "When a leader of Hamas, the Palestinian organization that the United States and Israel call a terrorist group, expressed a preference for Obama earlier this year, many Israelis were turned off even more." But the Post did not note that the Obama campaign reportedly responded: "Senator Obama has repeatedly rejected and denounced the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many innocents, that is dedicated to Israel's destruction. As president, Obama will work with Israel to isolate terrorist groups like Hamas, target their resources, and support Israel's right and capability to defend itself from any attack."
In a June 5 article, Washington Post foreign service writer Kevin Sullivan reported: "In Israel, [political scientist Eytan] Gilboa said, [Sen. Barack] Obama's openness to" meetings with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and other nations "has contributed to a sense that his Middle East policies are too soft. When a leader of Hamas, the Palestinian organization that the United States and Israel call a terrorist group, expressed a preference for Obama earlier this year, many Israelis were turned off even more." But the Post did not note that after Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will [sic] the election," the Obama campaign reportedly responded: "Senator Obama has repeatedly rejected and denounced the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of many innocents, that is dedicated to Israel's destruction. As president, Obama will work with Israel to isolate terrorist groups like Hamas, target their resources, and support Israel's right and capability to defend itself from any attack."
In the article, Sullivan also failed to report that following Obama's June 4 speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- in which he said that "we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel's destruction" -- Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri reportedly told Reuters that "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and [Sen. John] McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."
Additionally, the Post did not note that Obama has repeatedly stated that his willingness to meet with international adversaries "does not include Hamas," and that he "does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."
From the June 5 Washington Post article:
In many nations, Obama's youth and color also represent a welcome generational and stylistic change for America. "It could help to reduce anti-U.S. sentiment and even turn it around," said Kim Sung-ho, a political science professor at Yonsei University in Seoul.
In terms of foreign policy, Obama's stated willingness to meet and talk with the leaders of Iran, Syria and other nations largely shunned by Bush has been praised and criticized overseas.
In Israel, Gilboa said, Obama's openness to the meetings has contributed to a sense that his Middle East policies are too soft. When a leader of Hamas, the Palestinian organization that the United States and Israel call a terrorist group, expressed a preference for Obama earlier this year, many Israelis were turned off even more.
Many people in Israel said they preferred Clinton, who is well regarded because of her support for the Jewish state in the Senate and her husband's pro-Israel stance during his presidency.
Hamas un-endorsed Obama today. From Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri:
"Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."
Sorry, wingnuts, but Hamas hates Obama too!! Too bad for you!
"So you agree that John Hagee is a terrorist who should be locked up in Gitmo"
When you agree that Gitmo is where terrorists should go to spend their time. I'm assuming you mean Hagee go there and never return (like all terrorists?).
GW Bush never sought the bin Laden endorsement. But he got it anyway.
Funny how people forget that.
Bill, this is off-topic but I can't resist asking you about Al Franken and his very tenuous candidacy if you ask me. Is it already over for the "satirist" turned radio host turned Senator wannabe?
GW Bush never sought the bin Laden endorsement. But he got it anyway.
Funny how people forget that.
Reminds me of Clyde Barrow, of "Bonnie and Clyde" fame. He once sent an unsolicited testimonial letter to the Ford Motor Company, saying how fast and reliable their cars were, and stating that whenver possible he would steal a Ford to use as his getaway car. He told them they could use his letter in their advertising, but they respectfully declined......
I even found a copy of the letter. Turns out it was written to Henry Ford himself:
http://texashideout.tripod.com/fordletter.html
I believe you agree with Joe Biden.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
You would have to be a conservative if you cannot see the difference in those remarks. There is a difference between calling someone "clean" and calling them intelligent and reasonable. I would think all of the candidates are clean. It is remarkable as a comment in the way it really shouldn't be remarkable.
Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."
Yes - the conservative republican Biden knew when he had stuck his foot in his mouth a little too far.
"The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons"
This is an excerpt Bruce, and you are right, it is hawkish. And very well said, not sure how palatable this will be received by the "moveon.org-ers" in the party, especially the military option, but we shall see.
This is an excerpt Bruce, and you are right, it is hawkish. And very well said, not sure how palatable this will be received by the "moveon.org-ers" in the party, especially the military option, but we shall see.
I can't speak for all liberals, but I can acknowledge that there ARE times when military force is needed - WWII, for example, and the First Gulf War when a coalition of many countried drove Saddam Hussein's troops out of Iraq. But there are also times (such as Reagan's invation of Grenada and Bush's illegal War in iraq) when it is NOT needed, and to use it id flat-out wrong.
It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.
I don't think most of us looney moonbats have any problem with that, Tommy. Wait, he's talking about the Republican Party, right?
Dems, Dems, Dems......
Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK friefly more than 60 years ago, at a time when KKK membership was pretty much mandatory for anyone seeking public office in the South. He has not been a member of the KKK for more than 60 years, has publicly described that membership as one of the biggest blunders of his public life, yet people like continually bring it up.
Tell me - if Robert Byrd were still the racist you're portraying him as, then why has he endorsed Barack Obama?
It get's brought up to provide an example of how stupid some sound when they accuse republicans of being racist, when racist roots also run through the democratic (my own) party.
Nice dodging of WZ's question there. Why did Byrd endorse Obama?
Pete's link is an allusion to the stereotype that Republicans are racists. My retort by identifying Byrd as a member of the KKK is that Democrats have racism in their history as well. My response to WZ indicates my assertion that it is stupid for anyone to make a blanket assumption that racists only gravitate towards a particular party. Therefore I am not actually making the assertion that Byrd is a racist and therefore answering WZ's question regarding Byrds endorsement of Obama is unnecessary - as alluded to by WZ in his original question.
No, Pete's link is an allusion to the fact (or hoax) that the KKK endorse McCain over Obama (and even if the video is a hoax, do we really have to debate that they actually do?)
Then you said "My retort by identifying Byrd as a member of the KKK is that Democrats have racism in their history as well. My response to WZ indicates my assertion that it is stupid for anyone to make a blanket assumption that racists only gravitate towards a particular party."
First, Byrd is not currently a member of the KKK, though I can give you a pass on that because I believe you slipped and used the present tense by mistake. Second, WZ did not make a blanket assumption that racists only gravitate towards a particular party. He made no mention of either party, let alone who racists gravitate towards.
And really, now that I look back on it, you bounced around so many differing concepts in this one post that you really don't make sense.
My retort by identifying Byrd as a member of the KKK is that Democrats have racism in their history as well.
Democrats may have racism in their past but thanks to folks like Trent Lott, the GOP is still chock-full of racists.
Democrats may have racism in their past
And this years campaign has shown that racists exist in their Democratic Party's present as well.
"You're only showing your ignorance now, Phil. Robert Byrd has not been a member of the Klan for more than 60 years now."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806020006?f=s_search
And the picture you provided was from at least 50 years ago. Who is showing whose ignorance? Count the stars on the flags. Trying to argue Byrd is no longer a racist because he quit being the leader of the KKK is like claiming Richard Butler is not a racist because he liked interracial porn stars.
Phil,
Why did someone you consider to be a racist endorse a black man?
Democrats have racism in their history. Republicans have racism in their history AND their present. That is the difference.
; )
"Democrats have racism in their history. Republicans have racism in their history AND their present. That is the difference."
Is it your contention that no democrat is currently a racist? Wow! You are truly out in la la land if you believe that one. That IS to be expected from a liberal, though. Blind to the truths of this world. So much for open mind, it should be 'closed mind' to the realities of life.
DumbSol -
Did you know that only 7 Southern Congressman voted for that act? They were all Democrats.
It was considered political suicide at that time to support Civil Rights in the South. 7 courageous Democrats did so anyways.
How many Southern Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act? Zero.
Hey Numbskul,
Yes - and Robert Byrd was the only Northern senator to vote against it. Niether has anything to do whit what DB and I were discussing. Please go back into your hole and come out when you have something of value to add.
"You made a blanket statement that most racists moved to the republican party after the civil rights vote in 1964. The implication is that historically the Republicans were the party of racists. As a large majority of republicans voted in favor of granting equal rights to blacks the implication is a fallacy. If I have misinterpreted your thoughts please clarify."
Oh God yes did you misinterpret well, pretty much everything. Because most of the southern white democrats (most of whom were racist) moved to the Republican party AFTER the civil rights act does not mean that historically the Republican party was the party of racists. In fact, it means the opposite, that prior to courting those southern white democrats the Republican party was decidedly NOT racist.
And yes, there are racists in the Democratic Party too...but the Democratic Party doesn't actively seek out those racists.
My misinterpretation of your previous post explians why I could not make sense of your argument.
but the Democratic Party doesn't actively seek out those racists.
Now before I misinterpret this - are you implying that the Republican party does - if so provide an example?
Dems,
The Southern Strategy clearly is/was a strategy for Republicans to cater to white racists.
I am in a solidly republican state - very little national campaigning happens here. Our local republicans do not use race to attract voters. They are heavy on anti illegal immigration, and there are those trying to inject that is really racism in disguise - but as we have both dems and repubs on that platform I don't buy into that theory.
I do not say there is no residual effect of the Southern Strategy of the 60's- but show me where and how it is being actively pursued today.
"What about the ads linking Obama supporting candidates to Reverend Wright?"
What about them? Show the racism. The racism that you claim IS present.
Look, more closely at the voting patterns, Dems and also note what happened to the South as far as party loyalty after the '64 Act was passed.
Your notion that most Democrats were against the Civil Rights Act comes from the Southern House Democrats who voted against it by an 87-7 margin which was truly disgusting. HOWEVER, the Southern House Republicans all voted against it (10-0, notably not as many, but interesting).
If we stay within the House of Representatives, the Northern Democrats voted for the Act by a margin of 145-9 (94%) and the Northern Republicans voted for it by a margin of 138-24 (85%).
The Senate voting was similar, the Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act 21-1 and the only Southern Republican voted against it. Again, when the Northern Democrats voted, they voted for it by a margin of 45-1 (98%) and the Northern Republicans voted for it by a margin of 27-5 (84%).
More tellingly, Barry Goldwater voted against it saying "you cannot legislate morality" and he became the Republican nominee in 1964 (Rehnquist actually worked on his campaign but that is a different story for a different time.). In 1964, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina voted Republican for the first time since 1876. Similarly, all of the southern states either voted for Nixon or Wallace (who had disavowed the Democratic party) in 1968. The Republicans swept the south in 1972, 1980 (except for Georgia), 1984, 1988, took all of the south except for georgia, tennessee, and louisiana in 1992, took all of the south except louisiana and florida in 96 and Bush swept the south in 2000 and 2004.
How would you explain this dramatic shift? Keep in mind before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the south had not voted Republican in any Presidential since 1876.
Your notion that most Democrats were against the Civil Rights Act comes from the Southern House Democrats who voted against it by an 87-7 margin which was truly disgusting.
This was not my notion at all. Both parties by substantial majorities voted in favor of the legislation. In the context of DB's and my discussion it makes no sense to make a blanket statement that all the racist's from the Democratic Party switched to the Republican party, when the republicans voted in favor of the legislaton by a greater majority.
Freid - note that nowhere in my posts have I claimed that there are no racist roots, nor racists in the Republican party. Most of the individuals being referred to as we discuss this history are now dead.
To get my point please read my response to Pearl below.
I think this goes beyond "roots," Dems. You still have not answered my question as to why you think the South suddenly went Republican after 1964 for the first time in almost 100 years.
Perhaps you could explain why Reagan gave his first major campaign speech in a town where three civil rights leaders were murdered. Perhaps you could explain why Ken Mehlman apologized for the "Southern Strategy."
I think you are underestimating Trent Lott. How do you explain his participation at Council for Concerned Citizens events? How do you explain the popularity of Jesse Helms or George Allen?
Freid, - There were many dynamics that occured in politics in the 1960's, more than just race. Remember it was Regan who said " I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me". I know how he felt because that's how I feel today - and it has nothing to do with race. You also must to consider the poverty that gripped the south and the a smaller populous and less sophisticated infrastructures to prop up the poor. Look at the economies of the regions - south farming and plantations, north industrial and acedemic. These two regions were facing far different problems and issues. I would have to do much more resaerch to provide you with an answer I could believe in, but I believe to attribute it only to race is missing half of the equation.
Please tell me what your insinuations mean to you. It sounds to me like you believe the south is still racist, and in that case Obama will not stand a chance of winning a southern state. By your own logic, did Hillary not win the nomination because of rampant sexism in the Democratic aParty?
Dems,
That's a fair response, but the dramatic shift in Southern voting patterns immediately after the Civil Rights Act passed is incredible. Is it not ironic to you that the states that receive the most per-capita federal aid are voting against the party that favors federal aid?
How do you see this quote from Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Or Lee Atwater:
Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "N---ger, n---ger." By 1968 you can't say "n----er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N---er,n---er.".[12]Herbert wrote in the same column, "The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks."[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
We will continue this tomorrow. It's quitting time and I have children to tend to.
PLEASE tell us that you're not filling those poor children's heads with the lies and garbage you spew here.....
Enough with the hollow statements. Let's have some supporting evidence for a change.
List the failures of liberalism. Here... I'll give you the 20-second conservative clock. Go!
"the lies and garbage you spew here....."
The fact the children are alive speaks volumes by itself. If a liberal had been pregnant with those children there would have been a small percentage they even live to see daylight. I think those of you who claim liberalism as their moral fiber would be better off sticking to your own childrens up-bringing (you'll have plenty of psych/therapy bills to worry about) and leaving moral choices to those who believe in them.
Dems,
Why did Mehlman apologize for the Southern Strategy at the NAACP convention a few years ago?
source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.
"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.
Why did Mehlman apologize for the Southern Strategy at the NAACP convention a few years ago?
(1)- Because it was wrong and (2) because he was pandering for votes. You will see similar verbal acrobatics and apologies this election season too. Stay tuned.
Dems,
Can you make a distinction between pandering to racists and being racist? I am not saying every Republican is a racist, but certainly the "Southern Strategy" was a racist one, was it not?
but certainly the "Southern Strategy" was a racist one, was it not?
That is indeed what I meant when I said it was wrong. However it was no more wrong than the strategys used by both parties today to try and divide our populous by class, religon, sex, and all the other subgroups we have come to recognize people for.
But those Republicans are no longer a part of that party.
Most of those republicans are now dead - or so I assume. I appreciate your argument however we have wandered way off course. It sounds like you are trying to disprove a contention I never made - that there are no racist roots inthe Republican party. My point was that there are racist roots in the Democratic party as well, not as opposed to. My point is also that racism is alive and well in the world, and it is not exclusiove to either political party.
Dems,
If those elements of the Democratic party who voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 were still voting Democratic, how do you explain the shift I detailed for you in Presidential voting patterns in the South since the Act's passage?
For example, after the bill's passage, Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. Albert Watson became a Republican also in 1964 (both voted against the Civil Rights Act).
Before the Civil Rights Act, 80 to 90 percent of blacks voted republican. After the legislation passed, Blacks started voting Democratic. The republicans were too few in numbers in the Congress, and therefore [rightfully], did not get much credit for its passage.
And most Congressmen in the south voted against the legislation.
Loonz,
If you want to copy my post with the voting breakdowns by region and party for future reference, be my guest.
You do know that in the final vote for the Civil Rights act of 1964, over 80% of congressional Republicans voted in favor of passage as opposed to only 65% of Democrats?
Dem, your attempt to paint as enlighten picture of Republicans appreciated but not true, especially when it comes to civil rights for African Americans.
If you remember, black people primarily voted Republican for almost 100 years, because the Republican party pretty much came into existence in the 1850's on an anti-slavery platform.
The Democratic party was pretty much the party of racist southerners. This is especially true after the Civil War, and during reconstruction, when the Republican controlled congress wanted to push through harsh measures on the south, and insure blacks were able to exercise their rights.
The Democratic Party had to be sued in the 1930’s in order for blacks to be in that party, and more Republicans than Democrats voted for the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. Blacks started switching to the Democratic party, when they perceived that the Democrats were now doing more for them, than the Republicans were (around the late 1930s). This was due to Roosevelt, and his "New Deal" policies. Whereas the Republicans started courting the voting block they couldn't previously get (white southerners). In this case, by the time the majority of blacks moved to the Democratic party (around the 1960s), a great many of the previous white southern Democrats, still didn't want to move to the Republican party, because it was the party of Lincoln and "black person lovers". The old "Dixiecrats", didn't start switching to the Republican party until the 1970s, and it took nearly 30 years, before you could consider the south firmly in the Republican camp.
The Republican party of Lincoln is NOTHING like the Republican party today.
Pearl,
A good post. Time does not give me the luxury of an adequate response this afternoon. I hope you will grant me the curtosey of comming back tomorrow to continue.
The Republican party of Lincoln is NOTHING like the Republican party today.
And the Democratic party of Roosevelt is nothing like the Democratic party of today.
Please note that nowhere in any of these posts have I claimed that Republicans have no racist roots. My history is that of a New York democrat. I grew up in one of the bastions of liberalism and I have experienced it's over-taxing well intentioned programs that result in unintended and dismal failure. Along the way I experienced racism, sexism, biggots, nationalists selffull, selfless, faithful, faithless, Christian, Jew, etc, etc, etc. I have experienced thesse varied traits in men, women, whites, blacks, hispanics, europeans etc, etc, etc. I am glad to report that the negative traits I noted above were previlant in a minority of the people I encountered, but they were not exclusive to any one group or party affiliation.
When I moved to Texas, a significantly more conservative state than NY, I experienced and apprecisted a better political ideaology. Texas does have it's social problems as well but in my overall experience the conservative basis withe a touch of liberalism works better. But basically the people are the same. While I tinkered with the notion of switching parties because from an idealogical perspective republicans tend to lean more towards my preferences, there are democrats in Texas much more conservative than republicans in New York. I also noticed that there are enough nut jobs on both sides of the aisle that one party had no lunatic advantage over the other. The national parties have a general platform, but I don't vote for a party - I vote for a representative. Party affiliation makes little difference to me.
Now there are a rash of posts behind this one where others are using my point that racism runs through both parties to cite history trying to illustrate why the Republican Party are the party of racists. The recent comments of democrats like Joe Biden, Geraldine Ferraro, and Jeramiah Wright illustrate that racism exists on the democrat side as well. Some will try to dismiss those comments as blunders or gaffs, or as being taken out of context, while at the same time commenting that an off the cuff comment by Trent Lott is a sure indicator that the Republicans Party is the home of racism. To ignore it or deny that racism exists, or that is is only affiliated to a certian political party is foolish, and it only proves the small mindedness and the lack of thought and experience by those who claim such.
Please note that nowhere in any of these posts have I claimed that Republicans have no racist roots.
You didn’t say that, but your reference to party affiliation on the vote for civil rights gave the appearance of trying to paint the Republicans of today with the Republicans of the past.
Dem, I was born in Texarkana, Texas and know the state very well. Texas didn't practice subtle racism, it was 'in your face'. Even today, there are some parts of Texas where Jim Crow still lives. Chaining a black man to the bumper of a truck and dragging him till he's dead didn't happen in the 60's it happened in 1998.
I left Texas when I was 29 and moved to California where my children could receive a better education and my husband and I, betters jobs. Although I still have lots of family in Texas, I’ve never regretted the move.
Your are right, racism comes in all colors but the power to act on racist feelings is available for only a few. Anyone can hate, but not all have the power to not hire a person or not rent an apartment. I remember the rage of the 60’s, African Americans were fighting to be treated equal and some whites were fighting against it. A lot of those white politicians that were fighting against it were Democrats, who moved to the Republican party. Since former Dixiecrats hated the idea of African Americans getting rights, I can’t imagine switching to the Republican party changed their thoughts or opinions.
Joe Biden is a good man who simply misspoke. I understand what Biden was trying to say, history has shown that standards for black men are different. Biden was trying to explain that Obama meet them all. Ferraro is a totally different story. Not only were her original comments BS, her recent comments simply further my opinion that she has serious issues regarding race. Ferraro comments were degrading and the fact that his race matters so much to some, says a lot about people in this country. Do I forgive Ferraro? H*ll No! She didn't want forgiveness, she decided to go a little further in her rant by blaming black journalist. She should be pissed about the fact that we had to have affirmative action in the first damn place. Saying the only reason Obama is doing well because of his race makes me want to kick her a**. Now Rev. Wright has issues with race and he has valid reason for some. It was not easy growing up black in the 50’s and 60’s or 70's. H*ll, it’s never been easy being black in America. THAT is simply a fact. While I don’t agreed with all he said, I understand. Do I wish he'd acknowledge the changes this country has made? Yes!
Bill, Hillary, Ferraro were a few who opened my eyes. When needed race can be used by both parties, it’s not just Republicans. Trent Lott’s longed for the past and that says something about him and the Republican party and Ferraro and her opinion says something about Democratic party. Both were wrong, and party affiliation doesn’t matter!
By the way, I’m now a registered Independent.
It get's brought up to provide an example of how stupid some sound when they accuse republicans of being racist, when racist roots also run through the democratic (my own) party.
Most of the racists that used to be in the Democratic Party have either died (like George Wallace and Lester Maddox), had a change of heart (like Robert Byrd), or moved over to the GOP (following the lead of Strom Thurmond). Those racist roots may bave been there half a century ago, but they're long gone now.
Wow - is Geraldine Ferraro one of those dead people Obama claimed to have seen during his Memorial day speech?
Oh give it up. Sixty years ago, fer Crissakes...
C'mon Pete. That's at least the second time you've linked to this hoax.
(I'm pointing my two fingers at my eyes and then at you...) ;-)
DB,
I was calling Pete's video link a hoax.
I live not to far from Appalachia myself. We've had some KKK people a while back, less than a dozen, come to my county seat and demand to have a rally on the courthouse square. I do believe they were given a permit on First Amendment grounds. They stirred up a bunch of people in the community and a march was held at the same time somewhere else in the town to counter them. I think a hundred or more people showed up to shout at the KKK people. They were mostly skinheads.
We've also been picketed by Reverend Phelps and his whackos. But both groups were outside agitators.
"Yor are correct - Obama's endorsement from Hamas was well earned."
I am assuming you are an intelligent person, Dem... Based on recent statements this whole discussion is somewhat moot, of course, but if I were Hamas, or Al Queda, and I truly wanted Candidate X to win an election, wouldn't I endorse candidate Y?
RMS, I understand your sentiments, but you're assuming that Hamas/Al-Qaeda/whoever we're currently enemies with understands our political process enough to play that kind of pop-psychology. If they do, then your statement is warranted, though possibly un-founded. If they don't then your statement is not really warranted, and still un-founded. Either way it devolves into a back-and-forth a la The Battle of Wits in the Princess Bride.
So the only way to win this argument is to develop an immunity to the poison ;)
"...but you're assuming that Hamas/Al-Qaeda/whoever we're currently enemies with understands our political process enough to play that kind of pop-psychology. If they do, then your statement is warranted, though possibly un-founded." - Dbeden4153
But that's the thing of it, some of them *do* understand us all too well. And they use it on us. There is more founding than you may think.
From here: http://www.truthout.org/article/robert-parry-does-cheney-validate-al-qaeda
"In 2004, Bush found himself locked in a close race with Democrat John Kerry, who despite a lackluster campaign was running neck and neck with the incumbent President. The prospect of a Kerry victory – and a possible reversal of Bush's policies – represented a threat to al-Qaeda's rebound.
So, on the Friday before the Nov. 2, 2004, election, bin Laden broke nearly a year of silence to release a videotape denouncing Bush. Bush's supporters quickly spun bin Laden's tirade as an 'endorsement' of Kerry and pollsters recorded a jump of several percentage points for Bush, from nearly a dead heat to a five- or six-point lead.
Four days later, Bush hung on to win a second term by an official margin of less than three percentage points.
CIA Analysis
The intervention by bin Laden – essentially urging Americans to reject Bush – had the predictable effect of driving voters to the President. After the videotape appeared, senior CIA analysts concluded that ensuring a second term for Bush was precisely what bin Laden intended."
Was it Cheney who once stated that al-Qaeda wants to interfere with our political process? He just didn't tell us that his team would be the beneficiary.
"Obama never wanted the Hamas endorsement. McCain actively pursued the Hagee endorsement. Apples and oranges, my friend."
Obama befriended Wright for 25 years. McCain never befriended Hagee. Apples and oranges, my friend.
Phil,
He may not have befriended Hagee, but he sure went out of his way to get Hagee's endorsement. What do you make of McCain appearing with Rod Parsley at an event and calling him a "moral compass" and a "spiritual guide?"
McCain never befriended Hagee.
Ha, you right. McCain just leaned down and kissed Hagge's fat a**. VERY different from befriending.
This complaint by mmfa is a real stretch.
If you take the time to read the Wapo article, you'll find it far ranging on lots of topics, candidates, and issues...both pro and con.
In fact the article is very complimentary to Obama. Finding fault with this article smacks of being anal retentive.
Bill,
Can you explain how you can be both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian? They seem pretty much opposites to me.
You mean it's like 'you're either with us, or agin us'?
And then you wonder why Repubs are so pathetic at negotiation.
I'll give it a whirl...
Most Americans, liberal and conservative alike, understand and embrace Israel's right to exist. However, there is a very, very convoluted and oft-misunderstood territory war going on between Israel and Palestine. (To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure I understand it.) It's why Gaza and The West Bank are talked about so much. These are Palestinian lands that, depending on your point of view, were taken over by Israeli settlements/was originally Jewish land, and forces many Palestinians from their homes. It's way too complicated to get in to here, but for the most part, Israel is claiming land that they say is theirs, while Palestinians are claiming land that they say is theirs.
So in short, you can be pro-Israel (agreeing with Israel's right to exist) and pro-Palestinian (agreeing with Palestine's right to hold on to their land.) Though then you have to take into consideration Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock...
>>Can you explain how you can be both Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian? They seem pretty much opposites to me.
Sort of like how they can be pro Irish Catholic and pro Irish Protestant. There is this crazy idea called diplomacy.
Do you have a link to Obama's record regarding Israel?
BTW, You still didn't answer my question. (Not that you have to.) How did Obama become pro-Israel when nothing I have seen, points to it?
For what it's worth, Jewish voters trend heavily Democratic...this Gallop poll from early May shows 61% of Jewish voters prefer Obama over McCain - and 66% Hillary over McCain. Guess they don't feel as strongly as you do. Don't know about Israeli Jews - don't really care (don't care who Palistinians favor either)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/146155
Based on the merrits, I don't see how anyone could be anything, but neutral in the conflict. My suspicion is that no-one wants to piss off AIPAC. If anyone gets on the wrong side of AIPAC, they simply will never be elected.
Having a Muslim name is one of your criteria? LOL
And the Hebrew form of Barack, Barak, appears numerous times in the Old Testament.
I guess that means Barack is a Christian name?
AA: OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE A MUSLIM NAME.
There is no such thing as a "Muslim name."
His name is Semitic.
Do you associate anyone named Joseph with Stalin and communism?
And, since you know I love to repeat things, here's some fun facts about Obama and his name that's I've posted before:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born and named after his father in 1961.
This was 18 years before Saddam Hussein assumed power in Iraq and began his maniacal dictatorship,
26 years before the founding of Hamas,
27 years before the founding of al Qaeda,
25 years before the founding of Hezbollah,
10 years before the founding of Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
and 33 years before the Taliban inflicted its reign upon Afghanistan.
During the same year that Barack Obama was born, Osama bin Laden was 4 years old, and Ayman al-Zawahiri was 10.
I'd like to know why Obama, who went to a muslim school, has a muslim name, has a close friendship with a former PLO spokesman, Rashid Khalidi, served on a board that gave money to a Palestinian-American organization, had a spiritual mentor in Wright, who recently honored an anti-Semite Farrakhan, who considers Farrakhan a friend, who has said, " “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.”, who Ralph Nader said was pro-Palestinain and who's record in the Illinois Senate backs that up, how and when did Obama become Pro-Isreali?
AA, are you responsible for your name? THAT is the one of the dumbest question I've ever heard. NO ONE is responsible for their name, their parents are! And since you're to lazy to look it up, Obama name means 'blessed'. And you're still to lazy to look this up, Obama's school in Indonesia was NOT Muslim only, the school has all types of religions attending.
In the words of Obama:
You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who's a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he's not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."
"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."
HOW is Obama responsible for who his church gives an award to? And by the way, it was Rev. Wrights daughter who choose Farrakhan. So even though Obama denounced Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan you still like to tag him with their actions. THAT is pathetic.
WZ, thanks.
I keep hoping (not holding my breathe) AA's going to wake up and realise how brain washed he's allowed himself to become. His fear of anything Muslim is not only ignorant but truly sad.
Pearlene,
I would like to echo what WZ said. I always appreciate the level of personal experience you put into your post. Its a perspective few of us have and even fewer appreciate. Thanks for your insights.
AA,
"I'd like to know why Obama, who went to a muslim school" (Debunked by CNN completely, it was elementary school, but even if he did, so what? Are all Muslims evil)
has a muslim name (Islamic does not equal Muslim, plus did he choose it?)
has a close friendship with a former PLO spokesman, Rashid Khalidi (so? Bush has talked about a Palestinian state) served on a board that gave money to a Palestinian-American organization (SO????? Are all Palestinanians wanting to blow up Israel? Not hardly.
, had a spiritual mentor in Wright, who recently honored an anti-Semite Farrakhan, who considers Farrakhan a friend, who has said, (guilt by a friend of a friend? Come off it AA!)
" “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.”, who Ralph Nader said was pro-Palestinain and who's record in the Illinois Senate backs that up, how and when did Obama become Pro-Isreali?
As someone else said, Pro-Israel is not exclusive of Pro-Palestinian.
I would hope your stereotypes stop with this post, AA.
Pete,
Even better than that, Barak is found in the Torah (leader of one of the tribes of Israel) ...So to summarize...he goes to a Christian church, has a "Muslim" name, and a "Jewish" name...he has all his bases covered (no offense athiests, agnostics, wiccans, satanists, etc...)
Here is Juan Cole on the name issue:
I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama's name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of General Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages!