THE CLINTONS BROUGHT 'RACE POLITICS' INTO THIS CAMPAIGN.  Now the Democrats have to get past it.

Bravo Obama...take this issue head on and knock it out of the park.

It doesn't matter what Obama says, he is finshed. He will never win in Nov. if he is the nominee.

Obama can't erase 20 years of friendship, mentoring, and associating with this racist black church and hate filled racist Pastor. Both are anti America. HIs wife also, who has never been proud to be an American,  and called America mean.

Obama talks about his judgment? Where was his judgment on William Ayers, who he is still friends with?
Where was Obama's judgment on Tony Rezco?

Where was his judgment when his pastor praised Farrakhna and gave him an award?  Farrakhan: who hates white people and jews.

People will never elect Obama, he is now unelectable in the General election.

Today Obama refused to answer questions about his Pastor Wright, when asked by the press.

NO amount of Race speeches will make any differenc to the vast amount of Americans wholove their country.

Equating Geraldine Ferraro's remarks with those of Reverend Wright is insulting to anyone of normal intelligence.  You certainly have raised moral relatavism to the level of an artform.

It doesn't matter what Obama says, he is finshed. He will never win in Nov. if he is the nominee.

Obama can't erase 20 years of friendship, mentoring, and associating with this racist black church and hate filled racist Pastor. Both are anti America. HIs wife also, who has never been proud to be an American,  and called America mean.

Obama talks about his judgment? Where was his judgment on William Ayers, who he is still friends with?
Where was Obama's judgment on Tony Rezco?

Where was his judgment when his pastor praised Farrakhna and gave him an award?  Farrakhan: who hates white people and jews.

People will never elect Obama, he is now unelectable in the General election.

Today Obama refused to answer questions about his Pastor Wright, when asked by the press.

NO amount of Race speeches will make any differenc to the vast amount of Americans wholove their country.

is it a big leap to think that a country that injected african american troops in the us military with syphillis, might have something to do with the aids epademic. Not saying that it is so , but to say that it is out of the question would not be in line with the facts in history.

I think it will wind up working against Senator Clinton that she tried to undermine Barack Obama's oratory skills. We've had to endure the blubberings of George Bush all these years and it HAS mattered, it has hurt us that W is such a clumsy speaker. Tomrrow's speech may well be a a true landmark in U.S. history and Hillary will be hard pressed (and foolish)to belittle it.
I moved from Seattle to New Orleans at the ripe old age of 10 in 1962. My Dad, an engineer with Boeing was transferred there to work on the Saturn V project. I suffered culture shock to see how blacks were treated there. Not allowed to use same public restroom or drinking fountain, a black woman might be hired as a nanny (what's more important than child rearing?) but not allowed basic dignities. Much has changed, but much hasn't as evidenced by the number of "closet" racists evident from this race. I think all Americans should be grateful to Senator Obama for what he's doing now. Go Barack, I'll be listening.

It think this is an excellant opportunity for Barack to further demostrate why he is the leader for our times.  Race is an issue in America.  That is a fact.  The question is what are we going to do about it?  Deny it?  Ignore it?  Show parts of Rev Wright sermons to stir people up is not the answer.  His commnets were disquest if taken in part.  But I would like to hear the entire context before I judge.

Barack will be brillant....Pride come before the fall...hope its a soft landing Hillary!!

America simply is not ready to have this talk......

White America does not even understand why a black person in 2008 America would even be upset.

There is a major lack of understanding that makes the conversation impossible.

There mere fact that everyone is outraged by this pastor just goes to show that many Whites have no idea how or why black people feel the way they do, and having a discussion on the topic without laying the basic foundation for understanding can only lead to further aleination and contempt from the black community because any attempt at dialouge no matter how good natured will come across as condescending and ignorant....

Maybe one day....

On the Wright issue: Half the people I know and like are a little radical on one thing or another.  I'm not threatened by that but look for their good and shrug off the rest. It's only the very insecure who refuse to have anything to do with anyone that's not a carbon copy of themselves. On the racism issue: Yes, there is still a lot of slimmy racism around.  Good luck to Obama in addressing this issue.  I've noticed in my own life, that no one can just stay the same.  If you're not moving forward, you tend to slip back. Lets move forward with our thinking, America.  
Obama supporter.  
Oh by the way, I live in the Mountain West and I predicted Obama would win big in Wyoming.  I predict the same for Montana.  Westerners hate Hillary.

For the democrartic party's sake, let's hope Obama can effectively move beyond this. Here's an inconvenient truth, if Hillary gets the nomination, she needs the Black vote, and at this point she's so alienated from that constituency, I doubt Blacks will vote at all, rather than vote for her. All Hillary has effectively managed to do with race-baiting is assure that she nor Obama will be in the White House.

Obama's church is a standard church. Rev. Wright goes off the deep end sometimes, but that is not his standard sermon and does not represent the church's beliefs in any way. Also he's not racist. He says these things in his sermon:
"The good news that's coming is for all people! Not white people—all people. Not black people—all people. Not rich people—all people. Not poor people—all people. I know you'll hate this... not straight people—all people! Not gay people—all people. Not American people—all people. ...God's good news isn't just for Americans, it's for all people. Say "all people"! Jesus came for Iraqis and Afghanis. Jesus was sent for Iranians and Ukrainians. All people! Jesus is God's gift to the brothers in jail and the sisters in jeopardy. All people! The Lord left his royal courts on high to come for all those that you love, yes, but he also came for all those folk that you can't stand. All people!"


Here is also Reverend Wright's sermon titled "The Audacity to Hope". This is for people who just want to cherry-pick 40 years of preaching and discussing faith based on a few fiery comments.

http://mp3.christianity.com/mp3/mp3repos32/MMYSEES/317_60682_JeremiahWright__TheAudacitytoHope82A.32.mp3

You can't give a speech denouncing something that you have been a part of for 20 years and expect the American people to take you seriously.  Americans aren't stupid.

why has MSNBC added a delegate to Clinton and substracted one for Obama since yesterday?  FIRST READ's last update had Obama at 1626 and Clinton at 1503.  MSNBC Politics homepage has it at 1625-1504 now.  Reason?

'...She was somewhat cool to Clinton and her campaign from the very beginning of the 2008 cycle, and over time began sending clear signals that Obama is her candidate...'

He's OUR CANDIDATE, Nancy !!


From Real Clear Politics:


'...Nancy Pelosi's Not-So-Secret Support for Obama

by Steve Kornacki
March 17, 2008

Whatever her official posture, Nancy Pelosi is not neutral in the Democratic primary.

Typically, for instance, someone who is neutral wouldn’t say that victory by one of the candidates would be “harmful.” That’s essentially how Pelosi, the supposedly impartial House Speaker, has characterized the prospective nomination of Hillary Clinton.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happens in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,” Pelosi said in an interview for ABC’s “This Week” that was taped late last week.

That just so happens to be the only plausible scenario under which Clinton could still get the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama, who will close out the primary season ahead in the pledged delegate race and, almost certainly, in the popular vote count – even if do-overs are held in Michigan and Florida. The Clinton campaign itself has all but acknowledged this, pursuing a strategy that is designed to incite intra-party panic over Obama’s general-election prospects and to foment a mutiny by superdelegates that would deny him the nomination.

In effect, Pelosi has now said on national television that Clinton will hurt the party if she succeeds. And lest anyone think Pelosi would be willing to grant Clinton some wiggle room should she manage to surpass Obama in the popular vote count (but not the pledged delegate race), Pelosi also made her position clear on that score as well: “It’s a delegate race.”

This might be surprising if Pelosi really were neutral. But by all measures, she isn’t – and hasn’t been for a long time. She was somewhat cool to Clinton and her campaign from the very beginning of the 2008 cycle, and over time began sending clear signals that Obama is her candidate. When George Miller and Anna Eshoo, fellow House Democrats from California through whom Pelosi often telegraphs her wishes, endorsed Obama a few months back, the hand of the Speaker was apparent.

There are both philosophical and pragmatic factors underpinning Pelosi’s preference for Obama – and lack of enthusiasm for Clinton.

Any assessment of Pelosi’s motives, for instance, must consider the Iraq war. While much of her party’s leadership (and rank-and-file) capitulated, Pelosi – as the House minority whip – was the highest-ranking Democrat to oppose the war resolution in the fall of 2002. In the aftermath of that vote, she ran for minority leader (to replace the departing Dick Gephardt), and was opposed by Texas’s Martin Frost, who had voted for the resolution and who warned that the party “will not win the next election” by formally opposing the war and George Bush’s foreign policy.

Pelosi won that leadership fight but has never forgotten the frustration of having so many of her fellow Democrats turn a deaf ear to her warnings about the perils of invading Iraq. And it’s a frustration that she has revisited frequently during her first 14 months as Speaker, as it’s become clear just how difficult un-doing the 2002 war vote really is.

On this level, Obama, who spoke out against the war in the fall of ’02, is the natural choice for Pelosi, especially compared to Clinton, one of the many congressional Democrats who sided with the White House. When it comes to ending the war, and to avoiding similar entanglements in the future, Pelosi can reasonably conclude that she’d have a far more reliable partner in a President Obama than in a President Clinton.

The pragmatic impetus for Pelosi’s pro-Obama posture may be even stronger. On Iraq and so many other issues, she has experienced the limits of a barebones House majority. But there is a clear opportunity this year for Democrats not just to maintain control of the House, but to tighten their grip substantially. Generic polls show the party outpacing the G.O.P. And Republicans have been beset by a wave of retirements – many in House districts that are not out of reach for the right Democrat – and crippled by the anemic fundraising that generally accompanies minority-party status.

Key to seizing this opportunity is fielding a presidential candidate whose top-of-the-ticket presence will boost, or at least not severely hurt, down-ballot candidates. And Pelosi surely realizes that, much more than Clinton, Obama fits this bill.

Sure, a handful of critical House races – marginal seats that Democrats are defending and open seats that they are eyeing – are in Pennsylvania and Ohio, states where Clinton has been touting her supposed superiority over Obama. But her strength in these states is among Democratic primary voters. Polls in both states show Obama running no worse – and, in many cases, marginally better – than Clinton in general election match-ups with John McCain. So even in Clinton’s strongest primary states, there is little reason to think her presence in the fall will be any more beneficial to House candidates than Obama’s.

But there are many states that are critical to the Democrats’ House strategy in which Obama dramatically outperforms Clinton....'

LUV YA, NANCY !!
You're doing the RIGHT THING !!

Obama '08

Barack Obama is 'inevitable'

Barack Obama will be your next President

I'm sure the speech summary will be: "Pay no attention to the Pastor behind the curtain!" Obama = Talk, Talk, Talk, and, oh, yeah, more Talk! But how  about the Walk?

What did our parents always tell us? "Be prepared to be judged by the company you keep!"

There is something wrong with the country when a political candidate needs to make a speech about the religious leader of the organization he belongs to.  If you ask most people, I would hope that they don't follow every single word that their religious leader says.  We, as Americans and hopefully thinking people, must understand the lessons that we are being taught by our leaders, religious or otherwise.  If don't think on our own, then we are sheep following someone that could be a wolf or a shepard.  Do we know which one is going to lead us to a good pasture or a bloody demise.  That is what why we need to think for ourselves.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):