« Loose "Change" | Main | And Now For the Good News »

April 29, 2008



This is more than just guilt by association. When you attend a church for 20 years and the Pastor is spewing racist hatred sermons and you don't challenge him one time in 20 years, that calls into question your fitness for office. Obama is not fit or qualified to be President and may never be. When given the opportunity several weeks ago to denounce Wright, Obama didn't have the courage to do it, just like he didn't have the courage to challenge Wright one time in 20 years as he set in the pews and listened to his hate filled, racist rants. Wright even threatened Obama the other day, saying he would go after Obama if he won the Presidency. Wright has had a cult-like hold on Obama for the past 20 years, which goes to the fitness of Obama to hold national office.

Obama is done, stick a fork in him.



Now listen here, girl. You look fine. You dress fine. You ack fine. You even got you a fine white brain. Just one problem. You doan know what it is to be black. With them eyes an' that hair, how could you? It ain't your fault.

But guess what? Ah do know.

This stuff between the great Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Hot New Black Man, Barack Hussein Obama is, well, how can you unnerstand? You cain't. It's a black thing.

Just remember this. My man Barry say he "denounce" his Reverend for sayin' maybe The Man gave us AIDS. Okay. He got to waffle just like any white politcian, doan he? But---now listen---he did NOT disowed his Reverend. He 'denounced', yeah. But not 'disowed.' You unnerstand?

Girl, we like you, but please keep yo facts straight. Neither one a these two black giants disowed the other one. You see? Even with the whole white media comin' down on them, they still refused to ack like some white poltician. Don't they all eat the waffle?

But listen. Not even that Mudoch's NY Post blazin' away with 'PASTOR DISASTER' on the front page got them. See? Not even those kangaroo killahs made them bend in the wrong direction.

Girl, you got to admit that.

See? It's a black thing. So maybe you can't see.


I believe that Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago was basically a cult where he ruled by fear and intimidation. That is why Obama could not bring himself in 20 years to challenge Wright's racist views and why he couldn't denounce Wright when this sorry episode came to light. To denounce the cult leader is a very difficult thing as we see now that Obama is attempting to break way from Wright. Wright is going after Obama and attempting to destroy his candidacy, and even threatened Obama the other day. Wright is similar to the "Rev" Jim Jones and ruled by fear and intimidation. He did a pretty could job of silencing Obama for 20 years. Unfortunately it now calls into question Obama's judgement, or lack thereof.


As I warned months ago, It takes two wooden stakes for Hillary. Monica has alot going on in her life ....BUT.. She took her sites off of Madame Defarge, even to the the point, 2-3 weeks ago, when she said it looks like it's going away from Hillary , on her radio show. Back to the future, Monica.

Account Deleted

I like Obama. I don’t think he is ready to be President; I don’t think he will ever be ready. His voting record in Congress is too far left for my tastes. But I think he is a good man and, like the rest of us, still growing. His difference with other politicians, including Hillary, Bill, and I might add George Jr., is that he recognizes his growth has not ended.

Obama came from a broken home, and boys often gravitate to strong personalities when that tragedy befalls them. Thank goodness he finished his studies at top universities, and was attracted to constructive public service and Christianity, thanks to Wright (as opposed to black Islam, Black Panthers, or some other radical cult). He “denounced and rejected” Wright in a debate; in his Philadelphia speech he “condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright”; he even challenged African-Americans to “take full responsibility for [their] own lives” and called this the “quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help”. This was all before the current conflagration brought about by a man obviously coveting the progress Obama has made without him.

One cannot defend Wright’s positions, but there is no evidence they are Obama’s. Clearly Obama should not have endorsed Wright’s kookiness against the United States by throwing dimes into the collection basket or allowing his children to hear his nonsense. That weakness in Obama’s psyche perhaps is the most convincing argument against his putative Presidency.

Nonetheless, I think most of us had hoped Obama could be the kind of black candidate who would be a harbinger of future color-blind elections and deliver our country from bigotry. As opposed to the present soap opera, I would have preferred a clean discussion on the issues so we might have enjoyed intellect and ideas over candidates' age, party, religion, sex or race. But alas, one man’s selfishness—Wright’s—blinded him to his country’s interests. And that is what Obama might have said to establish his own immutable patriotism ... sans flag lapel pin.


I'll say it again, I have never known anybody as intellectual as you. But, could you tell me one thing I don't already know. And your wrong about Senator Obama. Nice work though.

Account Deleted


Thank you, but I don't think I can tell you anything you don't already know about Obama, or anyone else. I am trying to work off the same facts available to everyone, without the special insight that comes when one does this as a profession or part of a news organization. I am just looking at those facts with a slightly different perspective. If I am wrong about Obama, I welcome the dialog.

On this present matter, "this too shall pass", but what will remain is the health of conservative philosophy and this country's interests, in both of which I am deeply in love, none of which is served by our relieving the left from dealing with the realty of Obama v. Clinton with all its drama. That is perhaps why Hillary, as Monica observes, is silent on this matter: McCain has curiously and gratuitously defaulted to arbiter and commentator-at-large for the Democratic primary.



I have a tremendous amount of respect for Obama, but I don't like him as a candidate for the following reasons:

1) He has the most liberal voting record out of everyone in the Senate

2) He is an open-borders kind of guy, who wants to give illegals driver's licenses.

3) On Chris Wallace's show this Sunday, Obama said that he would raise the capital gains rate. He didn't feel this would hurt the average American who he felt was invested in tax-deferred investments like 401(k)s.

I don't think this is true because I think there is a large percentage of Americans who are invested in the stock market outside of a tax-deferred investment. While searching for the statistics to back up my case, I found this interesting article about how African Americans are less likely to invest in the stock market than whites.


By the way, I agreed with McCain when McCain called Obama "out of touch" on this issue.

4) I don't feel he is experienced enough and I don't trust his judgement on foreign policy. I'm much more impressed with Hillary.

Obama is way too liberal for me. Wish I had a conservative candidate I could vote for.


In reference to

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community....These people are a part of me."

Whoa.. and his own grandmother who raised him is obviously NOT a part of him.

I guess at the time it seemed more expedient to the BIG empty O to sell out his grandmother.

Now that he realized that this little trick blew up in his face he's ready to PRETEND to "denounce" the "reverend" Wrong.

BSarack OBSama.. BS, my brotha!


Account Deleted


You are absoultely correct about the capital gains tax. If we want to be a country of savers and investors and avoid our reliance on government even for Social Security, taxing capital gains and dividends will have just the opposite effect. In their last debate, Charlie Gibson made the point that lowering taxes on dividends increases the net taxes collected. No one disputed that point.

In addition, taxing corporations AND either capital gains or dividends is double taxation. Fairness, and good economic policy, dictates we should tax one or the other.


Account Deleted

I must apologize to Monica, REF.BB, and Monica's audience. Because REF.BB's comment came directly after mine, I assumed it was directed to me. That was egoistical and self-serving.

I am sincerely sorry.



Attention : Congress quietly likes the O-man for president.

This is in accordance with my view that the power players are looking a nonpresident to replace Bush, so they can do more of the same. If you did not believe in government, what is wrong with getting rid of the president? Isn't nothing better than Bushco? If you believed in the value of leadership, what is wrong with Obama?


I do not support Obama. I do, however, want to note that, while he is being pilloried for his association with Rev. Wright, Billy Graham, who was taped making anti-semitic statements, was the spiritual advisor to several presidents, and even swore several of them in. I don't remember any of those men being taken to task for their association with Rev. Graham. Why is that?


That's why we love you Monica - you tell it like it is.

BTW, I think Sen. Obama agrees with more of what his pastor is saying than he'll ever let on, and based on Michelle Obama's past comments about her lack of pride in America until recently, she is more tuned in to Rev. Wright than the Senator would like us to know.

I do not comment on whether the so-called "black rage" being voiced by Rev. Wright is justfied or not. I just don't think it has any place in the chief executive position.


I am back blogging the topic is it matters who you have in your political camp. This is timely if I was Obama I would be clearing out my dug out, he doesn't need a pitchman like Wright up to the plate.



FROM GRINGOBRO (member of Gringomanic Advisory Board.)

Hey M/M, Michael Avari an' all you white folks fair-mine enough to admire our black candidate.(Maybe not you, Oomah. We know you gonna dump on de man 'cause he black.) Look what the NY Daily News doin' to my man Barry now!

Guilt by Asssociation! Just cauee his friend's gang a long time ago tried to kill the guy who wrote on it. Weatha Underground. That Bill Ayres dude. You know our Barry was only 9 when his friend was workin' on bombin' the Pentagon an' stuff. That wasn't Barry's fault. You white folks know that.

Anyway, how is Ayres even his "friend," just 'cause Barry launch his political campaign in Bill Ayres' house. What that mean? Why all this guilt by Assssociation? Tell me 'bout it.

So back to the NY Daily News. Now they got somebody writin' on how Bill Ayres people tried to murder him when he was 9!


Hey M/M. Michael, FK and all you fair mines! Look what they doin' to our Obama hope!


Gringoman --

You can cut out the fake ebonics. Have some courtesy for those of us who already find your drivel incomprehensible when you attempt to write in regular English.


LAY OFF the Gringoman, K-Fred! You're just jealous of his multi-lingual skillz..

To answer Fred's polemic from above:

"I don't remember any of those men being taken to task for their association with Rev. Graham. Why is that?"

Posted by: FredK2929

That is quite easy to answer, pal.

The presidents you mention didn't sit in Billy Graham's pews almost every Sunday for 20 years.

He didn't marry them and baptize their children either.

We will have to take Fred's word on the Anti-semitic comments by Billy Graham. At least i am hitherto unaware of them.

Not that I big on preachers of any kind since I think they're all a bunch of pompous loudmouths.

The reason we are holding Obama's feet to the fire on the "reverend' Wrong are manifold:

Selling out his grandma so he wouldn't have to denounce the "rev" instead.

He promised to be a 'different" kind of candidate and a "new" mainstream kind of a black candidate and it turns out he keeps company with people worse than FAT AL and Jesse Jerckson.

Not only does he hang around the "rev", but wait, there's more.. William Ayers, the Weather underground terrorist... and every radical and liberal on the edges and the margins of "flyover country".

Combine this with the most liberal voting record of ALL senators and the "rev" association merely serves to complete the picture.

Now, do you understand, Fred?


Billy Graham is infinitely more mainstream than the "reverend" Wrong, Fred.

Billy Graham doesn't preach "HATE AMERIKKKA" and "hate rich white people" and "garlic nose Italians" and "the Crucifixion was an ond school Italian-style lynching".

I am sure I have left out a few juicy tidbits.

Look 'em up on Youtube if you need any more, Fred.


Congress in again considering using domestic sources for oil, including now the national parks and oil shales. What they did not even think about is that the oil might be sold on the global market. Imagine huge open pit mines in the national parks, to sell oil to China and India at going rates.


Truther, it is about time we started exploiting our own oil. By the time it flows there won't be no Bush so don't worry that the oil will be sold to China.

We need to end our dependence on the likes of the SOWdi Barbarians from the last Stone Age and the likes of Commie Hugo.


Ummah -- Billy Graham's prejudice was much more quiet; he did it with more class. He talked in private with Nixon about how the Jews controlled the media and that had to stop or the country was going downhill. Unfortunately for him, he didn't know that Nixon was taping everything.

So Graham got to be "mainstream" by not sticking his prejudice in people's faces. It's debatable which prejudice is more dangerous. Graham was taken seriously, and we all seem to view Rev. Wright as a clown.


Assuming what you say is true that means that Billy Graham was a bit "slicker" - speak smarter - than the "rev" Wrong.

Like I said before I don't like any preacher, be they liberal like the Catholic pastor in Chicago or be they born-again or be they whatever.

They're all a bunch of meddlesome pompous loudmouths who need to stay OUT OF people's lives.

We have fought so long for freedom FROM religion and now we are allowing islam to sneak its way into the perceived vacuum..



Hey, you know, my friend gringoman (yeah, I got some white ones) tell me this librul dude, Fred, been signifyin'. You know? He say he don't want no gringobro on honeychile's site.

Who he? What this librul think he is? He think he still in the time when he could tell a black man what to do to get civil rights? Where Monica find this dude? Maybe he can tell you white folks what to do an' what to think. That between you an' him.

Funny, gringoman an' me don't see eyeball to eyeball in politics, yet we get along. You know what I mean? Now, this lib dude what's-his-name, we probly agree a whole lot, on the politic. You know? And I hear he call himself an anti-racist, puffin' himself up like they do (they all do that, don't they?) he for de minorities blah-blah-blah, he ready to tell other whites what to say an' what not to say. But you know what? I doubt that Clinton/Obama dude an' me would really get along. Not for more than five minutes, anyway. Ain't it a holler?

Mistah Oomah, good luck with that guy. Now gringoman tol' me here's somethin' you might want to lay on his fat head: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE HUMMUS!



Ummah --

Rev. Graham was definitely slicker and smarter than Rev. Wright.


Then the so-smart Obama should have been SMART and SLICK enough to see this coming a mile ahead.

Or did he really think that as the "clean" black candidate of wishful liberal dreams he'd be shielded from all critical investigation of his voting record and the company he keeps?


Ummah --

Don't go into shock, but I'm into agreement with you. Obama is not a good candidate. He did not anticipate problems for his campaign that he should have seen coming from miles away.

I'm kind of like the Republicans who don't want to vote for McCain. I don't know what I am supposed to do if Obama gets the nomination. Maybe I have to vote for a third party.



I had Obama's number last April before I even heard about Reverend Wright. Conservatives are not trying to destroy Obama, in fact, Newt Gingrich spoke very highly of him on Alan's radio show. I applaud Hannity, O'Reilly and the other talk show hosts who are discussing this. The public has a right to know about Obama's affiliation with Wright and Ayers, and don't forget about his cousin in Kenya.

(Monica, you can tell Alan that conservatives DO listen to his show. My respect for you and Sean Hannity grows more and more every day based on listening to Alan's views. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.)

Isn't it amazing how the left is embracing Wright? There really are two Americas. Remember last year, when Bernie couldn't even audition for a radio job for simply repeating lyrics from a Spike Lee movie.

"To actually bring McGuirk into Boston, and to pair him with a guy who -- although he's not doing that well on the ratings -- certainly has some class and some dignity -- was an awful decision, and I'm glad they're not going to do it," he said"


Guess, Irish still can't apply.


Well, Fred who knows, we may yet agree on Ralph Nader.


M/M --

At some point you have to communicate with people other than the lunatic fringe that contribute to this blog. For your own sake, don't adopt the idiotic mantra that gets repeated on this blog that liberalism is a mental disorder. It won't help you communicate in the real world.


Ummah --

I can't believe Obama is going to get the nomination. I may have to vote for the Green Party or even write in Hillary Clinton.

The first (serious) black candidate for president should be someone extraordinary . . . the Jackie Robinson of politics. Obama is just not that man.



My liberal friends have driven me to these blogs. I usually don't talk about politics with people in the real world.

I don't like Nader this time around



The first (serious) black candidate for president should be someone extraordinary . . . the Jackie Robinson of politics. Obama is just not that man.

Posted by: FredK2929


Fred, you just summed up the Obama dilemma as concisely and eloquently as humanly possible.

I only wish that you would comprehend that the vitriol he now endures from the so-called "right" is due in large part to Obama's absolute failure to live up to all of our expectations as the "Jackie Robinson of politics".. Conservatives and Libertarians alike were on his overly seductive bandwagon, even when we knew that his ultra-liberal voting record ran counter to almost everything we believe in.

We all thought he was that cheap ticket to racial redemption but obviously the liberal side - but not you the more enlightened ones like Fred - are clinging onto those unrealistic delusions long after the ugly hangover has set in..

So now they are saddling the Democrat party with the candidate that cannot possibly win..

Thank you, Fred for acknowledging that this Obama candidate has been weighed and found to be to light.


You're welcome. I look forward to the next time you refer to me as "enlightened".


M/M --

I'm glad to hear you have liberal friends. I assume that you think that you and your friends have a difference of opinion and that your friends don't actually have a mental disorder.



CNN poll: Obama losing support
Story Highlights
New poll: Sen Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in statistical tie nationwide

Results show 46 percent support Obama, 45 percent favor Clinton

Poll also suggests the Rev. Jeremiah Wright flap doesn't help Obama

From Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new national poll suggests the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is a tie.

Forty-six percent of registered Democratic voters questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday support Obama as their party's nominee and 45 percent back Clinton.

It's a statistical tie when taking into account the poll's 4.5 percentage point sampling error on that question.

"In mid-March, Obama had a 52 percent to 45 percent edge over Clinton, but his support has dropped six points while she has not gained any ground," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director.

He said "6 percent now volunteer that they want neither one to be the nominee; no Democrats in the March poll felt that way."

"Obama has lost his edge,'' said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. "Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright? While most Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Wright, only 19 percent say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than two thirds say they've had no effect at all."

"The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those losses have not driven up Clinton's support. But they may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win," Schneider said.

But the poll suggests Wright certainly doesn't help the Illinois senator. Watch more on the Democratic primary race »

"Among all Americans, Wright gets a 59 percent unfavorable rating; only 9 percent of the public has a favorable view and a third are unfamiliar with him. Among Democrats, the figures are virtually the same," Holland said.

"Roughly a quarter of registered voters and roughly one in five Democrats say they have heard about Wright's remarks and think less favorably about Obama because of them. Most, however, say their view of Obama did not change after hearing about Wright."

The poll also indicates the public is more familiar with Wright now than they were in March, when he first became a presence in the campaign, but the number who feel less favorable toward Obama has not grown since the second round of controversy about Wright erupted last week.

Overall, Clinton and Obama remain extremely popular among Democrats, but enthusiasm for both candidates is flagging as the battle for the nomination wears on.

Holland said just one thing separates Obama and Clinton in the minds of Democratic voters -- by a 20-point margin, 57 to 37 percent, Obama is seen as the one who is more likely to become the party's standard-bearer.

Obama leads the New York senator when it comes to pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won in the primaries and caucuses held to date.

A big question facing Democrats concerns the party coming together and backing the eventual nominee. Will die-hard Clinton supporters back Obama if he's the nominee and will devoted Obama supporters get behind Clinton if she's the nominee?

According to the poll, the number of Democrats who would feel enthusiastic if Clinton were the nominee has fallen from 45 percent in January to 38 percent in March to 33 percent now. Enthusiasm for an Obama victory has also dropped, from 45 percent in March down to 36 percent now.

As for possible November showdowns with Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Democratic candidates have virtually identical but statistically insignificant advantages over the presumed Republican nominee.

Clinton and Obama both say they are more likely to beat McCain, but the poll shows each of them winning 49 percent against the Arizona senator, with Clinton topping McCain by five points and Obama beating him by four points.

The polls, however, were taken before both parties settle on a nominee and are not necessarily good indications of what will happen in November.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone from April 28-30, with 1,008 adult Americans interviewed, including 906 registered voters and 441 registered voters who describe themselves as Democrats, or as independents who lean Democratic.

The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 points for the overall poll and plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for the Democratic questions.

The comments to this entry are closed.