What is with your ridiculous denial? Do we have two sets of standards? Do we take at face value what some politicians say? Have we abandoned all common sense?
There is a certain antagonistic obsession here, and a much unwarranted fixation on negativity and slander. To be accurate, the negative attacks are from multiple sources on this board in favor of different candidates. Just look at the topic lists on the front page.
To me, it reads down sort of like:
“Hillary likes drinking the fresh blood of babies”
“Obama shoots grandma in the face”
“Obama’s candidacy dead”
“Hillary robs bank”
Chill out people. If you want to promote a candidate, then rationally explain their strengths. Don’t just go ripping on the other person to the point of slander and inaccuracy. Blind obsession with attacking candidates gets no one anywhere.
Obama is not a grandma-hater, nor is he a racist, bigot, traitor, or so on. In fact, he probably just made a speech that will go down in history. It was uniquely candid and perceptive on the subject of American racial divisions – rarely does a major politician speak to the public as if the public were intelligent, conscious adults. Too often, American politicians speak down to their audience, and make blatantly one-sided opinions on major policy issues, insisting on the simplicity of an issue rather than complexity, and conformity to the party-line rather than a genuine two-way insight.
I’m not immediately voting for Obama because of anything
against Hillary, or even necessarily because of his eloquence, but because of his penetrating intelligence and judgment. Yes, I’m a white southerner too.
The truth is, Obama has carefully tried to avoid making his campaign appear “racially based”, as if his candidacy was some sort of result in affirmative action. To allow such an image to grow would be politically unwise. And its an easy trap to fall into given his unconventional nature and unique full name. It would alienate portions of white voters (and yes… it would; not necessarily out of racism, but out of discomfort for voting a self advertised “the black guy”). Hence he has tried to appear more broadly. Until Wright's sermon reached the public, Obama had largely succeeded in avoiding the issue of race.
With Wright's comments, Obama had to confront race as an issue in a way that he perhaps would not have had – and I don't hold that against him. He had every political and pragmatic reason not to make himself into “the black guy” as a candidate. He only now had to confront it head on. And confront it he did.
The truth is black leaders need racism to exist to further their power. Mr. Wright is a perfect example of this. Obama doesn't want to get his hands dirty but is more than willing to profit from it. He's a passive bigot or at the least a con man willing to work both sides of this issue. Most of us are in the middle and get along fine. I'm white. I have no issues with blacks, hispanics, or anyone else. But I do have an issue with being told it's all my fault. Well, it's not my fault. Black, white, brown, you can kiss my ass if you expect me to go out of my way to kiss someone's ass for something I didn't do.
With no disrespect, I’ll be concise here.
- Obama’s speech
never says that its all the “white man’s fault”, nor does he imply it. Read the speech transcript.
- Obama is not a con man, nor is he a bigot. Learn about candidates before you attack them.
- Obama has avoided the topic and played it down until now. He hardly desires to "profit" from it.
- Your first sentence is easily more bigoted and misinformed than anything Obama has ever said, written, or done.
