Politics News | New West Network

Excellent analysis. I think researchers have gotten so much money over the years studying how they think we think that they have failed to pay attention to us. They keep trying to fit the Americna people into convenient little boxes and we do not fit. I could care less about Obamas color or lack thereof. I am very concerned about his dancing around patriotism and actual belief in our country. Only the pundits really care about first female president or first black president, and they cannot grasp that the majority of us don't care about either thing either for or against.

The latest Rev. Wright incident is very troubling. See: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/wright-says-his-words-were-twisted/

>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Wright, who has acted as Mr. Obama’s spiritual mentor and retired in February as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, said that he has never heard Mr. Obama repeat any of his controversial statements.
“Absolutely not,” Mr. Wright said. “I don’t talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God.”
Mr. Obama publicly denounced Mr. Wright’s remarks, a reaction Mr. Wright said “went down very simply.”
“He’s a politician, I’m a pastor,” he said. “We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds.”
He added, “I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.”
<<<<<<<<<<

Rev. Wright suggests that when Obama made his race speech, where he denounced Rev. Wright's comments, Obama was just saying what he had to as a politician. It will be very important for Obama to address this matter again along with where his heart was when he insulted church goers and gun owners. If Obama is just another politician, as his spiritual adivisor states, then a closer scrutiny of Obama is in order. Charles Krauthammer explores this further in a column that appears at Real Clear Politics. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_revealing_distractions.html

>>>>>
...Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests...

But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than two to one. Ran close to 10,000 television ads -- spending more than anyone in any race in the history of the state -- and lost by 10 points.

And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other "issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.
<<<<<<<<<<<

Denver should be interesting to watch: http://recreate68.org/

I see that our professional (Jessica) and semi-pro (Marion and Craig) conservative trolls are up to their usual posturing.
A question for Jessica: where do you get this "Most of us just want bureaucrats to stop telling us how we should live our lives." The very premise of the radical religious right is that they do indeed want to tell us how to live our lives -- no gay marriage, no abortion, no premarital sex or non-abstinence sexual education, no uppity women (gotta keep 'em barefoot, preggers and in the kitchen), no athiests or pagans, no questioning of fundamentalist beliefs, etc.
Meanwhile, there's the absurdity that a group that believes in the inherent sinfulness of humans, also believes that a class of people (the wealthy and business people) can be absolutely trusted and should not be saddled with regulations or anything approaching an economic Ten Commendments.
As Robbie the Robot would say, "This does not compute."
Frankly, the idea of a conservative operative like Jessica catigating any Democrat as "elitist" is almost too funny and ironical to contemplate. Her employer, the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, has the full-time job of defending them that's got, while fending off and distracting the unwashed hoi poi that would like, if not a bigger piece of the pie, then certainly a more even playing field that isn't so badly tilted in favor of a monied, Republican aristocracy.
Any exploration of Republicans like McSame, the Bush family, Romney and the monied families like the Coors, Hunts, Kochs, Scaiffs, Mellons (our modern-day multi-generational aristrocracies) will reveal elites galore, in terms of wealth, education, advantages, etc.
Finally, a note to the editor. Jessica is anything but an independent voter and thinker. She is entirely a reflection of the staff, trustees and funders of the Independence Institute. I'll give her one thing -- she stays on message very well indeed.

More hackery. No wonder Marion likes it. His idea of "analysis" is his revelation that his tongue stuck to a lightpost a couple times this winter, therefore there is no global warming. Marion, if you don't care about Obama's race why did you say that real Americans love deer hunting season and hate Martin Luther King day? Remember that? True colors bubba.
Obama does best with whites in states where there are very few blacks, which is also where there is the least racial polarization. Explain this Jessica, with bonus points if you can figure out where PA fits in there.
Further, I love how you assert that since Obama has a white parent he is not considered black. I am reading a book called "The Bloody Shirt" at the moment that details the conservative terrorism that occurred in the South after the Civil War. I'm sure Obama would have gotten along fine post-war just by telling everyone he wasn't really black.
And do you suppose the fact that when his parents were married that over 20 states still had laws on the books against his parents GETTING married might just contradict your little attempt at painting the US as some post-racial paradise? Did you know that it was an "activist" court that overturned the interracial marriage laws? They downright legislated from the bench. Remind me how them there activist judges chap your hide.
"Most of us just want bureaucrats to stop telling us how we should live our lives." Ha. Ha. Ha. What I see out of your conservative brothers is you want bureaucrats to legislate marriage, sexuality (remember how you all freaked out when the Supreme Court overturned Texas' sodomy law a few years back?), force prayer into schools, and have bureaucrats intervene in end of life decisions ala Terri Schiavo. Don't forget how when Oregon told the bureaucrats they wanted to determine how they live and end their own lives by legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill you conservatives and the bureaucrats you love stopped it.
Inky, I also wonder where Jessica gets off calling anyone else "elitist" as if she is salt of the Earth.

In my opinion, the last two comments reveal a couple of important points.

One: a panicky knee-jerk attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand.

Two: the elitist, arrogant bigotry reflected in the categorical statements that place people into stereotypical, negative groupings to explain behavior.

The NYT's Paul Krugman, writes a very revealing column about the confusion in the D party. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?em&ex=1209268800&en=eb1805c9682bc7f0&ei=5087

>>>>>>>>>>
During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

My reply to Inky, and Flounder has been blocked by NW's Akismet.

Must have been really deep Craig. Did you back up Marion on his MLK Day is unamerican, and therefore since all blacks look alike( including the one that Jessica claims is not considered black), they are not "real Americans" theory?

Hold it Inky! In the last election, your side ran Kerry, a blue blood Boston brahmin private school educated husband of a billionaire. Your guy rode a bicycle worth more than a blue collar worker's car. He wintered in Sun Valley and summered in Nantucket. Don't give us that crap about wealth.

Al Gore's father was a stump rancher from west Tennessee who got elected to the House during the Depression. Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum got to him early, and made him wealthy with the old pure bred livestock transfer of money from the wealthy to agrarian politicians. Gore would have a bull sale, and all his bulls would sell for many times what the same bulls would sell for in the real market. Today it might be llamas or alpacas, blooded horses, as well as cattle. So Al Gore grew up in DC living in a hotel and going to private schools, living on under that table money because his father was a senator with connections to Josef Broz Stalin's most accomplished American spy and traitor. No common man there. And now he is out selling GW snake oil and flying around in fuel hog jets fouling the atmosphere with his ego.

So now we know what ethical Democrats do to survive. Kerry married his money. So did McCain. Those Navy guys know how to pick a wife. Gore' money came from the lucky sperm club, too, but his family got their money from the USSR in payment for influence, all through Hammer. Bush sold a baseball team to a fellow Texan. Cod only knows the details of that. Hillary has made her money the American way: became a US Senator. And she is, after all, the wife of a former President who wants to make a pile of money, no matter what. And has. My wonder is how he is going to continue if she were elected POTUS? One would think his hob knobbing with world powers, not unlike Trudeau's lobbyist Duke, shaking down dictators for money for his various trusts, libraries and pocket book by selling his influence, could not continue, or would it? That would be my reason for not voting for her. I have no fear of Hillary, but that Arkansas influence peddler she is married to is not to be trusted. Today he is near my home town, one that has been destroyed by the results of his "Timber Summit" so long ago. Rural Oregon never recovered. And he is touting his wife as the answer to the problem he created. Now that is Slick Willy at his best. The problem still festers, and the most ardent supporters of the Democrat ticket litigate daily to keep it festering, without solution or a chance to heal itself. And his wife is not the answer. Her gender has nothing to do with it. She has a big D after her name, and the Baggage of Bill: BOB

Many here see Obama as an empty shirt. His rookie card is only 4 years old. He is a great speaker. But his words are empty of reality, of truth. If your pickup has a flat tire, you CHANGE THAT TIRE. He wants to change all four tires, get a new spare. And do nothing to rid the street of nails, pointed rocks, pot holes. He wants to do it with our money. Here all along, I thought that spending too much money was part of the problem. He wants the rich to pay more. Yep. Well, the rich just go somewhere else to live. I remember well the luxury tax on boats that was to punish the rich. All the yacht builders shut down in the US, and all the rich guys bought yachts overseas. 100,000 Americans lost their jobs, and the rich got richer. That didn't work then, and it won't work today. You get more money to give to your favorite layabouts, educational drop outs, institutional welfare class, by growing the economy and raising the GNP (archaic words from Samuelson years ago) which in turn provides more taxes.

Right now, in the New West, the great concern is the full charge efforts of the Timber Barons to rid themselves of vertically integrated business. The impetus today is to sell the mills, or close them, put the timberlands into a REIT or TIMO, and avoid triple taxation of timber grown on tree farms, and to gain profits by selling land that will produce more money right now sold for amenity uses, than it will over the longest time as a producer of wood fiber that in the end, has to pay severance tax, state and federal capital gains tax, and then corporate income tax, and finally, the stockholder pays taxes on those gains and dividends when declared. It is not worth the time and money to continue in that vein, and all are changing. It is going to be a problem for the very same people who support more taxes on the rich.

I see the Congress in the Ag Bill is going to reduce the tax credit on ethanol from 51 cents per gallon to 45 cents per gallon. Just think about that. Tell me who is benefitting, and why I should pay more to get less, and show me, in terms I can grab on to, hold in my hand, what gain I am getting from this usury by the left to further their position on GW.

Race, ethnicity, education, none are in play in this primary. The issues are economics, the future of our democracy, fair play, and the defense of our nation. Where is our economy going? Who is paying? Who else should pay? How much? And how do we defend our country from illegal immigration, terrorism, environmental degradation, our place as a leader in technology, and self sufficiency in food, durable goods, consumer products. You vote for who you think has the best answers, not the best pants suit, tan, or line of baloney.

Perhaps NW will be so kind as to post my blocked comment.

Bearbait, I think Inky and flounder should look to see how their ideological breathern see their champion and their party: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/dems-a26.shtml

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama, for his part, presents himself as the leader of a popular insurgent movement that is going to drive corporate lobbyists out of Washington and hand the government “back to the people.” At the same time, he says he will unite all and sundry—white and black, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, gay and straight, Democratic and Republican—in his crusade for “change” and a “new politics.”

Aside from the fact that his campaign has raised something on the order of $150 million and currently sits on a war chest of $42 million, and numbers among his key backers some of the wealthiest individuals in the world, Obama’s promise to forge an all-bracing unity sounds not only vacuous, but downright ridiculous given that his own party is hopelessly split.

The crisis of the Democratic Party is the crisis of an imperialist party, as was underscored by Clinton’s recent threat to “obliterate” Iran. For his part, Obama not long before threatened to bomb Pakistan.

The primary contest has degenerated into a spectacle of political crisis laced with fraud and deceit. It has demonstrated how hopeless and delusional is the notion that the Democratic Party can serve as a vehicle for progressive social change.
<<<<<<<<<

If race isn't in play, how come we have a bunch of white religious leaders like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the ghost of Jerry Falwell telling us that God "damns" America, and McSame runs around kissing their rings. Meanwhile, a black preacher and decorated veteran who was once told by the Jerry Falwell's of the world that he was a second-class citizen complains about his former treatment by saying God damn America and everyone makes a big stink over it?

The primary contest has degenerated into a spectacle of registering millions of new Democratic voters across the country. And while much like a blind squirrel getting a nut once in a while, Craig correctly identifies that yes, some very rich people have donated money to Barack Obama, unfortunately for concern trolls everywhere, every rich person donating to Barack Obama is joined by 10,000 not so rich people donating. Many of them are giving to a political campaign for the first time in their lives. Would that poor Saint McSame had such problems...then he wouldn't be out glad handing so many "Bush Pioneers" and Swiftboaters.
And while millions of new voters are signing up with a D, poor McSame is relegated to flip flopping at an ever desperate frequency and sending his peeps out race-baiting and then making himself look impotent when he weakly chides them for doing so in a pathetic attempt to remain relevant.

Flounder, I think you are taking too many hallucinogens, I have never stated nor thought any of that garbage you are spouting. And in fact when you make a stupid statement that I think all blacks look alike, the fact of the matter is you have no idea at all what race I might be.

flounder, it was not me that pointed to Obama's very rich contributors. Rather, that honor goes one of your kindred spirits who wrote the World Socialist column that I linked and quoted. While you rely on silly comments, like "Saint McSame," the writer makes some very articulate observations about the D party, today's liberals, and the two D candidates. Read the whole column, it is worth the effort. Then go to http://www.recreate68.org.

Why are you trolling Socialist websites? Did your conservative pro-business decision to socialize the risk on Wall Street make you turn over a different leaf? I think those socialist guys are stuffy and misguided trying to recreate the 1930's myself (although the Republicans desire to recreate their pro-fascist 1930's agenda through support of torture, etc. is equally misguided IMHO).
Can't articulate observations and silly comment go hand in hand? I mean Saint McSame may be a silly name but it says a lot:
-"Saint" addresses the fact that McSame is revered as a saintly figure by the traditional media because he is willing to sit on the back of the bus with them and crack jokes about how Chelsea Clinton's dad is Janet Reno. In return they ignore his flip flops and general lack of knowledge about the issues--I mean c'mon, the guy and his court of media admirers claim foreign policy is his strong suit but he doesn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni...and his solution to every world problem is to sit down the problem factions and tell them to "stop the bull****". Pretty deep, I tell you.
-"McSame" comes from the fact that every one of his policies is exactly what the Decider himself would do, whether it is war or another hundred years, advocacy for torture via his voting record despite protestations elsewhere, claims he is for increased veterans services although he finds a reason to vote against them every time he gets a chance, or new tax cuts for the rich balanced by some ambiguous and small budgetary savings elsewhere. I mean the guy even shared a birthday cake with the Decider on the very day that New Orleans was wiped out by a hurricane. Let them eat cake!

flounder, NW has posted my missing comment. It follows your first. I think it still applies. This column is about Obama. Today the polls are showing a precipitous drop in his support and a dramatic rise in his negatives. Not a good thing at this time. When Maureen Dowd mocks him, that certainly is not a positive development. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

>>>>>>>>
Maybe I’ve been reading too many stories about the fad of teenage vampire chick lit, worlds filled with parasitic aliens and demi-human creatures, but there’s something eerie going on in this race.

Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan.

Is she draining him of his precious bodily fluids? Leeching his magic? Siphoning off his aura?

It used to be that he was incandescent and she was merely inveterate. Now she’s bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke.

Hillary is not getting much sleep or exercise, and doesn’t, like the ascetic Obama, abstain from junk food and coffee and get up at dawn to work out on the road. She’s still a long shot and she’s 14 years older than her rival.

Yet she’s the one who is more energetic and focused and beaming, and he’s the one who seems uneven and gauzy, often fatigued and unable to disguise being fed up with the slog. Even his speeches don’t have the same pizazz.

A man at a sports bar in Latrobe, Pa., advised Obama, “Get some sleep, Barack, you look like you’re tired, man.”

When the candidate noted he’s been running for president for 15 months, the guy offered another tip: “You need a drink.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<

...and then comes along a new development that further questions Obama's judgment and his associations that include Rezko, Wright, Ayers. The new name is Sam Graham-Felsen, Obama's blogger-in-chief. See: http://www.thecommonills.blogspot.com/2008/04/sam-graham-felsen-stands-for-what.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>
(quoting Sam Graham-Felsen)

"To break the stranglehold of the capitalist minority over all of society, workers need their own political institutions. Workers and their unions need to break definitively with Democrats, Republicans, and other capitalist parties, all of which are dedicated to preserving and advancing the capitalist system of social, economic and political injustice.
Socialism, the ownership and democratic control of the means of production by the working class, and the removal of profit from the system of production, is the aim of Socialist Viewpoint, which reflects the political views of the Socialist Workers Organization. Socialism is the prerequisite for the next stage in human development that will end class oppression and exploitation for all time."

That's an interesting credit for an Obama campaign staffer to have, especially one tasked with 'getting out the message.' In 2005, attending a conference of the Democratic establishment, Sam puzzled some with his attack on the conference (which included his boss Katrina vanden Heuvel among its participants). What was he seeing that Matt Singer wasn't at the Campus Progress National Student Conference and why? (As Singer notes in the comments to his post: "But this whole article clearly begs the question: Is Sam describing his own editor as a sell-out?")

Long before Sam officially joined the campaign, he was doing work for it, such as lavishing Barack with praise -- two examples would include "This is a Social Movement" (The Nation, May 2006) and "Obama Steps Up on Iraq" (The Nation, February 2007). Shortly after joining the campaign, he took offense publicly when someone dared to question Barack's lack of plans (MyDD). Why is it such a problem for Obama to reveal plans? (As Taylor Marsh has often noted, Obama supporters are instructed to persuade voters by offering testimonials and avoid discussing policy -- instead, they're supposed to respond to any questions about policies by referring people to Obama's website.)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Sounds like SGF believes Obama will remake the D party into a storefront for a far different movement than the parties historical roots.

I just listened to the interview with Chris Wallace, and Obama says everything so smoothly, but when you try to get your mind around what he was saying, there is nothing there, except wanting to turn us into a socialistic nation. If there is no profit, there are no jobs and no money, except what the government has and they have to get it from the people, which in fact dilutes the economy, not strengthen it.

Thanks Jessica for your opinion in an "opinion piece"...how novel.
April 28th shall now be known as "Liberal Fascism/Elitist Day"...
when they make an appearance just to prove they exist as well as looking for their shadows.

Obama has said he would go and meet our country's most vicious enemies like Iran. However, he refuses to sit down with Hillary in a one-on-one in debate after his last debate debacle. How can we believe Obama has the courage and gravitas to debate our countries greatest external threats while he exhibits cowardice to demonstrate his prowess with Hillary?

Marion, remember when you tried to get your mind around why you didn't like Obama and all you could come up with is you didn't like Martin Luther King Jr. Day (in short I believe you said "real Americans" like deer hunting season, not MLK), and since Obama is black like Martin Luther King you decided he wasn't the candidate for you? I doubt any one interview is going to make you turn in your white robes.
I've seen you try to get your mind around the difference between weather and climate, or how radiometric dating is used to date the Earth. The results are generally hilarious, but getting your mind around things ain't exactly your strong suit.

McSame can't even stare down Liddy Dole and make her stop running an ad he claims he wants her to stop running in N.C. Now if the anointed leader of the Republican party lets the state parties push him around, I bet al Quaeda will have a field day with him (especially since he won't even be able to figure out if they are a Shia or Sunni outfit).

Flounder, I applaud your effort. After a year or more not bothering to visit the New West site I'm actually surprised these two are still at it. Marion and Craig post first and most often using every article as a soap box for their self righteous, neo-conservative insanity.

I remember often reading their posts and imagining deranged, unkept people sitting in their soiled underwear screaming at their computer screens while they hammered out things that were probably first said by a founding father of the Aryan Nation or Joseph McCarthy.

Marion's posts are classic, but I remember once Craig actually threatened to take legal action against someone who disagreed with him about something. Always good for a laugh. Honestly, I think they are the same person with a schizophrenic disorder.

Really, a writer could create a perfect character model of a knuckle dragging, ignorant, anti-environment, racist by copying snippets from some of the posts that you find here.

I don't really care which one of the leading candidates the Dems put forward, I won't be voting for them. But I think this article by Dr. Thomas Sowell pretty well sums up my thinking about Obama.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/29/an_old_newness

Tim from MT, you prove my point in a precious comment on this column..."a panicky knee-jerk attempt to deflect attention from the topic at hand." You insult and personally attack me when the topic of conversation is Obama.

Have you noticed that the level of comments here at NW have fallen off? You erroneously assert that I use..."every article as a soap box for their self righteous, neo-conservative insanity." In the past few weeks I have only commented on two columns. In this column I have linked and quoted from the NYT, World Socialist, The Common Ills, Recreate68, and Real Clear Politics. I don't believe they would appreciate your characteriztion as being part of a..."neo-conservative insanity." Maureen Dowd would especially take exception to that.

Tim, if you wish to hurt NW and drive people away because of personal attacks, keep it up. Why not just engage in robust, diverse, and topical conversation without the nonsense?

Should have typed "previous" not "precious." Stumble fingers.

Tim, one thing more. You assert..."After a year or more not bothering to visit the New West site..." IN FACT your last comment was in December of 2007, a little more than 4 months ago. It appears you also commented back in November 2007, October 2007, September 2007...and so on.

What I alway love about Craig and Marion's posts is the fake indignation when someone calls them on their nonsense and talk about phony devotion to "intellectual discussion of the issues". Meanwhile every time they post they have some nasty comment about, what do you call them "enviro-nazis" or "lazy minorities" or "god hating liberals" as if that is the language of civil discourse.

If you actually believe the hoaky tripe and circular arguments that you post here that is something to be concerned about. But I can't believe even a monkey could write that stuff with a strait face and believe it.

btw thank you for keeping track of the last time I posted, New West should thank you for watching the posts so diligently

The real racists are all those who will vote for Obama just because he is black.

Tim, there you go again with the panicky digression from the topic, Obama.

You claim that every time I post I..."have some nasty comment about, what do you call them "enviro-nazis" or "lazy minorities" or "god hating liberals" as if that is the language of civil discourse."

Please point to those remarks that you attribute to me in this or any other column. (Psst! They don't exist.)

Back on topic, Obama just gave a speech excoriating Rev. Wright. Obama said that the reverend made a caricature of himself with his National Press Club speech yesterday.

I'm getting a kick out of the assertion that Maureen Dowd is someone that people like when in fact is she is a narcissistic and petty little person that never got over high school cliques.

Oh disgusting! Craig, I can see how you delude yourself into thinking that the drivel you slop onto these pages is what passes for debate or honest discourse. You pattern it off of what you hear on Fox News!

Phony! Fake! Counterfeit! Bogus! Fraudulent! Intellectually Dishonest! Deceitful! False! Spurious!

In short Craig you'll say anything and engage in any passive aggressive, greasy tactic to try to support your failed political ideology.

Tim, there you go again with the panicky digression from the topic, Obama.

Either back up your assertions you have made against me here on this column or be revealed as a liar. Just a suggestion.

Tim, I really think that you should either post any of the comments you attributed to either Craig or myself or apologize. Newwest is kind enough to give us a forum, and it would be nice to have thoughtful comments. Certainly there are a lot of facts to be presented on all sides of any issue, it simply is not necessary nor helpful for you to spew name calling.

Tim, I really think that you should either post any of the comments you attributed to either Craig or myself or apologize. Newwest is kind enough to give us a forum, and it would be nice to have thoughtful comments. Certainly there are a lot of facts to be presented on all sides of any issue, it simply is not necessary nor helpful for you to spew name calling.
Hopefully the spam filter will let this thru.

Marion, I second that we should have thoughtful comments. You and I might have a difference of opinion on what "thoughtful" means, as you seemed to think that an article about Obama was a good place to make a comment saying that "real Americans" don't like Martin Luther King Day, they like deer hunting instead. And since the only thing MLK and Obama have in common is they are black, I saw your comment as racist, rather than thoughtful.

Floouder, please show any quote that shows I said anything at all about "real Americans". I said our state had their paid day off on opening day of deer season, not on MLK Day. As far as I can see having a day off with pay does nothing to honor anyone. Working to build our country as an honor seems to me to be fine, how many of those playing on his day do you suppose even gave him a thought instead of their 3 day weekend?
Interestingly enough Gov. Mechum of AZ tried to dedicate a Sunday to honor Rev King, which seems appropriate and of course he would have been honored in churches everywhere, but the politically correct would have none of that, they had to have an extra day off to play, and get paid. How did that honor him?

The lastest tracking shows the momentum swinging to Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Look at the polls that track from 04/28 to now.

Also at RCP is a column by Charles Krauthammer updating his previous column. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_race_speech_revisited.html

He writes:

>>>>>>
Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union. A New York Times columnist said it "should be required reading in classrooms across the country." College seniors and first-graders, suggested the excitable Chris Matthews.

Apparently there's been a curriculum change. On Tuesday, the good senator begged to extend and revise his previous remarks on race. Moral equivalence between Grandma and Wright is now, as the Nixon administration used to say, inoperative...

Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting" (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

On what grounds? This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a "new politics," rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It's hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be "contextualized" as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

Turns out the Wright show was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<