Barack Obama before 80,000 people in a Denver stadium tonight delivered a high impact speech which traveled across time zones to audiences around the world. It is no secret that this election is one which has awakened interest in politics deep in America as well as provoked interest around the world. There is no doubt his oratory skills, his message of change, his connection to the Kennedy presidency and legacy and other factors which have reflected Barack Obama’s presidency has catapulted this junior Senator to the world stage.
The BU household wishes Barack Obama best wishes and God speed in his quest for President of the United States – WIN, LOSE OR DRAW.
84 responses so far ↓
lilburtonboy7489 // August 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Yea, if I voted based on emotions I would have to support him. However, after I thought about what he was saying, I realized just how bad he really is.
He’s very open about his collectivist idealism.
Eddie // August 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM
It seems that Obama can do nothing right.
Whatever he does or doesn’t do, he’s criticized.
No candidate in modern history has had to fight like this man to ascend the high office.
He has been maligned, misrepresented, lied on, ridiculed. I suspect it is because of a fear of the unknown (by his detractors)- and outright jealousy.
The man is credible and makes sense when he speaks. Quite unlike some, who can’t even remember how many houses they own!
The scout // August 28, 2008 at 11:43 PM
This was a speech in the calibre of the ” I had a dream” speech. What would McCain come with now is eagerly expected. The only reason Barrack Obama can lose this elections is because he is BLACK. If this happens, it shows that America is not the true democratic country they pretend to be and the age old race problem is still very strong. To me McCain is not a liar, he is just too old and is losing his memory, plus he is the follower of a fail George W. Bush administration. America, the eyes of the world are on you, would you sell your soul to the bad republican policies of no hope for your future or that of your offspring or would you show your maturity and vote for a bright future reguardless of the colour of the man’s skin
Anonymous // August 28, 2008 at 11:48 PM
I am crying, literally crying, and I cannot stop, because not only does he look like one of my handsome Guyanese cousins, he reimds me so much of the last leader of Guyana Dr. Jagan. I am crying becuse God gave us great eloquent and elegant man to lead the great nation of America to greater heights. I was so frighten that China would pass America and I was thinking that my son, and my nieces would have to go all the way to China to catch their hands, but not any more. Eyesus Minale, Geta Eyesus ale. Blessings to all, and may God Keep our precious Brother Barack OBama, the next President of the USA and Michelle and the girls in his tender mercies.
Eddie // August 28, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Scout,
Don’t think McCain’s memory failed on the houses matter, I believe the man is so loaded with money, that he genuinely didn’t remember at the spur of the moment when attempting to answer the question by the reporter.
On the other matter of Obama’s ability to win while being black. I believe this is something that most people have not paid close attention.
With all the adulation for Obama; his ability to mesmerize crowds; the weak state of the USA ecomomy, should Obama loose, I doubt either of the 2 parties will ever run a minority candidate for president in our life time. It would be seen as certain failue.
In addition, should he loose, I believe it would be a serious setback for Blacks in the United States.
David // August 28, 2008 at 11:58 PM
@Eddie
Let us not forget that Obama got the jump start in the election he needed when White people from Iowa shocked America by voting for Obama in the Caucus.
Jay // August 29, 2008 at 12:11 AM
@ Anonymous don’t get so upbeat about the US economy just as yet it is well known that Chinese WILL have the largest economy by mid-2020 + if there current growth rates continue.
In fact,in my city I see more people every year taking Chinese mandarin as a second language.
Eddie // August 29, 2008 at 1:07 AM
David,
Yes, I agree in part. White people from Iowa started the change process. But I don’t think it would be correct to say he got a jump start. That was a starter for him, but if there is anyone who could claim a jump start, it would have to be Hiliary Clinton. Things were rolling along so easily for her in early 2007 that she predicted that she would have the nomination “wraped up” by April of 2007 (I might not be totally correct in the month she predicted victory).
Obama has never had it easy. Even under relentless attacts from Mrs. Clinton (who was apparently not concerned with dividing and tearing up of the party) with his easy going nature, he tried not to retaliate.
Howver, without the White vote, he will not become president. The minority presence is not large enough.
I do hope that Americans look beyond colour and focus on their destiny.
David // August 29, 2008 at 1:22 AM
@Eddie
Let us clarify.
Clinton and Obama received practically the same number of votes. The difference was the votes received by Obama from the Caucuses. Iowa a White state started the ball rolling. It was an ice breaker in our opinion.
Barack Obama Throws Down The Gauntlet In Denver // August 29, 2008 at 1:25 AM
[...] attendingtheworld wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Barack Obama before 80,000 people in a Denver stadium tonight delivered a high impact speech which traveled across time zones to audiences around the world. It is no secret that this election is one which has awakened interest in politics deep in America as well as provoked interest around the world. There is no doubt his oratory skills, his message of change, his connection to the Kennedy presidency and legacy and other factors which have reflected Barack Obama’s presidency has catapulted this junior Senator to the world stage. The BU household wishes Barack Obama best wishes and God speed in his quest for President of the United States – WIN, LOSE OR DRAW. [...]
Eddie // August 29, 2008 at 1:48 AM
David,
Yes, I agree.
I differ with the “head start” as Mrs. Clinton had the first push.
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 5:18 AM
When I match McCain against Obama, it is like a race horse (obama) against a donkey (mcCain). McCain’s speeches are hobot- type and he has a grin that irritates me. His policies are antique and too much Bush in his thinking. Then he forgets, on so many occasions he either don’t know simple things or says something different to what he said a little while before and worse of all argues that he didn’t say it even when it is on tape. America needs another John F. Kennedy person ans they have it in the next President Barrack Obama.
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 5:20 AM
Having said all that, had the Republican run a serious, more worthy candidate, Obama because of his colour would lose miserably.
Global Voices Online » Barbados: Obama’s Speech // August 29, 2008 at 6:32 AM
[...] Barbados Underground says that Barack Obama “delivered a high impact speech” at the Democratic National Convention, while Bajan Global Report refers to a story that claims Barbados' Prime Minister “is…the only high ranking Caribbean official invited to witness the historic first embrace of an African-American as Presidential candidate for a leading political party.” Posted by Janine Mendes-Franco Print Version Share This [...]
Green Monkey // August 29, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Good luck Obama, ’cause you’re gonna need it, and so will the rest of us. How many of you up for a new cold war that could turn hot at any minute? (Unlike Saddam’s ramshackle regime, Russia really does have WMDs and knows how to use them.)
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 8:03 AM
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 5:18 am
When I match McCain against Obama, it is like a race horse (obama) against a donkey (mcCain). McCain’s speeches are hobot- type and he has a grin that irritates me. His policies are antique and too much Bush in his thinking. Then he forgets, on so many occasions he either don’t know simple things or says something different to what he said a little while before and worse of all argues that he didn’t say it even when it is on tape. America needs another John F. Kennedy person ans they have it in the next President Barrack Obama.
=================================
Are you serious? Give me your email address i will send you some links to Youtube video of many Obam speech gaffes. Gaffes i might add that makes him very similar to George Bush. Did you not listen to the two men fielding questions from some Pastor at a church called “saddleback”? The man cannot speak without a teleprompter, so much so that he spent his vacation trying to wean himself off them. Surely your Donkey and race horse comparison is about age difference, and that’s alright with me. I have a vote and being a practical person, I know that a donkey will give much more work energy than his weight in food than a race horse could. A race horse is for show on a few weekends in the summer , a donkey works for it’s master for it’s entire life time. Now speaking eloquently is not a requirement for me to like a politician, but it is something that many of todays entertainment driven voters look too, and Obama does not match this requirement.
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
In the primaries, white Iowans voted for Barack in spite of him being black, in North Carolina African Americans voted for Barack BECUASE HE IS BLACK. Yet if Barack loses this presidential elections some want us to believe it will be as a result of racist white America.
….But why is it ok for 90% of African Americans to vote for Barack simply becuase he is dark skinned, and at the same time it is wrong for some whites to not vote for him for the same reason?
…..On the democratic side there are Whites who will vote for him because he is the Democratic nominee, because he is a liberal, becuase he doesn’t truly represent their stereotypes of the African American, becuase they feel that his selection will for once defeat the rhetoric of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton , and Farahkan.
On the Republican side: Whites will not vote for him because he is not republican, because he is a liberal, becuase they believe he represents big government, becuase they don’t really know what he stands for, because he has little experience.
I have no interest in helping him make history, I have no interest in his socialist liberal views, and i can distinctly tell the difference between the political rhetoric of elections, and the real politics to be expected after elections.
…..At any rate both candidates do not impress me. I was never a Hillary fan and was force to listen to her because these two clearly did not cut it, and Hillary impress me with her grasp of what average Americans are experiencing, she would have gotten my vote hands down, and that would have been a changed position.
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 8:23 AM
In spite of what the race baters here and there will continue to believe and would want me to buy into, here are some facts to consider.
=========================
DAVID PAUL KUHN
Obama’s problem with white, male voters
By David Paul Kuhn | August 13, 2008
THE MOST remarkable fact of the 2008 presidential election is that it remains a close race. Democrats have not known such favorable political terrain since 1932, yet what should be a blowout is looking like a blanket finish.
The fundamental reason is white men. Like Al Gore in the summer of 2000, Barack Obama is roughly splitting white women. But only 34 to 37 percent of white men support Obama, according to the Gallup Poll’s latest weekly index of 6,000 voters.
In fairness to Obama, he inherited the problem. Not since 1976, when Democrats last achieved a majority, has a Democrat won more than 38 of every 100 white, male voters. That Obama is nearly at par with Democrats’ poor performance is hardly good.
Obama remains narrowly ahead because of black, Hispanic, and youth support. Those strengths may prove brittle. Large black populations are mostly in states Obama will surely win, across the Northeast, and states he will surely lose, the Deep South. Hispanics are a nonfactor in Heartland swing states like Ohio. Young voters are notoriously unreliable.
On Election Day, high youth and black turnout will matter in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Nevada. But as Hillary Clinton demonstrated, Obama’s strengths may not matter enough.
Obama’s one clear gain with white men, over Gore and John Kerry, is with those under age 30. But those gains are undercut by a poor showing with older white men, according to Pew Research Center summer polling. The same effect, though more mild, is also true for white women.
Pundits will be tempted to blame racism. Yet Colin Powell would have won white men and likely defeated Bill Clinton in 1996. Liberals have long placed white guys atop their ticket. Look where that got them. Democrats have won three of the past 10 presidential elections.
Many Democrats explain their failures in a respect that reaffirms their self image; the good fight for black equality caused a racially motivated “Southern flip.” In the Deep South, that was true. But nationally, political white flight occurred in the South and the North. It also reached its crescendo with Ronald Reagan’s election – not during the peak of civil rights debates.
This impulse to cite the color of the issue as the issue was recently applied to Obama’s Appalachia difficulty. Race did matter, and will matter. But if Obama were white, would we have expected him to win rural voters? Like Gary Hart or Paul Tsongas, Obama was not Appalachia’s kind of Democrat.
That weakness is neither inalterable nor politically fatal. His unique personal attributes may, amid the near implosion of the Republican Party, galvanize enough minorities and young voters to squeeze out a win. But a majority coalition, that does not make.
In search of that coalition liberal analysts tend to subscribe to the “Emerging Democratic Majority,” a plan to wait out demographic shifts – more Hispanics, more young voters, more educated whites. In short: “Why should I change, let America.” That strategy failed George McGovern. Give it a couple more decades. The portion of white, male voters remains about five times the size of all Hispanic voters. And a college education has not led more white men to vote Democratic.
Latinos are increasingly vital to Democratic ambitions in Florida and key western states. Yet electoral math ultimately concerns the sum. Minority groups can more easily tip vital states for Obama if aided by gains with far larger blocs of the electorate, none more than white men.
In the end new majorities do not merely “emerge,” even for Richard Nixon. It takes proactive efforts. For Democrats, the potential reward is massive.
White men make up the largest portion of independents. More than one in three voters who will choose the next president remains white and male. And McCain’s support is soft with these men, compared to George W. Bush’s bids.
Yet for too long, some progressives have viewed seeking these men as antithetical to liberalism. Rebutting that intellectual vice would truly change Democratic politics. It would also expand the electoral map. Therefore, whether he knows it or not, Obama has tied the audacity of his promise to the white men his party has lost.
David Paul Kuhn, a senior political writer with Politico.com, is author of “The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.”
© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Obama represents a leap of faith for many voters white and black, and his campaign rhetoric of “change” is lost as a result of the office he is seeking. A presidential term is too short lived for any real change to be accomplish and the American people know this. The President must face a referendum election every four years and if successfull will be termed” in 8 years. How could Barack make the pleged to bring energy independence to America in TEN YEARS?, and he is not alone. The Presidentcy of the United States core reponsibility is to protect this country from all enemies foriegn and domestic, and Barack via his international rhetoric falls very short of this singular goal. All the other economic goals and policy he talks about rest with the congress. A congress that is currently control by the demoncrats, and that has a 9% approval rating, much lower than that of GW. Barack’s change is cosmetic.
Green Monkey // August 29, 2008 at 9:38 AM
And, more importantly, if there aren’t enough real enemies around, to go ahead and create some – can’t have a fall off in sales for the corporate behemoths (and political contributors) sucking at the limitless, taxpayer funded, military industrial complex teat, can we? After all if it weren’t for manufacturing bombs, tanks, submarines, jet fighters, aircraft carriers etc. the manufacturing industry left in the USA (after most of it was shipped to Mexico and Asia) would now be so minuscule as to be completely unnoticeable.
Sapidillo // August 29, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I was touched when I read in the Nation that Prime Minister David Thompson was invited and attended Obama’s Nomination Acceptance Event.
At least Barbados was not lost or forgotten. :D
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Barack Obama: Leap of Faith
August 28, 2008; Page A13
“Every four years the Democrats send us another Governor we have to get to know.”
So said The Wall Street Journal editorial page in 1992 as the electorate began its discovery of Arkansas’s then-obscure governor, Bill Clinton. In 1988 it was Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, and before that Georgia’s Jimmy Carter. “The real question,” the Journal’s editorialist wondered, “is why the party that dominates Congress has to keep putting up unknowns to contest the world’s most powerful political office.” Once again, the author mused, the system must “come to grips at the presidential level with more Democratic mystery.”
Now comes the most mysterious Democratic presidential candidate in the memory of any living voter — Barack Obama. After a 19-month run for the presidency, we still don’t know him.
Jimmy Carter, the previous holder of the most mysterious candidate title, served four years as a reform governor in Georgia. Bill Clinton, though little known beyond Arkansas, was a governor for 12 years.
The U.S. presidency is a political office, and nearly all nominees for it had a record in politics to offer a basis for shaping a view of how they might conduct the nation’s highest office.
By this most traditional of measures, the Obama candidacy is a leap of faith.
A New York Times article on his years at Harvard Law, where he was editor of the law review, said, “In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.” A similar piece on his years teaching at the University of Chicago Law School said he notably did not participate in its intellectual debates.
Barack Obama raises the prospect of a candidate for the first time being elected into the presidency almost wholly on the basis of a compelling persona. It is no surprise this could happen in an age tugged by the siren song of celebrity.
The 2008 election is almost certainly going to be decided by white, lower-middle-class voters — the people who voted for Hillary Clinton this year and before that for Ronald Reagan. If these voters don’t swing behind the Obama candidacy in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Missouri, he will lose.
Yet amid a universally described lack of clarity about Sen. Obama’s experience and core political beliefs, it is now being said that if the people in blue-collar counties don’t vote for him, they, and their nation, remain racist.
This is false. If they don’t vote for Barack Obama, it won’t be over his personal roots, but because they’re confused about the roots of his politics.
The assertion that workaday white people in Ohio’s Mahoning Valley, Altoona, Pa., or Macomb County, Mich., won’t vote for a black man reveals more about the race-based obsessions of the intellectual elites making these claims than the reality of this campaign.
Bear in mind that these voters didn’t become an explicit concern of the Obama campaign until after Super Tuesday. Before the primaries arrived in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama’s biggest wins were Iowa, South Carolina, Minnesota, Kansas, home-state Illinois, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. Amid the Obama jubilation, Hillary was winning California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York.
Sen. Obama accumulated his victorious lead early with a liberal coalition willing to vote for him mainly for reasons of faith – upper-middle-class whites, black voters and young idealists — all attempting to complete the civil-rights promise, answer the post-partisan appeal, or vote against the war and George Bush.
Hillary’s wins in the big states above were portents. His coalition’s limitations hit the wall in Ohio. Here Sen. Clinton discovered her Rosie-the-Riveter persona, and it worked. I watched her sell bread-and-butter policy before blue-collar crowds in Youngstown, Akron and Cleveland. She was tremendously good at it. He just wasn’t. The Sunday before the Ohio vote, Sen. Obama abandoned Ohio. The way Hillary won in these crucial November swing states may have fatally damaged his candidacy.
Does a candidate for the U.S. presidency have to be able to connect somehow with white working-class voters who didn’t attend college to win? The answer, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is no longer about race. It’s about the most fundamental question a plain-thinking voter asks: Does this guy get me?
Sen. Obama’s biography is as compelling as his supporters claim. His problem is that there is nothing in it to suggest he has spent any significant time thinking about these people other than as a political abstraction. It’s made more difficult by the fact that it is so hard for them to get a sure grip on him. When a politician leaves no political trail, some voters get lost. For Sen. Obama, after this long campaign, too many still look lost.
Write to henninger@wsj.com
See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Sapidillo // August 29, 2008 at 9:54 am
I was touched when I read in the Nation that Prime Minister David Thompson was invited and attended Obama’s Nomination Acceptance Event.
At least Barbados was not lost or forgotten. :D
==============================
Nothing much there, hanging out with James Clyburn, a member of the do little US congress which the American people cannot stand as is evident by their very poor approval rating of 9% isn’t something to be “touched” by. If Scouts ambivalence about the current GoB is to be believe it could be termed as birds of that same feather with regards to how there are viewed by their fellow citizens.
Of course we know that Scout is partisan. :)
Khaidji // August 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM
With Profound Gratitude And…
“With profound gratitude and great humility
I accept your nomination for Presidency”
These words started his speech last night
His humble acceptance to take on the fight
Put an end to the degradation of the Economy
Return America to the its pride and stability
Obama is patriotic and if his words be true
For change to happen “this election is about you”
Oratory great and his passion is pure
United States can’t live like the eight years before
No way, no how, not again, not McCain
Democrats wouldn’t allow this economical pain
Gas prices crippling and healthcare too high
Republicans seem clueless about the measures to try
Afghanistan is the hub for terrorist’s activities
Then why are the troops still fighting the Iraqis
It’s our moment in time, there is no turning back
There’s too much to do but first we must elect Barack
Undo the wrongs that the old regime has done
Disengage the troops from a battle that can’t be won
Educate all our kids, there’re our futures for this country
And shift our dependence on oil as our energy
Not with, he said, so much work left to be done
Do we turn back, America, our fight has just begun
Get a copy of over 75 Acrostic Poems on Barack Obama
In the book “Path To The White House”
By Khaidji
David // August 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Is McCain being a risk taker by picking this hot chick from Alaska?
Remember the young ex-beauty queen will be a heartbeat away from the White House. The man is 70 plus!
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 11:38 AM
David // August 29, 2008 at 11:28 am
Is McCain being a risk taker by picking this hot chick from Alaska?
Remember the young ex-beauty queen will be a heartbeat away from the White House. The man is 70 plus!
=================================
Wow McCain truly living up to the lable of a Maverick. He is seen as a Moderate by core conservatives and republicans, so he needed someone with those credentials. Could he have in addition to reflecting his base with this choice also attempted to capture the votes of Hillary supporters? Sarah Palin is a female but a republican conservative who is picked to run in the second fiddle position. I don’t think this choice does anything to capture Hillary supporters.
Sarah Palin is as “qualified” as Obama to be President, but she is at the botton of the republican ticket. Normaly not a big issue but John McCain’s age makes this a real concern.
David // August 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Agreed Adrian does anyone know what recommended her for the job that was so compelling?
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM
It’s obvious McCain is catching at a feather. Imagine, the pressure of the white house cause him to cut out within the first 6 mths in office , then this little girl with absolutely no experience and with a few dark clouds above her head becomes the new U S president. America would become the laughing stock of the world.
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM
McCain is just trying to get Clinton’s female votes at any cost. He appears to be a drowning man. McCain don’t know the difference between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis and this girl may find it difficult to name the states in america.
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 11:59 AM
David // August 29, 2008 at 11:44 am
Agreed Adrian does anyone know what recommended her for the job that was so compelling?
=================================
I guess we will have to tune into the republican convention to get a glimpse of the rationale for picking her.
My own sense at this point is , ….although Al Gore walked away from politics much to the surprise of everyone, I don’t think that the Clintons are done, and as such Hillary could still have her eyes set on 2012. I think it is possible for some behind the scenes monouvering between republican operatives and the Hillary camp to allow a McCain win which will allow a Hillary return in 2012, where she will wipe the floor with McCain making core republicans happy.
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 12:11 PM
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 11:49 am
Imagine, the pressure of the white house cause him to cut out within the first 6 mths in office ,
============
Imagine that it turns out that Obama birth situation is such that it does not meet the letter of the law regarding being born in the US?
———————————
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 11:49 am
McCain don’t know the difference between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis and this girl may find it difficult to name the states in america.
ha ha ha well Obama said he had traveled to all 57 states. So while we wait for mess up their names we already know that Obama cannot count. :)
nonsense really!
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 12:49 PM
This woman is damn good. A definite plus to the ticket so far. WOW!
The scout // August 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Adrian
I’m thinking the same thing. I don’t trust that woman no furture than I can throw an elephant. She intend to become President.
Sargeant // August 29, 2008 at 4:17 PM
• In one of the posts above is the following:
• Pundits will be tempted to blame racism. Yet Colin Powell would have won white men and likely defeated Bill Clinton in 1996. Liberals have long placed white guys atop their ticket. Look where that got them. Democrats have won three of the past 10 presidential elections.
I like how Colin Powell is always the poster boy for right wing pundits when the issue of race is brought up in US elections, can Condoleeza be far behind? Colin Powell did not run for any office so it is asinine to assume that he would have won any election. In any case Bill Clinton would have whipped him like he beat Dole It would have been preferable for Powell to have run in the 2000 election but why didn’t he? Only he knows but is race an issue? You bet it is, ask John McCain what his fellow Republicans led by George Bush did to him in the North Carolina primaries in 2000. McCain and his wife adopted a young girl from Bangladesh and Karl Rove aka Bush’s brain and his election team started a rumour that the young girl was McCain’s illegitimate black child knowing how this would be received by the North Carolina republicans, guess who won the primary. Why did George Bush make a speech at Bob Jones University during that same primary? Bob Jones University among other things was known as a school which banned interracial dating, what demographic was Bush appealing to? One of Rove’s lieutenants recently assumed control of McCain’s election efforts.
As to the charge that blacks voted for Obama because he is black, when they voted for whites what was the reason? There is enormous pride among the majority of black people at Obama’s electoral success so far, but black people have voted for overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates over the past 50 years, prior to the Iowa caucuses Clinton was the favourite among the black electorate, after Iowa when blacks saw some whites were willing to vote for Obama they shifted their allegiance en masse.
Another article from the Wall Street Journal refers to “Unknown Governors” and lumps Obama in with Dukakis, Carter, Clinton etc. among others, so I will assume that he infers that George W Bush was a known quantity as a Governor. I am not surprised as the WSJ is not known as a publication that is friendly to Democrats. How does a black politician become known in the USA? He can be like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and be a civil rights activist in which case a significant portion of the larger white population and those same pundits will hate his guts or he can do it via statewide office through the Governors’ office or the Senate. Guess how many blacks hold these offices in the USA? Apart from Obama, there is Gov. Patrick of Massachusetts, and Gov. Patterson of New York: Patterson became Governor by default after Spitzer was caught playing hide the salami with a hooker. How long should Obama serve in the Senate before he is “known”? I just saw a poll where only 37% of respondents knew who Joe Biden is and he was in the Senate for 36 years. Perhaps Sarah Palin is a known quantity to these same pundits since she ia a Republican and will be a heart beat away from the Presidency is McCain is elected.
Going back to the issue of race “Google” Willie Horton and see what GHW Bush did to Dukakis in the 1988 election.
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM
The article author suggested that Powell would have beaten Clinton in 1996. You attempted to counter by stating that it is “asinine” to say such since Powell never ran for office, yet in the same paragraph you suggested the very opposite to what the article asserted “Clinton would have whipped him like he did Dole”. What informs your contrary position?
Now i am not now or have ever been a fan of polls or polling, but there is a basis for the author’s ascertion base on Gallup polls taken in 1995 excerpts of which states:
” In a three way race that either Ross Perot or Colin Powell can compete”.
“In a hypothetical three-way race with Clinton, Dole, and Perot, one in five (20%) would support Perot—about the same level of support that he actually recieved in the 1992 election (19%). General Powel would be an even stronger candidate, receiving 28% of the vote in a three way race, with Dole getting 29% and Clinton 33%
…I am never one to say that race is not an issue in some places, but if Obama looses this election it will not be the result of race. West Verginia is not America, West Verginia is in America, and will be one of 52 state elections held on November 4th. The person who wins the most gets to become President. Republicans traditionally do not campaign in Massachusetts because they have never been able win in this most liberal state yet it does not affect their chances of capturing the white house. Obama has gotten this far with the help of record numbers of white people all across this country, but will likely lose because he is a liberal and a democrat.
I am not going to deal with your attempt to dismiss the open fact that 95 to 98 % of African Americans are supporting Barack for nothing more than the colour of skin, the fact that he cannot claim to be African American or to have endure the Black experience as most AA would tell you seems not to matter at this stage. No matter how you frame it as pride etc. African Americans are voting for Barack for nothing more than that his skin colour looks just like theirs.
David // August 29, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Adrian have you factored that Obama because of his great oratory skills and otherwise enigmatic personage may be able give lie to all historical performances of the past?
Banned Again From BFP // August 29, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Eddie
“Should Obama loose, I doubt either of the 2 parties will ever run a minority candidate for president in our life time.”
Oh know, my first choice for a Black president was Jesse Jackson Jr. He will be due in about eight years. But I am afraid Eddie you are bang on.
The problem is if he does succeed, many including those involved in the “Industrial and Military complex” will ensure his ultimate and shameful demise (very much like the current British PM, who had made the same basic promises)
Adrian
It is interesting that the Dems have not appealed to more White male voters such a long time. That may probably explain why Obama came across as belligerent as he did when he spoke about the Georgian situation and his overall foreign policy plan.
David
I asked the US journalist expert who gave a speech in Barbados two weeks ago (compliments the US Embassy) about selecting a woman as a running mate and he said that there were a few on either side but they would each have to get past about six males each. He mentioned this lady and he said that her strength was that she had administrative experience, something that apparently McCain, being just a Senator lacks.
Eddie // August 29, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Banned again from BFP,
Thanks for your sentiments. This election will have an effect on Blacks, one way or another.
Sargeant,
Your comments above have brought some sensible and honest balance to the topic.
Colin Powell is definately the poster boy for the Right Wingers. Where is the proof that he could have won any election? Colin Powell’s hurried exit from politics was reeked with bitterness against his former boss, Bush 2.
Let’s not bury our heads in the sand. THIS ELECTION IS SOELY ABOUT RACE!
The detractors say: “Americans are yet to know about Barrack Obama”. I say: “They don’t want to know”. His whole life story; his political agenda; his values, are spun tirelessly like a stuck record. If the whole world knows him, how is it that “blue collar White Americans “dont?
This is obviously a red herrring some are using to justify their dislike of the candidate.
The other “problem” Obama has is his experience. And that to elect him would be “a leap of faith”
Is the man going to run America by himself?He has been in the Senate for close to a decade.
How is it that McCain can go for a VP with no claim to experience.
Some may not want to accept it, but RACE is the underlying problem.
Eddie // August 29, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Another thing.
McCain has been into Politics for many years, but how much do Americans really know about this man? That he served and was imprisoned in Vietnam?
What about the 7 or 8 houses?
What is the corelation of being a soldier and running for President of the USA? If there is a connection, ALL SOLDIERS ARE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT.
Eddie // August 29, 2008 at 11:19 PM
One can sense that the Republican Party is in a bind. They don’t know what to do.
They critcize Obama on experience, yet they choose a novice for a VP candidate (presumably to capture Hilary’s female voters). Now this is wisdom at its highest.
This act of madness is politics of desparation.(No wonder they stood so long to name a candidate) . Should McCain have to demit office – A Rookie becomes the next president.
Sargeant // August 29, 2008 at 11:28 PM
@Adrian H
I provided an example where race played an important role in a previous election in North Carolina and you didn’t respond but countered by referring to West Virginia as not representative of America. Well how about Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama etc., Why did your hero Hillary Clinton refer to the support of “ hard working Americans-white Americans” during the primaries. I am not saying that white people will not vote for Obama but some will elect not to vote for him solely because of the colour of his skin. How else can you account for the polls showing a close Presidential election in the face of a recession, a home and mortgage crisis and an unpopular war, when the Democrats are poised to win 60 seats in the Senate and consolidate their majority in the House their Presidential nominee is stalled in the polls? The pundits can’t understand this but few mention the elephant in the room, to bolster their suspicions the pollsters are now asking some white voters if any of their friends are not voting for Obama because he is black and a large majority of them have responded in the affirmative.
If Obama is ahead by 5 points on Nov.4, he will lose the election a la the Bradley effect. (Tom Bradley the black mayor of LA lost the California gubernatorial race to a white opponent after being consistently in the lead in polls prior to the election because white voters lied to the pollsters as to their voting intentions).
Banned Again From BFP // August 30, 2008 at 12:40 AM
White Americans. And there you have it folks…!
Mike Phelps I know yah ain’ mek ya’self, cuddear, but is there any wonder why the world took to Usain before you?
David // August 30, 2008 at 12:47 AM
A couple of things, on the Colin Powell comment the BU household lost a lot of respect for Powell when he was disrespected with impunity while serving in the Bush cabinet as Secretary of State.
The crux of this election comes down to race. Have we not been hearing the Republicans attacking Obama on the issue of experience. Now we have the republicans lining up to defend a woman who by her admission is a young woman who is juggling to manage a family and her legislature. We have nothing against the woman but we need to be fair?
The selection of the Republican VP is to counter the the advantage which Obama had i.e. a Black man running for President. Now we have a woman and the shattering the glass ceiling approach, courting Hillary’s vote and countering the perception in some corners of McClain the 72 year old man.
Adrian Hinds // August 30, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Sargeant // August 29, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Why did your hero Hillary Clinton refer to the support of “ hard working Americans-white Americans” during the primaries.
———————————-
….Because traditionally this has been a hard group for Democrat presidential nominees to win over, and Hillary had poll better than John McCain and Barack with this group. This group has never seen John McCain as a conservative republican.
Sargeant // August 29, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I am not saying that white people will not vote for Obama but some will elect not to vote for him solely because of the colour of his skin.
————————-
Are you saying the percentage of those who will use race to deny Obama their vote is a much larger national consituentcy than those who have voted for him already?
Sargeant // August 29, 2008 at 11:28 pm
How else can you account for the polls showing a close Presidential election in the face of a recession, a home and mortgage crisis and an unpopular war, when the Democrats are poised to win 60 seats in the Senate and consolidate their majority in the House their Presidential nominee is stalled in the polls?
———————————-
D0n’t confuse Presidential choice with Senate and Congressional candidates. Massachusetts has never been a republican strong hold yet the republicans had held the Governorship for almost 20 years, While the democrats have always dominated the local legislature for as long as i can remember, and they continue to buck the wishes of the electorate on many issues yet they vote them in every time. There is a saying that goes “The only way a congressman would lose his seat is if he is caught in bed with a goat”. Ted Kennedy enjoys great support from stuanch republicans in Massachusetts. In addition to all of this, Americans like to devide up the white house and the congress between the two parties. There is no surprise there. I maintain that Obama will lose because he is too liberal, and until I see a dark skin candidate that can boast of an American experience that has conservative values, I will not join in this bandwagon that race is keeping him out of the white house.
….Whatever the reason is that Colin Powell did not ever seek to run on a republican ticket, his polling numbers amongst the group that has been troubling for the democrats and to Obama (white workingclass males) shows that he would have been a viable candidate.
Adrian Hinds // August 30, 2008 at 1:35 AM
There is no crux to this. This is a complex issue as any issue dealing with the mindset, of 300 million diverse people would be.
…..The choice of Sarah Palin does not effect the emotional argument that Obama is inexperience.
1: He is at the top of the Democrats ticket she is not
2: Governors have traditionally made better presidential candidates as a result of their executive experience. It is an argument that voters have bought into in the past. Sarah Palin executive experience as a Mayor and then Governor albeit short, demonstrate some successes.
(BTW the lack of experience argument is one that I accept or buy into, for the constitution clearly states the requirements and experience is not one of them)
Adrian Hinds // August 30, 2008 at 1:37 AM
(BTW the lack of experience argument is NOT one that I accept or buy into, for the constitution clearly states the requirements and experience is not one of them)
Green Monkey // August 30, 2008 at 7:02 AM
From early on in his career, Powell established his reputation as someone who would act as a useful (and amoral) tool for his bosses when it was deemed necessary .
Adrian Hinds // August 30, 2008 at 7:17 AM
A Shooting Liberal Star:
Now comes the most audacious change agent of them all, a 47-year-old first term Senator not yet four years removed from the Illinois state legislature. His political and oratorical gifts are formidable, as he showed during the primaries and last night. His campaign skills — in fund-raising, and staff organization — deserve more than a nod for defeating the Clinton juggernaut in the primaries.
We also count ourselves among those millions of Americans, of all races, who take pride in a man of African descent reaching these political heights. It is easy to be cynical about celebrating such an event in our age of diversity correctness. But America has suffered much pain over its racial divisions, and the nomination of a man of mixed racial heritage is undeniably a sign of our progress.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass would have viewed Mr. Obama’s success as vindication both of their struggles and their faith in America’s promise. And while we have no polls to prove it, our guess is that more than a few white Americans would welcome an Obama victory in November in part as a way to put the battles over racial grievance and preference further into the background of American public life.
Yet as the fall campaign is joined, Americans will want to know more concretely what kind of change Mr. Obama is proposing. So far his campaign, like his political persona, has been marked by contradiction. In his rhetoric, Mr. Obama is a centrist, stressing a theme of post-ideological, bipartisan political transformation. There is no “red” or “blue” in his “one America.” Yet look closely at his policy agenda and you see that he has by far the most liberal program of any Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972.
In his (two) autobiographies and convention presentation this week, he is a conciliator who brought unique skills to transcend old political disputes. But as journalists have unveiled his record, we have learned that he also advanced by more than innocence through Chicago politics, and that he dissembled about his 20 years in the pews of a black liberation church. He used the Reverend Jeremiah Wright when belonging to that church served his purposes as a state politician, but he denied his pastor when that association might have hurt his national campaign. This speaks not merely to his past but to his present political character.
A similar disconnect applies to his agenda, which is nothing if not ambitious. Most conspicuously, he is proposing a steeper tax increase than any recent candidate, yet he is selling it as a net tax cut. He justifies this by asserting that his eight “refundable” tax credit proposals for people who pay no income tax are “tax cuts.” But such tax credits are really a government cash transfer from one taxpayer to a nontaxpayer. Mr. Obama is disguising the kind of pure income distribution that Mr. McGovern failed to sell as a $1,000 “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s packaging is post-ideological but his package is from the Great Society.
In this and in other policy areas, Mr. Obama is different from Bill Clinton and the New Democrats of 1992 and 1996. Mr. Clinton made real concessions to conservative policy goals — welfare reform, a balanced budget — in the hope that this would give him the political running room to pursue other liberal goals. Mr. Obama’s concessions are nearly all rhetorical, a nod that Ronald Reagan had some good ideas or that the free market does some things well. But his policy instincts and political program always seem to turn left. He has shown he can tack right when he is politically forced to, as on wiretapping of al Qaeda abroad, but he has done so only after his liberal options have turned into dead ends.
This will also be a Commander in Chief election amid a war on terror, and Mr. Obama’s national security profile is especially indistinct. He has made much of his 2002 opposition to the Iraq war, though he took that stand from the political safety of the Illinois legislature. In his time as a Presidential candidate, the most consequential security debate concerned President Bush’s 2007 Iraq surge. Mr. Obama opposed it, and we now know the U.S. would have been defeated in Iraq without it. Voters will have to decide if they believe that his capacity to learn on the job will trump his instinct that negotiations can tame almost any enemy.
For activist Democrats of a certain age, their expectation and hope is that 2008 is their version of 1980, when Reagan ushered in the modern conservative era. But the Gipper had been a two-term Governor of California, had nearly won his party’s nomination four years earlier, and had a philosophy that he had broadcast for a generation on radio and TV. His challenge was persuading the country that his philosophy was the right one for that political moment — as it turned out to be.
* * *
The Obama Democrats seem to believe that the country is now ready to turn the page on the Reagan era, ushering in another “progressive” age of activist and expanding government. Perhaps the unpopular Bush Presidency has created that opening, especially among young people who have no memory of the 1970s, or even of 1993-94. In Mr. Obama, Democrats hope they have found a liberal with Reagan’s likability and communications skills. The Illinois Senator has even compared his own ambitions to Reagan’s as a potentially transformative President, angering Mr. Clinton in the process.
The coming campaign ought to be a test of whether the country really wants that kind of change. We have our doubts, and Mr. Obama may have doubts himself — which probably explains the audacity of his rhetorical, postpartisan disguise. We’ve been disappointed by shooting stars before.
See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Donald Duck, Esq // August 30, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I wonder who paid for PM Thompson’s trip to attend Obama’s presentation!!! Any idea!!!
Sargeant // August 30, 2008 at 8:53 AM
@Adrian H
You’ve posted an opinion piece critical of Obama…. To what point? To reinforce the view that Obama is a liberal? That he is not ready? That he was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church? That he doesn’t pass the Commander in Chief test?
Your conservative- ready from day one-going to the right church-Commander in Chief ready gave the USA the most despised and incompetent duo ever to govern at the highest level. One who is described as intellectually incurious and the other who knew too much. Now you want to tell us that the new duo of John (seven houses) McCain and Sarah Palin will be better for the USA than the Democrats. I noticed recently that McCain has responded to any criticism by bringing up Vietnam- Vietnam-Vietnam . You also said experience is not something that you “buy into” was that before or after Palin was chosen?. Choosing Palin is the bajan equivalent of appointing the individual who ran the local church group to be the deputy PM.
Man, stop listening to the Fox talking points and open your eyes.
Ah gone
Banned Again From BFP // August 30, 2008 at 8:55 AM
I sincerely hope Mr. Obama loses the election after what would appear to be a phenomenal showing in the lead up. Of course the excuse given will be that America is not yet ready for minority leadership, and the result is that the major parties will not risk having a non-white run for office again. Horay… oh goodie.
I hope not to be alive when a non-white leader of the world’s most powerful country believes that it is appropriate to behave and make decisions like a white man, while so many in the non-white world starve and have good reason to see him as an enemy. If such a person does come along, oh Lord please let him be a Chinee or an Indee but not a Black.
Sapidillo // August 30, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Adrian Hinds // August 29, 2008 at 10:50 am
Nothing much there, hanging out with James Clyburn, a member of the do little US congress which the American people cannot stand as is evident by their very poor approval rating of 9% isn’t something to be “touched” by. If Scouts ambivalence about the current GoB is to be believe it could be termed as birds of that same feather with regards to how there are viewed by their fellow citizens….
————————————————————
My comment was more about our little island of Barbados being thought enough of to receive an invitation. To me, it is the thought that counts. It was not about whom the Prime Minister was seen with at the event.
The scout // August 30, 2008 at 9:16 AM
McCain in his desperate grap for survival, has reached out to a V.P that is facing impeachment in her own State. Had this been Obama, the vultures would have been coming for him. Check his policies, superior to McCain’s. His only hinderance is his colour. Who can’t see this is just politically blinded.
Anonymous // August 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
The Republicans are simply going after the white female voter whom they believe supported Hilary and will not give Obama the time of day.
It maybe a gross miscalculation on their part since Hilary brought more to bear than being a female.
Beside the American voter has all of eight weeks to know Miss Palin.
All in all, it was a weak last minute attempt.
In the final analysis, people will vote for President not VP.
Anonymous // August 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Dont get me wrong. I’m a big Obama fan. Got the t-shirt and all. However, I was a bit disappointed with the Denver speech. Though he answered all the questions and seemed a bit more policy oriented, it lacked the emotional highs of Berlin.
IMHO, it was not his best moment.
J // August 30, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Did anyone see the picture of Mrs. Obama and the two girls on page 3 of yesterday’s Nation?
My question is if they showed up at the Garrison school on Tuesday September 2nd in dresses that short, would Matthew Farley let them in?
Hard driver // August 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM
What McCain’s VP choice shows us is what a gambler he is … Is having such a person in the Oval office a good thing!!??
Hard driver // August 30, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Banned again from BFP said:
I hope not to be alive when a non-white leader of the world’s most powerful country believes that it is appropriate to behave and make decisions like a white man, while so many in the non-white world starve and have good reason to see him as an enemy. If such a person does come along, oh Lord please let him be a Chinee or an Indee but not a Black.
************************************
The US gives more aid and development assistance to third world countries, especially Africa, then any other developed nation. The people that hate America, hate the fact that it stands up for de4mocracy, human rights and free speech … rights that we take for granted.
Of Course we all can agree that the Bush America is not the America we love … but I think the Obama America will be back on track..
Green Monkey // August 30, 2008 at 9:23 PM
JC // August 30, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Some colleagues and i were saying that we thought that the VPs were going to help the President of the USA a lot more than in previous elections. I liked how Obamas’s VP (although a good friend of McCain was able to drive home McCain’s faults.
I dont know I am so sceptical about this entire election. America in my opinion will always be RACIST!
I know I will get some lists ……….
JC // August 30, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Banned Again From BFP // August 30, 2008 at 8:55 am
I sincerely hope Mr. Obama loses the election after what would appear to be a phenomenal showing in the lead up. Of course the excuse given will be that America is not yet ready for minority leadership, and the result is that the major parties will not risk having a non-white run for office again. Horay… oh goodie.
I hope not to be alive when a non-white leader of the world’s most powerful country believes that it is appropriate to behave and make decisions like a white man, while so many in the non-white world starve and have good reason to see him as an enemy. If such a person does come along, oh Lord please let him be a Chinee or an Indee but not a Black.
——————————————————–
This comment made me go hmmmmmm, very good! I love to think ……..
The scout // August 30, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Let us say,this 72 yr old man dies in office , six months after having won the elctions. Can this novice really handle the position of president of america and she doesn’t even know or visited half the country or know anything beyond being in charge of just over 9000 people. This is a dark day for america and the world is laughing their heads off at the silly games being played.
Eddie // August 30, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Scout,
It is called the politics of serious desperation.
Much depends on how articulate she is, and the responses of Biden and Hilary Clinton.
I now believe that Obama should clinch it.
Adrian Hinds // August 31, 2008 at 12:54 AM
@Sargeant
If i am to be classified, I see myself as a constitutional libertarian, I abhor “statism”, collectivism and or socialism. The Democrats for the most part are socialist who believe in Big government. A candidate like Barack in spite of his color cannot ever get my support or vote. John McCain is not, nearly enough conservative for me but is the lesser of the two evils.
I have a pretty good understanding of American government, and have often said that to much emphasis is place on selecting the president as oppose to selecting members to the House, given that this is where the real power lies. I could never have hold to “experience” being a requirement for the presidency. To many of our Past Presidents did not have any or much. I never bought into the “experience” argument against Barack, and i never said anything because i don’t support him. This argument is as hallow as the one about being a trained Economist that was used and failed in the last Barbados election.
I don’t watch Fox news anymore, as i gave up cable.
Facts // August 31, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Adrian,
The two presidential candidates are miles apart on vision for the good of America.
Your comments smack of being a die-hard, perpetual Republican Supporter.
Green Monkey // August 31, 2008 at 11:06 AM
War With Russia Is On The Agenda
by Paul Craig Roberts
SNIP
The failure of the American media is again evident in the coverage of the Georgian-Russian conflict. The US media presented the conflict as a Russian invasion of Georgia, whereas in actual fact the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian military launched a sneak attack to kill and to drive the Russian population out of South Ossetia, a separatist province.
Russian peacekeepers, together with Georgian ones, had been stationed in South Ossetia since the early 1990s. On orders from Mikheil Saakashvili, the American puppet “president” of Georgia, the Georgian peacekeepers turned their weapons on the unsuspecting Russian peacekeepers and murdered them.
This action by Saakashvili, elected with money from the neoconservative National Endowment for Democracy, an election-rigging tool of US hegemony, was a war crime. In truth, the Russians should have hung Saakashvili, as he is far more guilty than was Saddam Hussein. But it is Russia, not Saakashvili, that the US media has demonized.
Americans have become perfect subjects for George Orwell’s Big Brother. They sit stupidly in front of the TV news or the New York Times or Washington Post and absorb the lies fed to them. What is wrong with Americans? Why do they put up with it? Are Americans the nation of sheep that Judge Andrew P. Napolitano says they are? Americans flaunt “freedom and democracy” and live under a Ministry of Propaganda. (my emphasis /GM)
Two decades ago, President Reagan reached agreement with Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev to end the dangerous cold war. But every one of Reagan’s successors has sought to pick a new fight with Russia. In violation of the agreement, NATO has been taken to Russia’s borders, and the US is determined to put former constituent parts of Russia herself into NATO. In an effort to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent and compromise her independence, the US is putting anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s borders.
The gratuitously aggressive US military policy toward Russia will lead to nuclear war. I am confident that if Americans elect John McCain, or the Republicans steal another presidential election, there will be nuclear war in the second decade of the 21st century. The neocon lies, propaganda, macho flag-waving, and use of US foreign policy in the interests of a few military-security firms, oil companies, and Israel are all leading in that direction.
SNIP
Americans no longer have a government that is for the people and by the people. They have a government for and by special interests and an insane ideology.
But Americans have war, which lets them take out all their frustrations, resentments, and disappointments on “Muslim terrorists” and “Russian aggressors.” Few Americans are disturbed that 1.25 million Iraqis and an unknown number of Afghans have died as a result of American invasions based on Bush regime lies and deceptions. Even Americans, like Senator Biden, Obama’s selection for vice president, who understand that the wars are based on lies, still want the US to win. So, it was all a mistake and a deception, but let’s win anyway and keep on killing.
SNIP
For many Americans, war is like a sports contest in which they take vicarious pleasure and cheer on their side to victory. Millions of Americans are still bitter that “the liberal media” and war protesters caused America to lose the Vietnam war, and they are determined that this won’t happen again. These Americans have no realization that there was no more reason for the US to be fighting in Vietnam 40 years ago than to be fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan or tomorrow in Iran.
Obama, if elected, is no guarantee against nuclear war. Obama has shown that he is as much under the Israel Lobby’s thumb as McCain. Obama’s foreign affairs advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is not a neocon, but he was born in Warsaw, Poland, and has the Pole’s animosity toward Russia. The Bush administration has already changed US war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack. With the US government determined to ring Russia with puppet states and military bases, war is inevitable.
Presidential appointees face confirmation in the Senate. Any of Obama’s appointees who might be out of step with plans for US and Israeli hegemony could expect opposition from large corporations and the Israel Lobby. There is no assurance that an Obama administration would not be positioned on “the issues” by the same special interests that have positioned the Bush administration.
Americans are filled with hubris, not with knowledge. They have no awareness of the calamity that their government’s pursuit of hegemony is bringing to themselves and to life on earth. (my emphasis /GM)
Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, a 16-year columnist for Business Week, and a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and Creator’s Syndicate in Los Angeles. He has held numerous university professorships, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by the President of France and the US Treasury’s Silver Medal for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of US economic policy.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9954
Adrian Hinds // August 31, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Facts // August 31, 2008 at 8:22 am
Adrian,
The two presidential candidates are miles apart on vision for the good of America.
Your comments smack of being a die-hard, perpetual Republican Supporter.
=================================
Indeed miles apart. Obama’s policy positions are leftist in nature, The American communist i.e Liberal academia will love him. McCain is not trusted by core republicans, and has always had a warm relationship with Democrats, don’t forget he was “vetted” by John Kerry just 4 years ago to be his VP pick on a democratic ticket, and if McCain had his way he would have picked Joe Lieberman to be his running mate. McCain and Hammie Lah have something in common,…a willingness to put principle over party loyalty or towing the party line. McCain is more likely to govern from the middle where most Americans are. There is the politics of elections and real politics after elections. A look at both men over the years, their associations, written and verbal comments give us the best practices of what to expect if elected. I like what i see from John McCain over the years. Will any of the Obamanites dear ask Barack to explain is relationship with known American terrorist Bill Ayers? Will he refute that his Presidential bid was launch from Bill Ayers house? will he deny that Bill Ayers to this day is unrepentant for his group’s terrorist acts?
@Facts: I am not a supporter nor a member of a political party anywhere on this earth. I have voted for Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Al Gore, George Bush, and would have voted for Mitt Rommey if he had won the Republican nomination no matter who the Democratic nominee would have been, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton before John McCain, and i am voting for John McCain now the dust is settle. I had never considered Obama. I just could not bring myself to vote for someone on the basis of their skin color, as it seems all dark skin people are suppose to demostrate their individuality by so doing. I just happen to practice a real and different kind of individualism :)
Green Monkey you usually put up some good articles but this one is in consistent from paragraph to paragraph, and it’s prophetic title isn’t supported by anything in the details. What has Mr. Roberts seen so far in rhetoric, foreign policy activity and or military troop movement to suggest such. I don’t support the US backing of the Georgian leader in this crisis, as it was clear that he could not be reasoned with and that he was unpredictable from day one, yet Russia history is one of invading and conquering, how can you seemly agree with the constant threats that Russia issues against Poland and other sovereign countries? How do you hedge against a repeat of Soviet style foreign policy by Russia under a leader who thinks the Soviet Union is still viable?
J // August 31, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Dear Green MOnkey
You quoted General Smedley Butler speaking in 1933. In 1933 Adolf Hitler had come to power in Germany. American tried to maintain a policy of neutrality and General Butler was speaking in this vain. However war began in Europe, Germany bombed Pearl Harbor and America could no longer remain neutral. After Hitler was finished with killing the Jews he planned to re-enslave black people – slavery in much of the Western Hemisphere had only been abolished less than 100 years previously. American did the right thing to enter the war. Neutraity in 1939-45 would have been wrong.
J // August 31, 2008 at 3:01 PM
War is sometimes necessary.
Green Monkey // September 1, 2008 at 1:52 AM
But lo0k who it was that was helping to finance Hitler and bringing him to power. The financial and business elites, not only in Germany, but in the US as well, and this includes Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George Bush. Once again, as Butler was trying to explain, it is the elites and big business that manipulate the system for their own benefit and when wars they help create do break out, they make sure they profit one way or another, i.e. “war is a racket.”
Sort of reminds one of how the likes of well connected business people at Halliburton, Blackwater etc. profited immensely from Bush/Cheney manipulating the public and creating their own wars today.
Here’s a Youtube video discussing the Bush/Nazi connections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnAUQeHykXY
See also the timeline (below) showing the connections between Prescott Bush and other US business interests and the Nazis.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html
Green Monkey // September 1, 2008 at 2:46 AM
The point is that Gorbachev and Reagan agreed that when the Berlin wall came down and the Cold War was declared over Russia would withdraw its troops from Eastern European countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia etc. back within its own borders, and in return NATO, which had been formed ostensibly to repel a Soviet lead invasion of Western Europe, would allow Russia some breathing space and not push itself onto Russia’s doorstep, so to speak, by expanding Eastwards into the fomer Soviet block countries. In other words a militarily neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia would exist that would offer the Russians some assurance that by pulling back their troops from the old Warsaw Pact countries they would not open themselves to invasion. Remember that Russia has also been invaded by Western European countries a few times over the years. This promise to Gorbachev was not honored by subsequent presidents who attempted to do exactly the opposite of what had been promised by encouraging the ex-Warsaw Pact countries, including Poland, to join NATO and thereby put NATO bases and missile batteries on Russia’s front door step.
Russia, quite rightly, feels it has been betrayed and played for a sucker as it now sees itself increasingly closely surrounded by NATO bases. Imagine if the situation were reversed and Russia was forming alliances with Central and South American countries and shipping them military equipment, training their armies, installing missile bases on Mexican soil etc. What do you think the reaction would be from Washington? Ho hum. No big deal. We can live with that? My understanding is the threats to Poland are in response to Poland agreeing to host a US missile system on its soil right next door to Russia. Let Russia put a missile base in Mexico and I can guarantee you, US troops would be on the Mexican/US border massing to invade in very short order. I doubt very much, they would even take the time to issue a threat before acting.
Russia also sees itself as under threat as it has one of the worlds largest remaining supplies of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East, and with the increasingly precarious world energy situation as the world is apparently soon going to reach a peak followed by a decline in oil and natural gas production. Russia is, quite rightly in my opinion, concerned that the encirclement of their territory by the Western NATO based alliance has as an ultimate goal the break up Russia itself in order to get control of oil and gas fields currently in Russian territory.
Bimbro // September 1, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Well, well, well, is n’t life funny!! Here I am being accused of racism in the ‘Obama Assassination Attempt’ discussion on BFP whilst here, on BU, it’s ’sister-blog’, a cartoon is being displayed which I find highly, offensive, in whichever context it’s intended because for me it suggests that blacks are only capable of singing and otherwise, playing-the-fool, especially at time when America may be on the verge of electing its first black, president!!
Is n’t life strange, but I could NEVER find it appropriate to use such a cartoon, yet, I AM THE ONE BEING ACCUSED OF RACISM!!
Wonders will never cease!!
Bimbro // September 1, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Please see, also, the end of the ‘Wukking Up’ discussion, here!!
Bimbro // September 2, 2008 at 12:43 AM
DID EVERYBODY MISS THE NEGATIVE, IMPACT OF THE CARTOON, EXCEPT ME?!!!!
Bimbro // September 2, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Dear David, I know u don’t have much regard for my opinion, which is your right, but is there any possibility of your removing the offensive, cartoon, even though it’s Bimbro making the request?!!
Adrian Hinds // September 2, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Bimbro // September 2, 2008 at 12:43 am
DID EVERYBODY MISS THE NEGATIVE, IMPACT OF THE CARTOON, EXCEPT ME?!!!!
=================================
Bimbro, you of all people should know that in todays Politically correct world it is ok for one black man to call himself and other blacks the “N” word while non-blacks are forbidden. :)
The scout // September 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Adrian
I don’t agree with you. No-one whether black or white should be calling a black man at any time by the “N” word. It is offensive.
The scout // September 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I hear young fellows now calling girls “bitch” and they are responding. I told my daughters, the day any fellow call them “bitch” and they respond, I would put their food and other belongings in one of my kennels and they can live there. I’m serious. Blacks need to respect themselves. That’s why you would never see me wear a slave band.
Chris Halsall // September 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM
@The Scout…
You and I often do not agree. But on this particular point, I resonate *deeply* with you.
(IMHO) This word should never be uttered by *anyone*. It is too loaded with hate and prejudice.
Kindest regards to all.
David // September 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM
@Bimbro
What about the image you don’t like?
Bimbro // September 3, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Bimbro, you of all people should know that in todays Politically correct world it is ok for one black man to call himself and other blacks the “N” word while non-blacks are forbidden. :)
*********************
Hi Adrian, and thanks for the reply. Yes, the irony and stupidity of it is absolutely, amazing!! For me, anybody, whatever his or her colour who refers to a black person as a ‘n’, ‘deserves to have their genitals cut off’!!
******************
The scout // September 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I hear young fellows now calling girls “bitch” and they are responding. I told my daughters, the day any fellow call them “bitch” and they respond, I would put their food and other belongings in one of my kennels and they can live there. I’m serious. Blacks need to respect themselves. That’s why you would never see me wear a slave band.
*******************
Scout, I entirely, agree with u, but so do I think, does Adrian!! If by slave-band, u mean a wedding ring, I entirely, agree again!! Don’t c why the ladies need to wear one, either, for that matter. To me it makes us look like cattle, tethered by some ring or other!! I find them so amusing!!
********************
Hi David, thanks for replying, and I’m really, surprised that u need to ask!! Perhaps, u did n’t c the same ‘Black and White Minstrel Shows’ as I did, as a boy, on the telly with these white men, blacked-up and singing and, frankly, to an extent, looking like clowns, not to mention that idiot Al Jolson in the movies!!
David, to put it mildly, my friend, I prefer to think that black, people r capable of much more than simply, ‘acting-the-fool’ and to place the image in an article when a black man is aspiring to one of the highest, offices in the world, seems to be, more than inappropriate also, in an age when we’re supposed to be transmitting positive, images of black, people!! For me, this image is equally, offensive to the ‘golly wog’ emblem!! I know that we’ve probably, lived in different cultures but to me, the Al Jolson caricature is unacceptable, in whatever context!!
Thanks for listening!!
Bimbro // September 3, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Basically, David, I feel that we need to take pride in ourselves, because if we don’t why should anybody else!!
Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore // October 24, 2008 at 8:15 AM
I’m a Barbadian expat and am very pleased to see so many of my countrymen at home so engaged in this US election, and also that this site is giving so many of us and others alike the cance to air our opinions on this crucial presidential election. Thank you all.
Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.
Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore // October 24, 2008 at 8:18 AM
I’m a Barbadian expat and am very pleased to see so many of my countrymen at home so engaged in this US election, and also that this site is giving so many of us and others alike the chance to air our opinions on this crucial presidential election. Thank you all.
Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore.