Republican Party to make race an issue: Obama

US Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

He told a Florida fundraiser that the Republicans have already shown their cards and they are likely to make race an issue.

However, Senator Obama says he is confident that the American people will realise that tactics like these are divisive and bad for the nation.
Republican Party to make race an issue: Obama - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Statements like this just reaffirm his connections with those like Rev. Wright. All them white boys at the GOP are going to attack him on his color? It would be an act of POLITICAL SUICIDE!!! He's the ONLY one talking about the race issue here. So what's behind this type of statement? Vote for me or your a bigot?

I'm sure that Condi Rice and Collin Powell have a different view of the GOP.....

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

However, Senator Obama says he is confident that the American people will realise that tactics like these are divisive and bad for the nation.

---

I hope the American people will be smart enough to realize that tactics like this are devisive and bad for the nation. What an asshole move; the Republicans have never made his race an issue, and any candidate with an IQ of 50 would know that it would be political suicide to try to scare Americans with his blackness. Honestly, it's not like everybody hasn't figured out that he's black already!


This is one of the lowest political blows I've ever seen; imagining what the opposition could do, then berrating them for it like he's some kind of a martyr. Anybody who believes this guy's bullshit on this would have to be retarded. I can see it now:

Did you know that Barrack Obama is a black man? Blacks will rob your house, listen to rap, and go insane on reefer! Do you really want a black man running your country? Vote republican, and keep the Whitehouse white! And God bless America. :s4:


Riiiiiight :rolleyes:

Thank you Gandalf....nice to see that for once we agree.:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

I don't see this as any lower than that republican advisor that said they would benifit from a terrorist attack. Politicians are slimy, they just choose their slime of choice. Of course Obama will try to paint republicans as racists, have you ever been to Mississippi? He isn't the first to suggest this, but because he is black it makes him especially slimy? It doesn't surprise me, nor bother me.

Well, i didn't see any direct speech quoted in that article but i believe that the American people aren't stupid and will see right through his tactics, as Gandalf mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

US Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

---

What the hell, HES BLACK.. well! then for sure im not voting for him..

What a fucking pussy... I think he shouldn't be president because hes a WHINING PIECE OF SHIT..
What next, Iran not inviting you to the peace talks because he's BLACK?
What a joke, and this is who YOU want running the country..

Let me guess.. When he fails to fix a single issue in AMERICA.. Wait I remember, Its because hes Black!


ANYONE VOTING FOR HIM JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK IS A FOOL.. GET A BRAIN.. AND DONT BE RACIST AND VOTE FOR HIM JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. wHAT CAN HE DO FOR THE COUNRTY? Nothing but run it in the ground!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

I don't see this as any lower than that republican advisor that said they would benifit from a terrorist attack. Politicians are slimy, they just choose their slime of choice. Of course Obama will try to paint republicans as racists, have you ever been to Mississippi? He isn't the first to suggest this, but because he is black it makes him especially slimy? It doesn't surprise me, nor bother me.

---

No, but for a politician who claims to be for change and hope. For someone who claims to be a Uniter of people.. he sure does seem to be doing a lot to work against republicans. For someone who claims to be a Uniter he sure seems to have some racists who surround him. For someone who claims to be a uniter he sure does have people who surround him that are corrupt and abuse the system. For someone who claims to be a uniter he really likes befriending terrorists.

The list goes on and on, and McCain has his own list. The point of this post wasn't about the republicans. It was about the democratic party. For years and years the democratic party has subtly tried to insinuate that the republicans are racist. Racism transcends party, gender or religious affiliation. I would be equally disgusted if John McCain or Bob Barr said something like this.

These politicians are supposed to be our leaders and are supposed to be beyond this, yet here you see a nominee directly handling a situation in a fairly immature fashion.

Well of course it was damn stupid of him to say that, but come on, I know I at least have been waiting for race to become an issue. We all know how divided this country really is on race (like I said, go to Mississippi), and there is still alot of racism today, whether you will admit it or not. Also, this is the first time he has said anything like this, and I hadn't even heard of it until I saw it here, so it isn't like it is his new campaign slogan.

As for him uniting people, it seems the best way to unite people now is to be as un Bush-like as possible (70ish% don't like Bush), and when the other guy is basicly a Bush clone, attacking him is the best way to get elected, he would be stupid not to do it (Repubs won in 2004 by mudslinging). I'm not saying it is good, or even acceptable, but he is still a politician, and I'm betting he will do whatever he thinks will help him, even if it is actually a dumbshit idea. I still think he is the best option this country has right now, so while hardly a saint, I don't see him as any worse because his inner politician occasionally shows through, at least he is trying to help people.

Also, if you wan't to talk about befriending terrorists, look at the Bush family for God's sake. The only way Obama could be worse is if he got caught smoking crack with Bin Laden, while raping a hooker in a church on sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

As for him uniting people, it seems the best way to unite people now is to be as un Bush-like as possible (70ish% don't like Bush), and when the other guy is basicly a Bush clone, attacking him is the best way to get elected, he would be stupid not to do it (Repubs won in 2004 by mudslinging). I'm not saying it is good, or even acceptable, but he is still a politician, and I'm betting he will do whatever he thinks will help him, even if it is actually a dumbshit idea. I still think he is the best option this country has right now, so while hardly a saint, I don't see him as any worse because his inner politician occasionally shows through, at least he is trying to help people.

---

Your post is full of bias which is always bad. Look at McCains voting record. I'll admit the guy has his own issues but it's only been recently that he's been trying to align himself with conservative views. He's only doing so to try to win his party. It's pretty obvious. Historically McCain has been very moderate. I suggest you take a look at his voting record before you slam him by calling him a Bush clone.

And uniting the people takes more than being against a president who has low popularity. There are more important issues that we need to be united on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

These politicians are supposed to be our leaders and are supposed to be beyond this, yet here you see a nominee directly handling a situation in a fairly immature fashion.

---

it seems that having at least a bit of a megalomaniacal streak is a prerequisite for success in the political arena. of course they should be above such things, but that just ain't the case. to the contrary; mud slinging, whining and petty bickering seem to be the norm. our leaders have distanced themselves so much for the population they are supposedly representing that they seem to picture themselves as omnipotent. through corrupt maneuvering, their slightest whims can become the law of the land and their transgressions are painted over at each election with a new batch of promises and lies. with the weight of their parties behind them, their childish natures are hidden behind the mask of the dignity of power.

I'm confused?

Is everyone saying that Obama is playing the "Uncle Tom" card?....well ...it worked in the past...it will work in the future...

north and south.

While I admit I am pretty biased against the repubs for what they have turned this country into, I made sure to keep my bias out of my reply. You admit that McCain is changing not only his beliefs, but his stances as well, to align himself with the right wing conservatives (forgive the name dropping, lol), ie. the people that kept bush in office for 8 years. That to me sounds as if he is trying to become W jr. He may have been moderate, but we can all see how that has changed as of the election.

As for unity, when you can unite a country against an illegal war, political corruption (even if he is a little corrupt himself), health care, governmental reform, green energy and reducing our dependance on oil (not just foreign), and it all happens to be the opposite of what the other side is saying, what would you do? The current republican views are what got us into the situation, and I have a hard time voting (or even liking) a person so willing to immitate them, and find myself drawn to the person that shares my disgust with our countries current direction, and wants to change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

While I admit I am pretty biased against the repubs for what they have turned this country into, I made sure to keep my bias out of my reply. You admit that McCain is changing not only his beliefs, but his stances as well, to align himself with the right wing conservatives (forgive the name dropping, lol), ie. the people that kept bush in office for 8 years. That to me sounds as if he is trying to become W jr. He may have been moderate, but we can all see how that has changed as of the election.

---

You act as if politicians never change their stance in order to gain favor within their own party. Obama has done it often this election. Taking bits and pieces from Hillary Clinton.

If you know anything about politics then you know that come presidential election time that a number of politician will change their stance/flip flop. If you can't win your party over then you definitely won't become the next president of the united states. That doesn't mean that they will continue to hold these stances. It's a momentary thing.. whatever it takes to get elected and it happens on both sides of the isle.

Quote:

---

As for unity, when you can unite a country against an illegal war, political corruption (even if he is a little corrupt himself), health care, governmental reform, green energy and reducing our dependance on oil (not just foreign), and it all happens to be the opposite of what the other side is saying, what would you do? The current republican views are what got us into the situation, and I have a hard time voting (or even liking) a person so willing to immitate them, and find myself drawn to the person that shares my disgust with our countries current direction, and wants to change it.

---

When was this war illegal? It was passed by both major parties and we still had an executive order open from the first Bush that allowed us to go into Iraq. Really congressional approval was never needed.. even then it still passed.

As far as healthcare.. maybe you haven't seen the healthcare plan that Mccain has proposed. Really Obama's plan and McCain's plan have many benefits/features that overlap with each other. Go read up.

Really? The republicans got us into this mess?

hrm.. that's interesting because:


On October 11, 2002, the United States Senate voted 77-23 in favor of Joint Resolution 114 â?? the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

It takes two to tango. Open up your eyes. The Dems are just as guilty as the next guy.

At least the republicans don't tell me someone else is entitled to my paycheck :wtf: Beyond that both parties are the same. They just go about accomplishing their corrupt goals in different ways.

Also your precious democrats also supported the opening of Guantanamo bay as well as our involvement into going to afghanistan.

Up until the last two years Bush's approval rating have been above 60%.

With that said, I don't like bush, have never liked Bush... however I won't be blind to the fact that it was not just him that pushed all the buttons to make this happen.

All politicians are the same. They're all rich.. and they're all out of touch. The point I was trying to make is that you're bias to republicans for the wrong reasons. You're biased because of your assumption that Republicans are responsible for all that is wrong in this country. The democrats are equally responsible and can be shown if you go look at facts and voting records.

While the democrats are guilty of some pretty stupid things, there is a difference between leading the charge, and being forced to go along with it. It wasn't a democrat that told us there were WMD's and Al Queda in Iraq, though they did agree to go along with it. But thats the difference, when you're lied to, and supplied false information, should you really be held fully accountable?

As for the Illegality of the war, I was refering to the global aspect, not the national one. Again, it isn't hard to sell a war to some scared shitless countrymen, especially when you use lies.

Finally, while I agree politicians are almost always guilty of flip flopping (god i hate that term though), there is a difference between flopping around with similar ideals (those shared by Obama and Clinton are pretty much the same, just spun differently, they are members of the same party after all), and a supposedly moderate person flopping towards the shadow of our current president, which is somthing I hope no one wants to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

While the democrats are guilty of some pretty stupid things, there is a difference between leading the charge, and being forced to go along with it. It wasn't a democrat that told us there were WMD's and Al Queda in Iraq, though they did agree to go along with it. But thats the difference, when you're lied to, and supplied false information, should you really be held fully accountable?

---

So you are giving the democrats a free pass? What about Clinton and his statements against Iraq, Kerry and his statements.. Majority of the democratic party that have been quoted as saying that action needs to be taken against Iraq even if it means military force. This was all before George W. Bush's administration. Again you need to do some reading.

Secondly, if you don't believe in war and you let someone bully you around so you change your vote in their favor.. then that is really pathetic. If you believe in something then you should stand up and shout it. If the democrats did not want to go to war then they should've been united and stopped it when they had the chance. For years they showed support for the war. Even after no WMD's were found.

Quote:

---

As for the Illegality of the war, I was refering to the global aspect, not the national one. Again, it isn't hard to sell a war to some scared shitless countrymen, especially when you use lies.

---

We have no global governing body. Technically no laws were broken. The legality of the war is all perception on a global scale. We were supported by mass number of nations. Really the only people who were against it were China, Russia and France who all had their grubby little hands in Iraq. Again, go read up.

Quote:

---

Finally, while I agree politicians are almost always guilty of flip flopping (god i hate that term though), there is a difference between flopping around with similar ideals (those shared by Obama and Clinton are pretty much the same, just spun differently, they are members of the same party after all), and a supposedly moderate person flopping towards the shadow of our current president, which is somthing I hope no one wants to see.

---

Again, you give the democrats a free pass for doing something you criticize the republicans for. That is hypocrisy at it's best

Blame is on both sides. If you want I can go back and talk about what Clinton could've done in his administration to stop this. I can bring up a multitude of intelligence that could've stopped any of this from happening during his administration.

I can also go back to Bush senior and point out the flaws there. Point being is that it is our Fault as Americans for letting this go on and on. People are so uninformed now with the media today. They spoon feed us drama and spin the truth.

We should expect that all politicians are going to lie and manipulate. It is OUR job to fight against it and see through the masks they put on. Democrats or Republicans, neither are innocent.

Good day sir. :thumbsup:

What I hate about articles like this is that they say a candidate said something, but they don't give the quote. It's sloppy journalism. Why should I believe how some Australian website characterized what Obama said, if they can't even provide the quote of him saying it? It's worse than a soundbite taken out of context, because it doesn't even pretend to give the candidate's actual words. Why not just print what he said and let me decide what it means, rather than say what they think it means and not give the words. It's lazy and sloppy, and it's the same thing people do when they are lying about what candidate stands for. Not saying they are lying --- just saying that's how it is done. Now we get everyone in this thread piling in on this issue about how if that's what Obama thinks, then Obama is playing the race card. What a load of crap. Personally, I'd like to see a quote in context before I just accept how the Australian Broadcasting Company characterized his comments. They could be saying anything.

So, sloppy journalism aside. I do think race will be an issue in this election. Sad but true. And if either side thinks they can get some traction with a racially charged issue, but do it in a way they can deny racism, I expect they will try to do it. The one example that immediately comes to mind is the Willie Horton ads agaisnt Dukakis years ago. That ad was not overtly racist --- it was about a furlough program. But it played on racist fears because the ad was about a very scary looking black man who was released on furlough and either raped or murdered a white woman. There are a million ways to bring race into the campaign without overtly saying "Don't vote for the guy because he is black" --- of course no one would be that stupid. Fortunately I think MOST people are beyond that kind of thinking now.

Again, there is a diffence between saying Iraq was a messed up place, and "somebody should do somthing", and saying they have WMD's and might use them on us, and that they are best buds with Al Queda. I am not giving anyone a "free pass", i am just saying that they were mislead, so while stupid, I don't have a hard time moving past that for them.

Secondly, when it was discovered they were lied too, we were already locked into the damn war, lol. Everyone is always saying "oh noes, we cant pull out!", and thats because yes, once we got stuck in there, we cant just do an about face, we have to do an orderly, multi staged withdrawl of troops, somthing that should have happened years ago.

Thirdly, for someone that keeps telling me to read, and acting like I'm ignorant, you really dont know much about politics and world events do you? No global organized ruling body? UN much? Also, that "mass alliance" you say we had was actually the UK, and like 200 people from canada, and like 10 from Austrailia. In case you missed it, the UN security council voted us down on the war, and we went anyway, ie. Illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

US Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

He told a Florida fundraiser that the Republicans have already shown their cards and they are likely to make race an issue.

However, Senator Obama says he is confident that the American people will realise that tactics like these are divisive and bad for the nation.
Republican Party to make race an issue: Obama - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Statements like this just reaffirm his connections with those like Rev. Wright. All them white boys at the GOP are going to attack him on his color? It would be an act of POLITICAL SUICIDE!!! He's the ONLY one talking about the race issue here. So what's behind this type of statement? Vote for me or your a bigot?

I'm sure that Condi Rice and Collin Powell have a different view of the GOP.....

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Hey man I have to disagree on this. There will be some fools that will play the race card and that will happen. John Mccain wont do it and his campain team wont do it that would be suicide for him your right on that. But the 527 groups will and they will paint him as a angry black man. For your comment on hes just like those Rev Wright types. I grew up with men and women That have and still hold the anger inside them on how they were treated as black men and women in the 50sand 60s. I had to listen to my father and grandfather and hear it at church about how things where and still are. But if it wasnt for them paving the way for me and my kids Ill be going through the same thing. I not saying what Rev Wright said was right I just wish he had said it in a different way thats more uplifting than the way he said it. I love all you guys on here just be careful about how you bring Race into this. Peace and stay High.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen

Thirdly, for someone that keeps telling me to read, and acting like I'm ignorant, you really dont know much about politics and world events do you? No global organized ruling body? UN much? Also, that "mass alliance" you say we had was actually the UK, and like 200 people from canada, and like 10 from Austrailia. In case you missed it, the UN security council voted us down on the war, and we went anyway, ie. Illegal.

---

Wow.. rofl. The UN does not rule the world. it is a group of governing bodies that cooperate together to work towards peace. The UN is not a government.

All they can do is impose sanctions on you with the cooperation of participating countries. They will try to use force if necessary but the UN is a joke and refuses to enforce it's own sanctions.

Regarding UN approval for Iraq

Secretary of State Addresses the U.N. Security Council

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the only three in opposition were France, Russia and China.

You've yet to site any factual data. As I said before, and this wasn't meant as an insult but rather as something that we should all do as Americans, read and become informed.

And here is the purpose of the United Nations incase you don't believe that it is not a global government:

Introduction to the United Nations

It is an organization of Nations, it is not a ruling/controlling body.

Lastly.. we tried for nearly 12-13 years to get a peaceful resolution with Iraq. They habitually violated sanctions and abused programs that were setup to assist them. This doesn't justify *our* reasoning for going to war but it goes to show you what the U.N. Is able to accomplish. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I simply told you to read, it was meant as good gesture to make informed opinions not as an attack as you seemingly took it.

I don't make excuses for people. I look into the factual data, I don't listen to what the media spoon feeds the masses. I was suggesting you do the same but instead you decided to come on the attack and try to slam me only to look slightly foolish.

I'm done holding further discussions on this topic with you.

ps: Here's a list of countries that were part of the Iraq Coalition.. It's far more than your pitiful list; further showing how misinformed you are:

Quote:

---

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007. Denmark announced that it would withdraw its troop contingent by August 2007.

Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007, with an initial reduction of 1,600 troops followed by an additional 500 troops by end of 2007.

Countries supporting UNAMI: Fiji (150); Georgia (550)

---

Now with that said let's please get back on topic. This is thread is about Obama and whether Race is an issue or not in this election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigWeed

Hey man I have to disagree on this. There will be some fools that will play the race card and that will happen. John Mccain wont do it and his campain team wont do it that would be suicide for him your right on that. But the 527 groups will and they will paint him as a angry black man. For your comment on hes just like those Rev Wright types. I grew up with men and women That have and still hold the anger inside them on how they were treated as black men and women in the 50sand 60s. I had to listen to my father and grandfather and hear it at church about how things where and still are. But if it wasnt for them paving the way for me and my kids Ill be going through the same thing. I not saying what Rev Wright said was right I just wish he had said it in a different way thats more uplifting than the way he said it. I love all you guys on here just be careful about how you bring Race into this. Peace and stay High.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

---

I agree with you but at what point do you let go of your resentment. There can't be any healing unless you forgive. I'm not saying that they do not have a right to be angry because obviously there is much to be angry about, but as Americans they have to let it go as well. It's to the point to where other races are scared to say anything related to blacks in fear of being hunted down in a modern day witch hunt. It's ridiculous. We should be working together to build a unified nation that is blind to color. :(

edit: I should note that my response above was in regards to both sides of the equation. Non black people need to understand the hardships that Black americans went through here. Similarly Black Americans need to realize that most of America legitimately is sorry and are wanting to make progress just like they do. We both want the same thing and we should be cooperating to achieve it. I guess that's the point I was trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I agree with you but at what point do you let go of your resentment. There can't be any healing unless you forgive. I'm not saying that they do not have a right to be angry because obviously there is much to be angry about, but as Americans they have to let it go as well. It's to the point to where other races are scared to say anything related to blacks in fear of being hunted down in a modern day witch hunt. It's ridiculous. We should be working together to build a unified nation that is blind to color. :(

edit: I should note that my response above was in regards to both sides of the equation. Non black people need to understand the hardships that Black americans went through here. Similarly Black Americans need to realize that most of America legitimately is sorry and are wanting to make progress just like they do. We both want the same thing and we should be cooperating to achieve it. I guess that's the point I was trying to make.

---

I agree with you Daihashi on everyting you have said. My parents and most african americans have forgiven america. My dad has always told me he will always forgive but he will never forget. I geuss thats why so many hold on to there anger. :rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

I just had the "privilage" of cleaning up this piss fest. We can debate without the insults to each other in here. IF you can't, don't post!

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigWeed

Hey man I have to disagree on this. There will be some fools that will play the race card and that will happen. John Mccain wont do it and his campain team wont do it that would be suicide for him your right on that. But the 527 groups will and they will paint him as a angry black man.

---

McCain won't do it and if a 527 group tries it I believe that it would have the same effects on the McCain campaign. "Guilt by association".

There is so much with the Rev. Wright and Trinity Church in the way of racism that I find it disturbing that Obama waited for so long to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigWeed

I agree with you Daihashi on everyting you have said. My parents and most african americans have forgiven america. My dad has always told me he will always forgive but he will never forget. I geuss thats why so many hold on to there anger. :rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

---

My point exactly....what the Rev. was preaching wasn't a sermon of forgiveness but a message of hate. My question to you would be this; would you have a close friend, mentor, that was racist? As for myself, there have been a few friends in the past that I have said goodbye to because of this issue. I find racism disgusting and I don't want to be associated with people of this ignorant mindset!

Have a good one!:s4:

Obama using 'white guilt,' Nader says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy has received little media attention, but his latest critique of Sen. Barack Obama has come under fire for its seemingly racial overtones.

Speaking with Colorado's Rocky Mountain News, Nader accused Obama of attempting to "talk white" and appealing to "white guilt" in his quest to win the White House.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader told the paper in comments published Tuesday.

"Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards," Nader added.

Obama said Wednesday in Chicago, Illinois, that Nader was simply trying to "get attention."

"What's clear is, Ralph Nader hasn't been paying attention to my speeches," he said. "Ralph Nader's trying to get attention. He's become a perennial political candidate. I think it's a shame, because if you look at his legacy ... it's an extraordinary one. ... At this point, he's somebody who's trying to get attention, whose campaign hasn't gotten any traction." Video Watch panelists weigh in on Nader's remarks »

Obama's presidential campaign earlier had called Nader's comments disappointing, and his communication's director, Robert Gibbs, said Tuesday that they were "reprehensible and basically delusional."

"I don't think he's spent a lot of time looking at the record of Barack Obama," Gibbs said on MSNBC.

Nader is a longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore's loss in the 2000 presidential election; they said he claimed votes that would otherwise have gone to their candidate.

He said Obama's top issue should be poverty in America, given his racial heritage.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law and is going to be liberated by the law," he said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Nader also said Obama is making a concerted effort not to be "another politically threatening African-American politician."

"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically, he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

Nader formally entered the presidential race in the spring, expressing disappointment with both remaining Democratic candidates at that time.

"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," he said of both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability; they've ignored the out of control waste-fraud military expenditures; they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts and giveaways; and they don't talk about a living wage."

But I thought Obama was the only one making this campaign about race?

I am so tired of Ralph Nader. He did some great work in the past, but now he is just an annoyance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

McCain won't do it and if a 527 group tries it I believe that it would have the same effects on the McCain campaign. "Guilt by association".

There is so much with the Rev. Wright and Trinity Church in the way of racism that I find it disturbing that Obama waited for so long to leave.



My point exactly....what the Rev. was preaching wasn't a sermon of forgiveness but a message of hate. My question to you would be this; would you have a close friend, mentor, that was racist? As for myself, there have been a few friends in the past that I have said goodbye to because of this issue. I find racism disgusting and I don't want to be associated with people of this ignorant mindset!

Have a good one!:s4:

---

No I would not have someone like that around me. Rev Wright did have a chance to apologize when he came back and made those speeches and he didnt he showed his ass. It made me mad my father and many blacks angry. Now I know your going to say how come Obama didnt leave a long time ago. This is what I think maybe he was not a devoted church goer and he didnt attend every sunday Im not a devoted church goer myself. I think that if he just said that he would be okay thats just my 2 cents. I just think he used the church for political gains to build his support in the black community. Just because one sheep in the flock is bad(Rev Wright) doesnt mean the rest are. My pops tells me that all the time.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigWeed

Just because one sheep in the flock is bad(Rev Wright) doesnt mean the rest are. My pops tells me that all the time.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

---

But he described this man as his "spiritual mentor" and named his book from one of the dudes sermons. (The Audacity of Hope)

Then his other "friend", Rev. Pledger....his words speak for themselves. How can he associate with this type of racism and then proclaim himself as a uniter? I just don't get it....

Hey, hope everything is going well for ya!! How ya feelin' these days my friend?

Have a good one!:s4:

You do make a good point about that. I just dont think Obama feels the same way they do his up bringing is just to strong to make him a ratical. He is a good man Im not saying vote for him just give him a chance for now to prove that he is not a ratical person and that he does have goodness in his heart. I know I wont vote for Mccain but I do know he has a good heart.

Im at about 80% I still have some lifting restrictions and can only work a few hours of the day but I feel fine. Ill be cleared by the doctor in august and be at full strengh at the end of the year. I just hope they dont go up on my insurance i been saving for a new motorcycle.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Oh yeah I got a new grow room up with some new strains Ill put up a new log in the grow forum for all you guys to check out peace.:hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigWeed

Im at about 80% I still have some lifting restrictions and can only work a few hours of the day but I feel fine. Ill be cleared by the doctor in august and be at full strengh at the end of the year. I just hope they dont go up on my insurance i been saving for a new motorcycle.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

Oh yeah I got a new grow room up with some new strains Ill put up a new log in the grow forum for all you guys to check out peace.:hippy:

---

Glad to hear things are on the upside for ya....been a long time in the making if I recall correctly.

Can't wait to see the grow log......BIGWEED IS BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Grover Norquist has a label for Barack Obama

John McCain has been trying hard of late to link Barack Obama with Jimmy Carter in the public consciousness, hoping that the "ineffectual" label that many voters affix to the former president will prove transferable.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash.../26/grover.jpgBut Grover Norquist -- the conservative activist who specializes in promoting an anti-tax agenda and, more generally, revels in the role of agent provocateur -- is offering a different comparison.
Norquist dropped by The Times' Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama's liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry with a tan."
Since Norquist isn't running for anything, he can get away with such remarks; we doubt McCain will be incorporating the line into his speeches anytime soon.
Norquist's clout on the right is such, however, that McCain and his aides will pay attention to his thoughts on who would fit well in the second spot on the GOP's presidential ticket. And in his chat with Times' reporters and editors, he was especially high on Bobby Jindal, the recently elected governor of Louisiana.
Norquist touted Jindal's success in pushing through tax-cut and ethics reform legislation during his short tenure as Louisiana's chief executive (no mention was made of the flap surrounding the governor for failing, so far, to live up to a promise to block a pay raise for state legislators).
Nominating Jindal for vice president also would generate a mother lode of contributions for Republicans from Americans of East Indian descent, Norquist predicted.
Another recipient of kind words as a veep prospect was Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota; Norquist praised his record on taxes save for one "mistake" -- approving a hike in state cigarette taxes in years past.
Norquist's most recent book is entitled "Leave Us Alone," which makes the case that Republicans can put together a post-Ronald Reagan governing coalition by appealing to voters who want government to stay out of their affairs.
Along those lines, he predicted that one reason conservative radio talk show hosts will rally behind McCain -- who many of them have been cool toward -- is that some Democratic leaders are advocating a return of the "fairness doctrine." That's the abandoned federal rule that required broadcasters to give equal time to opposing political viewpoints.
[UPDATE: John Kartch, Norquist's director of communications, e-mailed Friday with "two concerns" about the post. "One, it suggests that Grover was singling out Kerry. The entire statement was that Obama had no policy differences with Carter in 1980, [Walter] Mondale, [Michael] Dukakis, [Al] Gore or Kerry. 'Kerry with a tan,' was simply Kerry was the latest of the string. Two, to be fair to Kerry, Grover pointed out that even Kerry's reputation as a snob never went as far as Obama's contemptuous comment on middle America "clinging" to its guns and faith.]
-- Don Frederick


All I got to say is this guy is a idiot. John Kerry with a tan hahaha LMAO.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:


Lets see what Mccain does about this.Peace:hippy:

This is the most boring election cycle EVER! What's really funny are the libs running around waiting to pin the "racists" label on McCain first chance they get. Barak and the dems are so far the only people to invoke the race card, please correct me if I am wrong...
Also worth pointing out that the party of "tolerance" has a real fear of a significant wing of their party voting against him because he is black!
Barak has no chance in hell of winning, he is worthless whether he is black, white, yellow, red, whatever.....
and there really doesn't need to be any effort to link him to the worthless Carter administration, it's obvious. Actually him winning would likely be the best thing in the world for "conservatives" not "republicans", if that makes any sense. Hopefully in a scenario like that, America would galvanize their political beliefs after his first term much like the Carter administration, and elect a true hero and leader. Too bad there isn't really another Reagan on the horizon. I wish we could clone him, or Barry AuH2O, and then elect the clones, but that would be fucking ironic huh? Huge parts of the republican party would not vote for a clone of course!

... but, I'm still working on my tan ! :S3: