Is toast. Articles in both the NYTimes and WaPost with Time magazine not too far behind. NYTimes was forced to print early in order to beat Time to the scoop. Which means we have lots of more parts to this series coming from a number of different sources. Slow bleed from many cuts... the worst kind.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080221.htm

I guess he can't say he isnt in bed with the lobbyists anymore.

This hurts on a number of fronts.
1. The most serious allegation is that he personally interceded on her behalf many times in his role as Chairman of the Commerce Committee. This opens him up to an ethics probe. Not what you want when driving the Straight Talk Express and promising reform.

2. This puts a dagger in his heart with the social conservatives. It was pretty much there, but this is the icing on the cake.

3. Its perfectly timed to allow the RNC to dump McCain before the convention. If this proves to be as damaging as it seems to be on first glance, look for Mitt Romney to come into play in the next couple weeks. Also if you see a blur and the sound of hallejuahs wooshing past, that is Mike Huckabee doing backflips of joy.

Yeah just caught this. Reading now.

McCain has always seemed like a dead horse to me. If he gets the nomination, it's just a guaranteed Democratic win.

The Dems haven't even started the swift boating of him yet, which will come if he gets the nomination. They're trying to pull their punches until he beats out the rest of the GOP field, so they get an opponent with a glass jaw.

I wouldn't call him toast just yet, especially since the nomination isn't likely to go to anyone else. McCain's camp will have to push back more effectively than with the initial "this dirty politics is such a shame" tactic, and I'm sure they will. But there's plenty to dredge up from McCain's past and quite a few news entities going about it.

Didn't the Times endorse McCain for the GOP nom?

McCain has always seemed like a dead horse to me. If he gets the nomination, it's just a guaranteed Democratic win.

The Dems haven't even started the swift boating of him yet, which will come if he gets the nomination. They're trying to pull their punches until he beats out the rest of the GOP field, so they get an opponent with a glass jaw.

if mccain means a sure democratic victory, then id really like to know what huckabee would mean.

I don't doubt that McCain will still get the nomination. What I'm saying is that he's going to get destroyed in the general election race, due to how many skeletons they're letting stay in the closet for now. Running Obama against him is probably the Dems' dream come true. Even Hilary would probably have a chance against him.

Why is this a bigger story than the guy who said him and Obama had oral sex and did drugs in his limo when Obama was a state senator?

No corraboration?

Why is this a bigger story than the guy who said him and Obama had oral sex and did drugs in his limo when Obama was a state senator?

Credibility?

Ok, so let me phrase it this way.

Why does it matter who is sleeping with or doing who? I've never understodd why all the hub-bub about gossip and espeically something that happened 8 years ago?

Man, the slobber all over the floor in here is disgusting.....

The timing is great, though. It only took 9 years for it to reach the front page....

Ok, so let me phrase it this way.

Why does it matter who is sleeping with or doing who? I've never understodd why all the hub-bub about gossip and espeically something that happened 8 years ago?

Hmm, I dunno... Maybe some people want a president who has values and sticks to em? I could be wrong though... I never quite understood why Republicans think they are the straight and narrow candidates, when in most cases they are the ones found in bathroom stalls soliciting sex, cheating on their wives with lobbyists, or accused of playing with little boys.

And, imo, while the the media has obviously trouted out the romantic angle to see if that will fly, that is not the big deal here. The big deal is "Straight Talk" McCain once again getting caught giving special interest and lobbyists favorable considerations.

Also, my opinion, a shrewd politician could discount the romantic angle and most people will forget about the bigger credibility issue.

Actually, I see that is already happening.

Ok, so let me phrase it this way.

Why does it matter who is sleeping with or doing who? I've never understodd why all the hub-bub about gossip and espeically something that happened 8 years ago?

Well this case with McCain if true would disprove one of the platforms that McCain is running on, that's what makes this at least somewhat relavant.

Right, it's not that he had an affair that is really an issue (hell, he reportedly had several affairs before tossing out his first wife in favor of the current one). The issue would be if Mr. Straight-Talk/Maverick/"never done favors for special interests or lobbyists" used his position to benefit the cause of a lobbyist he was involved with.

Secondarily, just having an affair is likely to upset the religious right base, but they aren't all that excited with him in the first place anyway.

Why is this a bigger story than the guy who said him and Obama had oral sex and did drugs in his limo when Obama was a state senator?

Besides.. since when do state senators get Limos?

Besides.. since when do state senators get Limos?

It was the other guy's limo or so I heard. That's how rumors go you know.

I just don't really care, I have long since taken the stance that no politician is clean, truthful, or a shining beacon of values. In every case there is always someone breaking a story or "rumors" that contradict their stance. To me, what someone does in their bedroom, who they are doing with it, I just don't care. I'm not a fan of any of the presidential front runners and given that's it's Feb. and we're already seeing this kind of poo slinging means we're in for a long haul. I think for the first time since turning 18 and being able to vote I may actually not vote b/c I don't want any of these people as president.

It sucks.

To me, what someone does in their bedroom, who they are doing with it, I just don't care

if people only saw it that way with Bill.

I didn't care then and still don't. Sexual relations is not something I base my vote on. Neither is race, religion, or abortion. I don't care who you screw, who you pray to, or what color you are, I'm more concerned about how you're going to direct policy once you're in office and if that direction doesn't jive with me then I vote for someone who does or not at all.

I feel sorry for people who buy into the media hype about any candidate Dem or Rep.

Former Romney campaign staffers lament (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/romney-camp-lam.html).

fildien, isnt this case less about sexual relations and more about them being with a lobbyist?

Then why bring the "Romantic" angle into it at all? Why not say he was not as "Straight Talking" as he claims due to all of the things he's done for this particular lobbiest?

All the media seems to be interested in is hearing him deny a romantic relationship with her.


But you are correct, Wiggo. The bigger story is the lobbiest angle....

Indeed that is the bigger issue and one I'm more concerned about not who what was going on in his bedroom. Of course in reading the angle from CNN it appears that the allegations came from former campaign staffers? Disillusioned or disgruntled perhaps? We may never know the truth as McCain and this chick is denying it.

This is no different than the drama my niece is embroiled in at school at the moment. A bunch of he said/she said which has lead to threats about fighting boyfriend stealing etc. I view this the same way =\

It seems others feel the same way I do.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/mccain.story.irpt/index.html

Just read on Bloomberg that presently McCain has 22 lobbiests on his staff, the most out of anyone who was or is running for president. Clinton has 8. Obama has none.

Just some quick notes cuz I have zero time for anything else until this coming week.

First, being a lobbyist isn't a bad thing. It's one of the fundamental rights given to all of us by the Constitution.

Secondly, I want some context. How much money changed hands for her advocacy? was it $100k? And what's that amount compared to the other senators? If McCain brought in $100k and Chuck Shumer brought in $1,000k during the same time ... I don't see a problem with it.

Just some quick notes cuz I have zero time for anything else until this coming week.

First, being a lobbyist isn't a bad thing. It's one of the fundamental rights given to all of us by the Constitution.

Secondly, I want some context. How much money changed hands for her advocacy? was it $100k? And what's that amount compared to the other senators? If McCain brought in $100k and Chuck Shumer brought in $1,000k during the same time ... I don't see a problem with it.

Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislators) and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_%28politics%29) or organized groups.

An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organized collection of people who seek to influence political decisions and policy, without seeking election to public office.

Constitution or no Constitution, My president needs to be influenced by what I need... Not some corporation that wants benefits or ways around the law.

Akipt's point is a valid one though. You, Jedd, or I could be a lobbiest if we write or meet with our representatives to talk about an issue that matters to us. Their doors are always open to us. The blurry line really is the all expense paid fact finding missions on private jets to golf courses. The person paid thousands of dollars a day to influence our representatives in exchange for perks is dangerous. The area really is grey. I think McCain's problem is the two faced attitude towards it all as the story highlights and how he's not as pure as we all hoped.

Clinton, I like her too, but I'm sure its much of the same here.

Obama, Paul, I bet these two are the most idealistic and least likely to be influenced ... you know, other than Nader.

I am enjoying this. It is a great example of the media, that everyone is so quick to rail against if the "expose" is slanted against their candidate, trying to influence our political landscape. The NY Times did indeed endorse McCain, and now that he is pretty much the guaranteed nominee they release a story about a "questionable relationship" based on suspicions and hearsay. And of course, the two primary characters in this little act are denying that it is true. What is the goal of the Times, do you suppose?

I wonder how much discussion this will get as compared to the story on Obama and his involvement with an individual now under indictment, and the real estate and financial relationship. That story got swept away pretty fast. Will this one on McCain go the same way?

This is what our country's politics has come to.....

Akipt's point is a valid one though. You, Jedd, or I could be a lobbiest if we write or meet with our representatives to talk about an issue that matters to us. Their doors are always open to us. The blurry line really is the all expense paid fact finding missions on private jets to golf courses. The person paid thousands of dollars a day to influence our representatives in exchange for perks is dangerous. The area really is grey. I think McCain's problem is the two faced attitude towards it all as the story highlights and how he's not as pure as we all hoped.

Clinton, I like her too, but I'm sure its much of the same here.

Obama, Paul, I bet these two are the most idealistic and least likely to be influenced ... you know, other than Nader.

Well obviously my problem is not with a voter meeting his representative to discuss matters important to them. The issue is Lobbyists with money get what they want. It is a corrupt system which could simply be rectified if lobbyists were only allowed to talk and nothing more.

What is the goal of the Times, do you suppose?
The goal of the Times was to beat other sources to release of the story, which was watered down due to lawyering on McCain's part. If they really wanted to sink McCain, they'd have been better off putting this out there before Romney opted out.

Thats the problem..

They have a lot more information that they are going to be hammering on. Its a slow bleed.

The goal of the Times was to beat other sources to release of the story, which was watered down due to lawyering on McCain's part. If they really wanted to sink McCain, they'd have been better off putting this out there before Romney opted out.

I disagree, the timing is conspicuous for an 8 year old story.

I think it would be more conspicuous if they'd waited even longer until he was the nominee and didn't get the RNC a chance to respond if they desired. I think that it comes out now, rather than 5 months from now in the middle of him campaigning against whomever the democrats choose makes it slightly (ever so slightly) less conspicuous.

Taleran is correct. Earlier in the candidacy race, esp. prior to Romney's departure, or later after he is nominated would have been far more effective if sinking McCain was the Times' purpose.

I disagree, the timing is conspicuous for an 8 year old story.

The timing might be suspect, but not on the paper's part. It would be naive to think the reporters knew about this story for 8 years. Now, whomever tipped off the reporters, that I can see....

Remember, though, that knowledge of this matter wasn't limited to the NYT reporters. Multiple media outlets were looking into this, and word is that Romney's campaign new of it and was prodding reporters to break the story while Mitt was still in the race. It could be that disgruntled former staffers were shopping their story around, and that would be a "tipping off," but I'm not sure that's the case.

Also, for much of the campaign McCain has been toward the bottom of the pack, so didn't merit as much attention as he might have otherwise. Given that he's the frontrunner and likely nominee, it's natural for he and his past to receive greater attention. Did he or did he not inhale lobbyist money (or at least one lobbyist, for that matter)? And given that McCain literally surrounds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html) himself with lobbyists while maintaining that he isn't influenced by them, these are reasonable investigations to take.

You say it isn't the romantic relationship that's the issue, but the fact he was and has been dealing with lobbyists. Fair enough.

You also say the timing of the story breaking now is due to his recent rise to the top of the Republican nomination.

Plausable? Certainly. Am I ready to drink the cool-aid right this second? Nope. Something about the timing stinks to the high heavens as far as I'm concerned.

So I actually read the story, which I imagine only 2-3 people from here have thus far. The story isn't the romantic one, they didn't even say flat out he has had one. It was that there were tips there could be one, but the main point was that while head of this Comittee he voted EVERY time for bills she proposed or she was for. That he literally surrounds himself with lobbiests at all times but constantly harps on not being under their influence. The romantic angle was portrayed as one that his staff feared would get out more than that there were facts towards it.

A Hole in McCain’s Defense?

An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.


By Michael Isikoff (http://services.newsweek.com/search.aspx?q=Author:%5E%22michael%20isikoff%22$&sortDirection=descending&sortField=pubdatetime) | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 22, 2008 | Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Feb 22, 2008

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=John+McCain) gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Vicki+Iseman), who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC—coming around the same time that Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign—first surfaced as an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard, the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."

The issue erupted again this week when the New York Times reported that McCain's top campaign strategist at the time, John Weaver, was so concerned about what Iseman (who was representing Paxson) was saying about her access to McCain that he personally confronted her at a Washington restaurant and told her to stay away from the senator.

Continued...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505/page/1



This apparently is not dieing soon...

This apparently is not dieing soon...Perhaps. A few stories within a week can generate news momentum, but eventually the media moves on to the next big topic. Give it a week or two and see where it all stands.

So I actually read the story, which I imagine only 2-3 people from here have thus far. The story isn't the romantic one, they didn't even say flat out he has had one. It was that there were tips there could be one, but the main point was that while head of this Comittee he voted EVERY time for bills she proposed or she was for. That he literally surrounds himself with lobbiests at all times but constantly harps on not being under their influence. The romantic angle was portrayed as one that his staff feared would get out more than that there were facts towards it.

I did not read the NYT version, I read CNN's version and no where did it state what you just said.

The letter sent was to ask that the decision process be sped along, whatever the outcome might be, as it had lingered for too long without being decided.
It was made clear that the intent of the letter was not to influence a decision, but rather the process of getting it done in a timely manner.

Seems like an appropriate intervention.

In a political letter such as that it's not whats said but whats between the lines that matter.
McCain would never have sent a letter to the chairman to move the issue along and Rule NO because it was in the best interest of the FCC to clear thier plate a bit.
I'm sure the chairman, a politician himself saw clearly McCains intent in the neutrally worded letter.

While that may be true, you can't hold a neutrally worded letter against a politician because he "might mean" something else. It just doesn't pass muster.

In a political letter such as that it's not whats said but whats between the lines that matter.
McCain would never have sent a letter to the chairman to move the issue along and Rule NO because it was in the best interest of the FCC to clear thier plate a bit.
I'm sure the chairman, a politician himself saw clearly McCains intent in the neutrally worded letter.

Try looking at the issue from a personal perspective, Vel.

You have tied up a large sum of money waiting on approval of the FCC, and cannot pursue other options or use the money for other ventures until you receive a decision. If you contact the a senator chairing the Commerce committee and ask him to see if the FCC can speed up the process, would you still consider that senator as having done something wrong by writing a letter specifically saying that the decision itself is not the focus of the letter but the act of getting the decision made in a timely manner, whatever the outcome.

That is basically what this situation is; whether any campaign contributions were made is a separate issue, and I am not aware of that being tied in to this example.

So, we can stop hyperventilating? Mccain was just being a nice guy?

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!1!1!11!

In another thread, Furtivus thought it problematic somehow that Obama's pastor liked Louis Farrakhan, dreaming it up as a "connection" between the presidential candidate and the Black Muslim leader. Note that Obama never sought Farrakhan's support and has thoroughly disavowed him.

I wonder how he (and McCain supporters in general) feel about the presumptive Republican nominee's embrace of Jon "the Jews deserved what they got" Hagee's endorsement.* The man is full of crazy views, possibly even crazier than Falwell and Robertson (who McCain also sought endorsements from). While McCain has said he doesn't agree with "all of Pastor Hagee's views," he hasn't said which ones he does agree with.

Does he hope that Israel becomes the target of a Russo-Iranian war to usher in Armageddon? Does he think the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q)? That George Washington hid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUBwrjrxOIk) a Star of David and mennorah with the eagle on the dollar bill?

The Farrakhan flap generated all sorts of media attention while remaining a non-story, but McCain embraced this guy's support without the media batting an eye (that I've seen, anyway). Go figure.

*Or the Bush family's close ties to Sun Myung Moon, for that matter

The Farrakhan flap generated all sorts of media attention while remaining a non-story, but McCain embraced this guy's support without the media batting an eye (that I've seen, anyway). Go figure.

*Or the Bush family's close ties to Sun Myung Moon, for that matter

(Bold is mine)

C'mon, Thor....are we going to really have to start this petty stuff this early?

Define "embraced", please. Exactly what did McCain need to say or not say that would meet with approval? In what manner was McCain's "embrace" of Hagee any different than Obama's "embrace" of the Chicago businessman now indicted for a number of criminal charges, who was involved in a real estate deal that benefited Obama? Hmmm, a real estate deal and a potential Democrat President; deja vu?

See how ridiculous this can get when looking at petty stuff?

/hyperventilate back on

Define "embraced", please. Exactly what did McCain need to say or not say that would meet with approval? Embraced: Sought out, acquired and celebrated. Much as he embraced the support of Falwell and Robertson.
In what manner was McCain's "embrace" of Hagee any different than Obama's "embrace" of the Chicago businessman now indicted for a number of criminal charges, who was involved in a real estate deal that benefited Obama?
Hagee is a televangelist with a multitude of followers who wants to provoke war in the Middle East to bring about the End Times. McCain's Beach Boys impression was certainly music to his ears. Tony Rezko is a businessman indicted for being involved in corrupt goings on in Illinois -- hardly an important figure on the national scene And while his ideas of business may push or break the boundaries of the law, nationally he's a non-issue, and Obama's been donating all money associated with him to charity. As for the real estate deal, the only benefit I've seen turn up for Obama so far is "possible use of a side yard." There's just nothing there.
See how ridiculous this can get when looking at petty stuff?I'd say a comparison of Rezko-Obama to Hagee-McCain is fairly ridiculous, yes, though I'm more interested in reaction to Hagee-McCain compared to Farrakhan-Obama, since the latter was the cause of all sorts of consternation here and in the media. Hyperventilating, even.

So McCain actually accepted the Endorsement... What the hell was he thinking?

So McCain actually accepted the Endorsement... What the hell was he thinking?


He was thinking..."Maybe if I can get these whackos to vote for me, I can win."

Embraced: Sought out, acquired and celebrated. Much as he embraced the support of Falwell and Robertson.



I must apologize, for I have not seen anything that indicates McCain sought out or celebrated this endorsement. Please forgive my ignorance on this.

I must apologize, for I have not seen anything that indicates McCain sought out or celebrated this endorsement. Please forgive my ignorance on this.

He publicly accepted the endorsement in the company of the man himself...

He publicly accepted the endorsement in the company of the man himself...

And that speaks how to seeking out or celebrating?

And that speaks how to seeking out or celebrating?

I dunno about you, but I find holding a press conference and praising his support in front of cameras celebrating... Perhaps you think it would have only been celebrating if he pulled down his pants and gave him head?

While it is possible with McCain to point out a body of legislation, and votes, and service to country as being parts of what he offers as a candidate, the followers of Obama are able to point out a speech (as Hillary has pointed out) and promises.

In the meantime, the cracks in the facade are showing, such as the "secret" reassurance given to Canada that Obama's comments on NAFTA were merely campaign rhetoric.

I recall arguing alongside Thor against Akipt and Fandros and what seemed their blind allegiance to Bush, and here I am now seeing Thor acting in almost the same manner in his support of Obama. Jedd, of course, is irrelevant and does not matter.

If Obama offers so much, why are you unable to post about that, and instead have to continue looking for negatives to toss at McCain and post.
Don't whine about the political arena being so negative when you are one of the contributors to that negativity. I can toss a negative back at Obama for every one tossed at McCain, and all we have at the end is a lot of negative posts and no real substance about what our candidates offer to the position of leader of the country.

Rather than being simply mice following the Pied Piper, let's hear why without having to make someone else look like a worse alternative; that only shows a lack of positives in your own choice.

While it is possible with McCain to point out a body of legislation, and votes, and service to country as being parts of what he offers as a candidate, the followers of Obama are able to point out a speech (as Hillary has pointed out) and promises.

In the meantime, the cracks in the facade are showing, such as the "secret" reassurance given to Canada that Obama's comments on NAFTA were merely campaign rhetoric.

I recall arguing alongside Thor against Akipt and Fandros and what seemed their blind allegiance to Bush, and here I am now seeing Thor acting in almost the same manner in his support of Obama. Jedd, of course, is irrelevant and does not matter.

If Obama offers so much, why are you unable to post about that, and instead have to continue looking for negatives to toss at McCain and post.
Don't whine about the political arena being so negative when you are one of the contributors to that negativity. I can toss a negative back at Obama for every one tossed at McCain, and all we have at the end is a lot of negative posts and no real substance about what our candidates offer to the position of leader of the country.

Rather than being simply mice following the Pied Piper, let's hear why without having to make someone else look like a worse alternative; that only shows a lack of positives in your own choice.

I dare you to try and find more against Obama, then I can find against McCain.

... and here I am now seeing Thor acting in almost the same manner in his support of Obama. Jedd, of course, is irrelevant and does not matter.

If Obama offers so much, why are you unable to post about that, and instead have to continue looking for negatives to toss at McCain and post.
Wait, so you're accusing me of "blind support" of Obama, yet you want me to post more about Obama? Or am I blindly supporting Obama because I've posted about McCain? :confused:

I'm not sure where the idea of "blind support" originates, as I've mostly focused on his policy proposals, such as linking for you his plan to support US civic service. Obama is known, justifiably, for his oratory, but he's come into the campaign with a wealth of policy.
Rather than being simply mice following the Pied Piper, let's hear why without having to make someone else look like a worse alternative; that only shows a lack of positives in your own choice.
I disagree. One can point out negatives in another candidate that, by contrast, are positives in one's preferred candidate (e.g., pro-war vs. anti-war). One can also point out negatives in another candidate without the contrasting positive. And then one can just toss garbage. If a hypothetical candidate had clearly outlandish viewpoints or associations, then they should certainly be examined.

But if you'll recall from my original post, I was contrasting media and forum examination of Obama's non-relationship to Farrakhan with McCain's courting of Hagee. And yes, McCain has been looking for Hagee's endorsement for about a year, meeting him in private (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/23/9556/02805) and appearing at a CUFI (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766006806&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) meeting. CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL

Membership Update
January 29, 2007
Newsflash!

This morning I had an extended breakfast with Senator John McCain of Arizona. Our topic of discussion was Israel and his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America.
Senator McCain's comments concerning Israel are on target!

He gets it! While I do not want to put the specifics of our conversation in this update I am glad to report to our leadership and supporters that John McCain is solidly pro-Israel.
We discussed his positions on other matters that I will share with you when I speak with you in person. This newsflash goes to the ends of the earth and I don't want to read it in the media tomorrow.
Hagee is an influential figure, so I'm interested in the handling of this matter in and out of the media. As a McCain supporter, I'd think you would be concerned by this rather than dismissive, as it could hurt his candidacy more than help it. This goes well beyond simple poo-flinging.
TIM RUSSERT: So we could have two wars at once?
SEN. McCAIN: I think we could have Armageddon.
-- John McCain, on the Iran crisis. April 2nd 2006, "Meet The Press."

Again, Thor, I apologize because I did not know he had sought the support.

No worries. =)

Here's McCain for you:

ioy90nF2anI

Though, still not nearly as bad as Hypocritical Hilary.

God the editing and overproducing of that made it pretty rough. So much of that could be taken waaaay out of context.

It seems that's what it takes to get a point across to people these days.

Keith Olberman did a special comment last night, and it was directed at Hillary clinton. The first time he has targeted a democrat in his comment.

qXBXD2zizIY

Keith Olberman did a special comment last night, and it was directed at Hillary clinton. The first time he has targeted a democrat in his comment.Maybe in in the elections, but he has targeted the Democratic Congress before.

Maybe in in the elections, but he has targeted the Democratic Congress before.

I meant democratic candidate for president :)

Have to say, I find Ferraro's comments to be among the most honest of any this campaign. If Obama was not black, would the voting groups he has energized and mobilized have still been there? Very doubtful.

That he has energized so many to become active politically is a great thing, and must not be dismissed; but, anyone who tries to minimize his race as being a major factor is being very disingenuous.

Her comments were that the Clinton campaign would not be facing such a tough challenge if Obama was other than a black man....that is not racist, or demeaning, but a simple statement of fact. Look at the contests he has won and the percentages of black votes compared to previous elections in those same areas, and the numbers of black voters that turned out.

The fact that these comments got spun in this manner does not surprise me. How many are surprised that it was members of the Obama campaign staff that publicized the comments and made the racial charges? And his campaign is going to be different than business as usual?

Have to say, I find Ferraro's comments to be among the most honest of any this campaign. If Obama was not black, would the voting groups he has energized and mobilized have still been there? Very doubtful.

That he has energized so many to become active politically is a great thing, and must not be dismissed; but, anyone who tries to minimize his race as being a major factor is being very disingenuous.

Her comments were that the Clinton campaign would not be facing such a tough challenge if Obama was other than a black man....that is not racist, or demeaning, but a simple statement of fact. Look at the contests he has won and the percentages of black votes compared to previous elections in those same areas, and the numbers of black voters that turned out.

The fact that these comments got spun in this manner does not surprise me. How many are surprised that it was members of the Obama campaign staff that publicized the comments and made the racial charges? And his campaign is going to be different than business as usual?

I didn't vote for Obama cause he was black... Her comments bother me, because I don't see him as the black candidate, I see him as the right candidate. Her comments were ridiculous, because if he wasn't running Hillary would have gotten 100% of the black vote... Does that mean she is black also?

I didn't vote for Obama cause he was black... Her comments bother me, because I don't see him as the black candidate, I see him as the right candidate. Her comments were ridiculous, because if he wasn't running Hillary would have gotten 100% of the black vote... Does that mean she is black also?

That is most likely the most asinine comment ever shared on these forums. It also shows how truly shallow your level of thought processes must run.

The black voting bloc was one of the Clinton weapons in the arsenal, much like the Hispanic and blue-collar worker. Even so, the black vote was always under represented, whether due to apathy or the machinations of the folks in charge of the precincts (conspiracy theory alive and well).

Obama, being a young, intelligent, well-spoken and well-educated black man who is offering a historic opportunity to this nation's political arena has energized and mobilized the black voting bloc, as well as the youth vote in general, to levels almost unheard of; but still, folks like Jedd are still able to trivialize and ignore the reality that is smacking most of America in the face. There is finally a black candidate that is creating a tidal wave of energy in a Presidential election.

If he were not a black man, he would not have had that ability to generate that support or tap into the normally Clinton voter base. Clinton would have had to do something monumentally stupid to lose it to a white candidate, or even another female candidate, as she is pretty much the most qualified female in the country at the moment.


Many on the forums might be too young, but some of us still remember the riots of the 60's and early 70's, and the words Black Pride! Obama is the quintessential offering to African-Americans of someone to be proud of, and to share in that experience, and have more pride in race and culture, is creating a lot of energy.

I dunno what Obama v. Hilary has to do with a McCain thread, but what is this deep experience of her's? I like the headline I saw the other day:

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

She rode coattails left and right, coming in right at the end of passing legislation or cheer-leading without any involvement; then claims it as experience.

Most of the other things she has actually been directly involved with failed for the most part. I remember both Democrats and Republicans comparing her health care plan in the 90's to the complexity of the IRS. Greeaaat.

That is most likely the most asinine comment ever shared on these forums. It also shows how truly shallow your level of thought processes must run.

The black voting bloc was one of the Clinton weapons in the arsenal, much like the Hispanic and blue-collar worker. Even so, the black vote was always under represented, whether due to apathy or the machinations of the folks in charge of the precincts (conspiracy theory alive and well).

Obama, being a young, intelligent, well-spoken and well-educated black man who is offering a historic opportunity to this nation's political arena has energized and mobilized the black voting bloc, as well as the youth vote in general, to levels almost unheard of; but still, folks like Jedd are still able to trivialize and ignore the reality that is smacking most of America in the face. There is finally a black candidate that is creating a tidal wave of energy in a Presidential election.

If he were not a black man, he would not have had that ability to generate that support or tap into the normally Clinton voter base. Clinton would have had to do something monumentally stupid to lose it to a white candidate, or even another female candidate, as she is pretty much the most qualified female in the country at the moment.


Many on the forums might be too young, but some of us still remember the riots of the 60's and early 70's, and the words Black Pride! Obama is the quintessential offering to African-Americans of someone to be proud of, and to share in that experience, and have more pride in race and culture, is creating a lot of energy.

Listen spin artist... I never said he wasn't black. He is a black man that black people in all of America should be proud of. However his message and his ability to deliver that message is the reason he is doing so well. Him being black helps, but in no way is it the reason he is where he is. He did that with his charisma.

You should be lecturing Hillary on how not to be a hypocrite rather then coming here and trying to explain to me how a black man will always be considered "only popular cause he is black"

I dunno what Obama v. Hilary has to do with a McCain thread, but what is this deep experience of her's? I like the headline I saw the other day:

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

She rode coattails left and right, coming in right at the end of passing legislation or cheer-leading without any involvement; then claims it as experience.

Most of the other things she has actually been directly involved with failed for the most part. I remember both Democrats and Republicans comparing her health care plan in the 90's to the complexity of the IRS. Greeaaat.


HA...funny you say this. My sister, who is fanatically pro Hillary explains it as her experience comes from the conversations she had with Bill while he was president.

I disagree with her.

I dunno what Obama v. Hilary has to do with a McCain thread

I am just replying to what I see posted. Since there seem to be more than one McCain thread, and folks wanted to use this McCain thread as another means to fling poo, I figured, what the hell.

As far as whether or not Hillary is qualified, it is the political hacks, other elected representatives, and media experts and prognosticators who all claim Hillary has the qualifications and experience to be an effective leader; EXCEPT if it means a Republican must lose, or EXCEPT if there is now another Democrat that looks more electable.

Experience is a subjective matter, as we all will have our own take on what defines it. I view time spent in the political arena establishing contacts in both domestic and foreign political bodies and involvement in the legislative process, as well as being campaign tested, as being a large part of what "experience" means, in the context of this campaign.

If being part of a big, lethargic bureaucracy is all "experience" means anymore, then she shouldn't be running ads talking about answering a red phone at 3am.

She is clearly trying to push this experience thing to the limits of absurdity.

More on that: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html

You should be lecturing Hillary on how not to be a hypocrite rather then coming here and trying to explain to me how a black man will always be considered "only popular cause he is black"

Since I never made that statement, I am not sure why it is in quotes when talking about my comments.

Ferraro's comments were to the point that Obama was able to energize and mobilize these voting groups because he is black, thereby challenging Clinton's electability; you are unable to look at this rationally because you are wanting to spend your time flinging poo, as that is about all you are good at on these forums. Her comments were honest, and a concise picture of why Clinton is losing the campaign. Not demeaning, or racist. Simply factual. She was actually saying something positive about Obama and his charisma, but his campaign workers, like you, are too wrapped up in finding negatives to take the time to see positives.

Since I never made that statement, I am not sure why it is in quotes when talking about my comments.

Ferraro's comments were to the point that Obama was able to energize and mobilize these voting groups because he is black, thereby challenging Clinton's electability; you are unable to look at this rationally because you are wanting to spend your time flinging poo, as that is about all you are good at on these forums. Her comments were honest, and a concise picture of why Clinton is losing the campaign. Not demeaning, or racist. Simply factual. She was actually saying something positive about Obama and his charisma, but his campaign workers, like you, are too wrapped up in finding negatives to take the time to see positives.

She should have thought about how she was gonna say it before she made it sound the way it did... She simply said.... He wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't black... and that is unfair.

This whole "black vote" argument is a crock. is the the best reasoning her Highnesses court can offer to defend whats has been a decided decline in her coronation parade?
Iowa's a pretty damn white and bluecollar state. Idaho? been there a few times dont think i ever saw a blackman while there. Wyoming? never been there but have meet a lot of wyomians, (or is it wyominians?) and let me tell they have all been the most downhome rednecked white folks you could ever meet.
Mississipi? ok i'll concede that one to ya. every time i hear this argument i just chuckle. yep me a 40yo white bluecollar male who's grandfather and great grandfather were high ranking members in the KKK is supporting Obama simply because he's a blackman.


on a side note i really to get a bumbersticker making machine. right now i'd be pumping out stacks of:

Vote BRO not HO........ that really piss some people off.

Velvet, make me one that says " If you know any good trappers havem contact dept of wildlife. There is a coon and a beaver trying to get into the whitehouse "

This whole "black vote" argument is a crock. is the the best reasoning her Highnesses court can offer to defend whats has been a decided decline in her coronation parade?
Iowa's a pretty damn white and bluecollar state. Idaho? been there a few times dont think i ever saw a blackman while there. Wyoming? never been there but have meet a lot of wyomians, (or is it wyominians?) and let me tell they have all been the most downhome rednecked white folks you could ever meet.
Mississipi? ok i'll concede that one to ya. every time i hear this argument i just chuckle. yep me a 40yo white bluecollar male who's grandfather and great grandfather were high ranking members in the KKK is supporting Obama simply because he's a blackman.


on a side note i really to get a bumbersticker making machine. right now i'd be pumping out stacks of:

Vote BRO not HO........ that really piss some people off.

I expect silly rants from Jedd, but you usually are much more thought-out in your posts Vel. You are talking about a few states as examples of the overall picture, to justify your position. The mere fact that folks want to argue against the supposition so much tells me there is more than a grain of truth to what Ferraro was saying.

Obama has energized both the youth voting bloc and the black voting bloc. If you want to argue or try to minimize that, look at the numbers as compared to the last three, four, five presidential campaigns. There is a huge increase in the numbers of folks in those blocs becoming more active and getting out to the polls, and volunteering, and like yourself, having some hope for a change. That is due to Obama more than simply due to disgust with Bush and the overall political scene in Washington. Ferraro was making that point, and how it is affecting Clinton's campaign. And, it is exactly because Obama is a black man that he has energized those groups.

Why does that have to be negative? Why is there an argument about it? Why can't someone pay a compliment to Obama and his charisma unless it is wrapped up in the tidy paper and ribbons that suit you, or folks in his campaign? This became a huge issue about race because Obama campaign staffers made it that way. But it is valid. There is no-one on the political scene who is white that could have energized the youth and the African-Americans the way Obama has, and for saying that, Ferraro is being demonized.

That is the real crock.


Edit: just for shits and giggles, if you bother to reread my posts regarding this situation with Ferraro's comments, you will see that I have had nothing negative to say about Obama, only his staffers. Yet, I am the bad guy. It is the same as Ferraro discussing the phenomenon of Obama's success being turned into attacks of racist comments. When there is a set frame of reference, everything is viewed through that lens, and at times the distortions can be amazing. Though I hate using a Bush comment, it is similar to when he said "If they ain't with us, they are against us". That eliminates the option of sitting on the sideline and commenting on what is taking place, without bias.

I don't disagree with the way you say it bylimet, but watch and listen to ferraro's comments. They can't be construed in any positive way with the nasty tone she made each of the comments.

There is some truth to it. If you say it more eloquently than the nasty way she said it, I don't think it comes off the way it came off when she said it. It's not exactly what she said but the way that she said it that makes what she said as horrible as it is.

I might be able to give Ferraro the benefit of the doubt if she only said it once.



Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Yeah, I'm sure both incidents, twenty years apart, were just accidental...

I view the commentary regarding Jackson as being valid as well, having been a voter in that election. We can debate all day whether or not she is harboring any racist attitudes, but that is not really relevant if the comments made are accurate. As Tal pointed out, her tone affected how her comments were received. But the comments themselves were an honest commentary.

This is a historic election because we are going to have either the first Black or the first woman candidate for president. Passions are higher than in many previous elections in our lifetimes; we are listening to people with sharper ears; we have the anti-Clinton folks and the anti-Bush and Bush supporters; we have the first great speaker since Reagan (who I loved to listen to but thought he was not a great president) inspiring people to hope again; and, people are wound more tightly than in many of the recent elections.

There are a lot of positives to look at in the election, so it would be a nice change of pace to let the media play with all the negative shit, and focus our commentary and debating on the stuff that is getting us hooked into the game.

Just a thought.

I expect silly rants from Jedd, but you usually are much more thought-out in your posts Vel. You are talking about a few states as examples of the overall picture, to justify your position. The mere fact that folks want to argue against the supposition so much tells me there is more than a grain of truth to what Ferraro was saying.

Obama has energized both the youth voting bloc and the black voting bloc. If you want to argue or try to minimize that, look at the numbers as compared to the last three, four, five presidential campaigns. There is a huge increase in the numbers of folks in those blocs becoming more active and getting out to the polls, and volunteering, and like yourself, having some hope for a change. That is due to Obama more than simply due to disgust with Bush and the overall political scene in Washington. Ferraro was making that point, and how it is affecting Clinton's campaign. And, it is exactly because Obama is a black man that he has energized those groups.

Why does that have to be negative? Why is there an argument about it? Why can't someone pay a compliment to Obama and his charisma unless it is wrapped up in the tidy paper and ribbons that suit you, or folks in his campaign? This became a huge issue about race because Obama campaign staffers made it that way. But it is valid. There is no-one on the political scene who is white that could have energized the youth and the African-Americans the way Obama has, and for saying that, Ferraro is being demonized.

That is the real crock.


Edit: just for shits and giggles, if you bother to reread my posts regarding this situation with Ferraro's comments, you will see that I have had nothing negative to say about Obama, only his staffers. Yet, I am the bad guy. It is the same as Ferraro discussing the phenomenon of Obama's success being turned into attacks of racist comments. When there is a set frame of reference, everything is viewed through that lens, and at times the distortions can be amazing. Though I hate using a Bush comment, it is similar to when he said "If they ain't with us, they are against us". That eliminates the option of sitting on the sideline and commenting on what is taking place, without bias.

See the enlarged bold parts?

He energized them because he is a charismatic man... You and that racist woman need to realize that it isn't because he is a charismatic black man. Being a black man makes it historic, and makes his candidacy something to watch. However he could have been a white man with the same message and the same charisma and he would be in the same spot as he is today... perhaps he would be doing even better with more white votes.

If you claim that since he has energized young voters and black voters, how do you claim his being black has influence over the young voters? How do you explain his win in Utah? Iowa? The claim is ridiculous.

Bottom line is that if an Obama supporter said that the only reason Hillary is where she is, is because she is a woman, and otherwise would not be as big of a deal... Hillary's people would be up in arms with sexism accusations.

Quite frankly your inane insults are boring me. If you cannot simply discuss the issue without attempting to belittle me then you need a break from the forums. Little hint for you... Don't post a sarcastic message and then expect your message to be 100% clear.

And, it is exactly because Obama is a black man that he has energized those groups.
(...)
But it is valid. There is no-one on the political scene who is white that could have energized the youth and the African-Americans the way Obama has, and for saying that, Ferraro is being demonized.
Do you really feel that it's valid to say because there is no white candidate "right now" that could do what Obama is doing, and Obama being black, then being black is the reason why he's energizing voters bloc?
Not what he's saying, the way he's saying it, his own charisma?

It probably helps, of course, like people voting for the republican or democrat candidate no matter who is he, I'm sure some black people are voting for Obama because he's black.
But if, IF he was white, and with the same charisma, orator talent, speech and message, wouldn't he drag probably more voters toward him? (aren't we talking about 13% of the USA population here?)

Being black helps, as being a woman, or a war veteran. Does it change the balance in the end? I don't think so.

It is sad that so little attention is paid to the previous 200+ years of our political history. The electorate has been turned off by the steady parade of white male leaders. Clinton, with his charismatic oratory, became "the comeback kid" and had folks believing for a short time that maybe things could be different, until the white male leaders of the other party orchestrated a smear campaign using the tax payers money. The years since then have further turned off voters, especially among those of college age.

Now from the sociological perspective, it has been slightly more than 140 years since the end of the Civil War, and the ending of slavery in this country. Progress has been made in small steps over that time toward integration, with some programs being force fed on reluctant populations that both helped and hurt; i.e. affirmative action, school busing, etc. And slowly, the political arena was opening up. Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson gave voters the first glimpses of what might be possible, and now a candidate has surfaced that offers the right combination of charisma and ideas at the right time in our nation's history; and , as evidenced by his fund raising and voter turnout.

Barak Obama is the right man at the right time because he is a black man who can rally his supporters due to his race, his charisma, his youth and his ideas. His race connects him more to the black vote, as has been often repeated at the exit polls; his youth connects him to the younger voters as has been stated at exit polls and is also shown by historical precedents; and his message and charisma attracts those disillusioned by the same old white leadership tearing our country apart.

No, Anterak, I do not believe for a moment that IF he was white it would go as you suggest, because it would only come across as the same old stuff to those who had become apathetic about politics. It is the possibility of a younger face in the White House, the chance to break through the wall and have our first minority President, the chance to actually make a change in the politics and game-playing in our capitol that has people energized. It could have been Hillary offering that as the first woman but she did not have the ideas or charisma of Barak.

No, Anterak, I do not believe for a moment that IF he was white it would go as you suggest, because it would only come across as the same old stuff to those who had become apathetic about politics.
Then we agree to disagree about that. :)

The "same" happened last year here in France, two young blood politicians with passion and charisma to offer to apathic french electors (remember what almost happened here 6 years ago with low participation?), and it revived our interest in politics, with massive participation.

I understand your point, the historical and "timing" aspect of the Barak-o-mania, but I believe that young blood is young blood, and if it's talented, it will attract and hook, whatsoever.

While you stated your point perfectly, and that I agree he's surfing on the right wave at the right time, I'm feeling (as far I as I can tell) that Ferraro comment didn't follow the same line of thought, and wasn't as matter-of-factly as it seems. Even if it's a true fact, she knew when she said it that poop would fly.

Barak Obama is the right man at the right time because he is a black man who can rally his supporters due to his race, his charisma, his youth and his ideas.Byl, you seem to be forgetting that charisma, youth and ideas have come together before in leading Democrats. JFK, RFK, and Bill Clinton all did quite well for themselves, when not being physically or politically assassinated, and none depended on being black. Our nation's racial history make Obama's skin color a natural point of commentary, but to simply assert that he'd be nowhere near the Presidency without it ignores the last 50 years of history for his party.

You may as well say, 'If McCain didn't undergo capture in Vietnam..." or "If G. W. Bush hadn't been an alcoholic..." or "If George Washington didn't wear a funny whig..." Pointing out brute facts at this level dilutes their notability. We are all where we are because of circumstances of our past.

Byl, you seem to be forgetting that charisma, youth and ideas have come together before in leading Democrats. JFK, RFK, and Bill Clinton all did quite well for themselves.......... to simply assert that he'd be nowhere near the Presidency without it ignores the last 50 years of history for his party.



Well, 50 years ago the Civil Rights act had not yet been enacted. JFK and RFK both demonstrated the youth and charisma and new ideas, but at a time when there were only white males allowed into the most powerful political circles as candidates.

Bill Clinton has been jokingly referred to as the first black president, in large part due as much to his upbringing in the South in poor economic conditions as to his charisma and oratory and ability to intermingle with all kinds of folks on varying levels. But even in Clinton's time, entry into the race by a black candidate was never given weight as being a viable candidacy or alternative. Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a couple others have attempted to open the door and made some progress, but never had the media or grass roots backing to be considered realistic.

What exactly am I ignoring of the last 50 years of our political history? Our country and the combined various cultures within the country have finally been reconciled to allow for a minority candidate to possibly take the role of both leader, and healer, of our political system. Even with the potential of Hillary being the first woman to run the country, there was little excitement about this election before Obama tossed his hat in the ring, and there has never been much enthusiasm on the republican side the entire primary season. I stand by my opinion that it is precisely due to the reasons I have given that his candidacy has electrified so many. Charisma and ideas and youth could have been claimed by John Edwards as well, but he was not what the country wanted and needed at this time, being viewed as more of the same old thing.

I think your first two paragraphs reinforce my argument. Youth, charisma, and ideas have combined to make popular Democratic candidates. Simply being black and eloquent isn't enough (e.g., Alan Keyes, Jesse Jackson), nor is it simply a matter of running in 2008. The cultural changes you cite certainly enable black candidates (and women) to make realistic strides toward the Presidency, but simply being black or female isn't enough. Obama succeeds due to youth, charisma, ideas and -- quite important right now -- his stance on Iraq.

Keep in mind that simply being black isn't very notable in the Democratic party. Obama didn't gain recognition because of his skin color; attention started with his excellent speech at the 2004 Dem convention. The he might become our first black President is cool from a historical standpoint, but there are many more important factors at play here, from those personal qualities we've mentioned to the simple fact that the country really isn't happy with Republicans right now.

simply being black .

Those words minimize all I have said, so my posts have been meaningless. I have not reduced it to that, but have emphasized the importance that has played. As much as I have tried to throw a positive light on this, I still am seeing people getting defensive about the race issue, as though I am making negative points.

I don't see your points as being negative, and maybe we're just going in circles around each other's arguments. I'd say that on a scale of influence you rate Obama's race as being an 8 whereas I rate it as a 2. Sound more in line with what you're thinking?

I don't see your points as being negative, and maybe we're just going in circles around each other's arguments. I'd say that on a scale of influence you rate Obama's race as being an 8 whereas I rate it as a 2. Sound more in line with what you're thinking?

Heh, that'll work for me. :)

Those words minimize all I have said, so my posts have been meaningless. I have not reduced it to that, but have emphasized the importance that has played. As much as I have tried to throw a positive light on this, I still am seeing people getting defensive about the race issue, as though I am making negative points.

"Casual prejudice" Is the way to describe it. That's the reason so many people do not recognize it, it's an indentured prejudice that most Americans think is true on the inside. When you see a successful and intelligent black man people think that he's been given hand outs his entire life, but any thing that can be seen as such doesn't even dull the reality of struggle to become a successful black man in America.

I think saying it didn't influence at least some of the reason he's so popular is short sighted. I don't think it's racist to point out that he's definitely getting a more significant portion of the black vote because he's black. That's not saying he's only popular with blacks. That's not saying anything other than what's patently obvious, that he's going to get a larger portion of the black vote than if he wasn't black.

In the Presidential election, that won't matter all that much because the black overall popular vote generally goes to the Democrat anyhow. Given though how close the popular vote for the nomination is though, I don't think it's a reach to think that it is one of many reasons he maintains a lead.

With the black vote it's a very important topic. To a white male who voted for Obama in a primary, it's not even a blip on the screen as to why I like the guy.

Also, I'm completely against what Ferraro said, but because of the way she said it. The accusatory way she said that it was racist against her being white because it was an issue made it even worse. She was completely rude and bigoted in the way she said it. If she can't see that, than she probably is at least a closeted racist. The fact she's done this at least 4 times (3 in this election), and she was nasty each time she said it even before Obama's campaign reacted, made her look horrible.

"Casual prejudice" Is the way to describe it. That's the reason so many people do not recognize it, it's an indentured prejudice that most Americans think is true on the inside. When you see a successful and intelligent black man people think that he's been given hand outs his entire life, but any thing that can be seen as such doesn't even dull the reality of struggle to become a successful black man in America.

Errr nothing even remotely prejudice about what Byl stated. He's merely putting forth mere facts.

Errr nothing even remotely prejudice about what Byl stated. He's merely putting forth mere facts.

I was posting in regards to Ferraro's comments.

My bad then Jedd, sometimes text debate can be easily miscontrued ;)