Square These, Sen. Obama (Pt. II)
By SusanUnPC on March 15, 2008 at 12:45 AM in Alsammarae, Austan Goolsbee, Barack Obama, Crown family, Hillary Clinton, NAFTA, Pakistan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Tony Rezko
“Empty Promises” (a host of them):
See Part i of How Can Obama Square These? [Update by Larry Johnson].”
SEE ALSO:
- “Racism and the Race Card“
- “Imagine if Wright Were Hillary’s Pastor …“
- “Obama’s 2006 Earmarks & the Crown Family“
- “The forgotten people“
- “Obama’s Pastor: “God Damn America”
- “[Updates] Irrefutable Proof That Obama’s Own District Was Home to 11 Rezko Foreclosed Properties“
- “The racists are coming. The racists are coming.“
- “The Rezko Saga: Two Videos [Updated]“
- “Thin-Skinned Obama Fans“
I was just watching Anderson Cooper interview Obama on CNN. Cooper asked Obama if he had a problem singing God Bless America. Obama said he would not sing it there because he didn’t want people to hear him sing, but he also did not say he would sing it anywhere else. Obama’s answer was completely non-responsive/evasive to Cooper’s question.
This only compounds all of the other anti-American sentiment spread by Obama and his wife.
This is really picking at straws, innit?
This is precisely why the european left loves Obama.
His subtle and not so sublt anti-american message resonates with them.
This is silly. Obama is not a traitor, and his response to Cooper did not seem to me like he was playing semantic games. There is much to criticize Senator Obama for without resorting to name-calling and unwarranted attacks on his patriotism. This is the sort of behavior that is usually directed at Hillary by those suffering from CDS — it is repulsive when she is attacked in this way, and it is equally wrong when it is directed at Obama. There is no reason to stoop to that level, it doesn’t help the argument in any way and we can’t very well criticize the Obamabots for this sort of behavior if we engage in it just as easily.
Holy Cow. Do you ever sleep?
8 - 9 hours a day, and you?
Maybe she meant Susan, who should not overwork herself, as she has been ill.
Another question to ask is - how much pressure to the Obama fund raisers put on those voters who can only afford $25 donations. One man told me that he has received repeated phone calls and felt pressured to donate money to Obama even though he made it clear he supported Hillary. If a middle age college educated man feels the pressure, how do the little old ladies feel?
This “little old lady” would feel outraged and tell the caller to leave me the hell alone. No that’s not right. I would tell them to leave me the hell alone. Just as that “middle-aged/College educated man” should have done unless he is a total twit.
Individuals act as their conscience and level of courage and/or integrity tells them. I doubt the age or level of education has much to do with it.
I also don’t understand why trying to intimidate someone would make them contribute to any-one’s campaign. Seems kinda stupid to me.
I don’t like Obama and wouldn’t ever possibly vote for him. Some of his supporters are lying thugs posing as enthusiastic citizens. But this tactic just seems dumb. I am not an Obama supporter so perhaps that makes me less likely to believe everything I hear and to require proof before going off on a tangent.
On the Sunday before the Maryland primary, I was visited twice by Obama canvassers. I told both of them I was for Hillary. They looked at me with an expression I can only describe as pity mixed with disgust. (Oh, and for what it’s worth, both canvassers where white men.)
The next day, I found Obama brochures jammed into my mail slot.
You can’t deal with zombies. They are on a Mission, and if you aren’t with them, you are against them.
I have never donated to Obama. I did look at him as a candidate, but never expressed any support for him. I get at least a dozen e-mails a day from his campaign. This does not include what I get from Kerry, Kennedy and MoveOn. I don’t know where they got my email address. I get phone calls from Obama, even though I have told them again and again that I do not support him.
I get about 1 email every other day from Hillary’s campaign. But since I am a Hillary supporter, I don’t mind. I give when I can and what I can. But, they aren’t filling my email box every day.
regarding emails from Kennedy and Kerry, I know for a fact Kerry turned over his list of donors to the Obama camp…and on the day that Kerry actually endorsed Obama…he emiled me for a donation…
Needless to say, I am and always have been in Hillary’s camp and because I live in Kerry’s district, you can imagine how furious I was that he had come out and endorsed so early..I did tell Kerry and then Kennedy to take my name of their list and never to contact me again…haven’t heard since..bottom line, I will campaign for Kerry’s opponent when he goes for re-election in 2008…
Terrible analogy but I wonder how people felt in Bavaria in the early 1930s.
Whoa! Obama says he was never in the audience for the more radical sermons?
Interesting catch by a Freeper!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986052/posts
Comment #11
Here’s an interesting piece of info towards Obama being in attendance at Trinity for the 2007 Christmas sermon. Some of the media said he would be taking off Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to spend with his family in Iowa. However, the Michael Saul of the NY Daily News reported this on 12/23/07:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/23/2007-12-23_im_no_muslim_says_barack_obama.html
He could have just referred to “here” as “part of this congregation”, without meaning physically present at that moment. Even though I believe Obama’s lying about this issue, I wouldn’t trust the Freepers if they told me it gets dark at night. Just sayin’.
Well, more than one source places him in Chicago on Christmas Day 2007. Do you think he’d miss Christmas services?
In trying to determine if Sen. Obama was present at any of these sermons, it is important to keep track of what Mr. Wright said when. The news clips often piece together different sermons so it is hard to tell. One way to keep track of the clips is by the shirt color worn by Mr. Wright.
Christmas service: he wears a white robe with a grey stole.
Jan 13: he wears a grey checked shirt.
In watching the clips, he makes the comment that “there is a man here” referring to Sen. Obama wearing the grey shirt, which means this was made on Jan 13. It is at this sermon that he makes the remark about Gov. Clinton and sex.
The question that needs to be answered here is: where was Sen. Obama on Jan 13? It could be that Mr. Wright was speaking about Sen. Obama in a metaphorical way.
The Christmas sermon is the one that compares Sen. Obama’s upbringing to that of Christ (I assume that this is thematically related to Christmas), and it is where Mr. Wright makes a number of disparaging remarks including linking Sen. Clinton with the n-word.
The question that needs to be answered here is: Did Sen. Obama attend this service as noted in some newspaper reports? (He stated that he was planning to attend as a means to reply to Muslim rumors circulating at the time).
Follow-up to my previous comment:
So where was Senator Obama on Jan. 13?
From a search of the Internet, here is Obama’s schedule from Friday Jan. 11 to Sunday Jan. 13 (when Mr. Wright gave his sermon):
Bottom line: Obama was in Chicago to spend time with family (according to his spokesperson) on Saturday. It is not clear when he left Chicago. However, the time line leaves open the possibility that he was in attendance at the Jan 13. sermon of Mr. Wright.
There is a simple way to clarify this confusion: Instead of having me search piecemeal through the Internet, Sen. Obama should release his schedule for this period.
How many AAs believe what Rev. Wright does? I have been thinking all night of my personal and working friendships with my AA friends and I don’t know how to process this. I thought I had some deep, loving friendships over the years but how have they really felt about me. Have they been exposed to preachers like Wright? If they have, they must carry this hatred somewhere in their being. I wonder if it has ever been aimed at me and because it is so far removed from any thought I have ever had, I wouldn’t even know or pick up on it.
This situation has certainly opened Pandora’s box (at least for me).
What do you think of Jerry Falwell, and that group?
Nutbush City Limits, right?
Why wouldnt reasonable people recognize Wright, and Farrakhan, for what they are, kooks?
I have no problem with their anger at the racism AA’s, and others, have experienced, but you don’t answer mindless hate with mindless hate.
MLK, Jr had it right on so many levels, integrity, and dignity in the face of irrational, childish hatred.
It never dawned on me that a popular pastor with an AA congregation of 8500 people would ever talk like Wright did. Sorry I am naive. I never knew AAs felt like that about America or felt like that about the Clintons or felt like that about 9/11. I could go on and on. I am just amazed by the whole situation.
It is very shocking and deeply troubling. We’re all going to need time and soul-searching in order to process this.
Irish,
I too have been thinking about this, perhaps in a slightly different way.
Yes, there are people who very much feel as Wright does. I have met a few in my life.
But I think we must be fair and examine what we say. Wright has the right to his feelings and opinions and I can’t argue with any AA who feels this country’s governmental system has been tacitly unfair to them as a whole. There are a lot of legitimate grievances for which I stand with my African American brothers and sisters.
Wright represents a radical extreme view and espouses the hateful tactics of his generation. But he does not represent the whole of the AA community. There are many examples of radicalism in our country — the anti-abortionist who continue to terrorize, bomb, maim and kill people to name but one.
I encourage everyone to please not paint the AA community with a wide brush. Also, keep in mind that Hillary has many, many AA supporters. Some of them may not agree with Obama, but can see where Wright is coming from (and still not agree).
Often, we aim our criticism at one person but buckshot others around them.
Having said that …
This preacher with influence and a pulpit is spewing this hateful speech to young AA’s. Telling them that they are hated by the white man and how the white man is trying to kill them. How can AA young people feel good about their country (home) when they are being indoctrinated to think they are hated by the majority (whites)?
For this, I cannot excuse Mr. Obama. That he may ignore Wrights’ hateful invectives against America is one thing. That he contributes to having this message spread like poison to others is a whole other matter.
TMA! The knew news.
(Thanks Taylor!)
(East Coast representin’!)
SusanUnPC:
There is more:
This is the SC debate:
“I was Associate at a law firm, that represented a CHURCH group that has partnered with this INDIVIDUAL, to do a project and I did about FIVE (5) hours on work on this joint project. (…) The larger reason that I think this debate is important, is because we do have to TRUST our leaders and what they say.(…) CONSISTENCY matters, TRUTHFULNESS during campaign maters.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHlQDmac7aE
Which CHURCH group partnered with REZKO?
Now there’s a question.
Wow: that is indeed a question worth investigating asap..
There a few other churches as well, I call reading the Suntimes/rezko about it.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/15/square-these-sen-obama-pt-ii/#comment-159548
oops..link for above sorry.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.stng
The video is very damning and just a taste of what is coming.
O.K clearly the MSM is hammering Obama now. Still waiting for both of them to be hammered on the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Ask Hillary why she voted yes. Ask Obama why he sat on the fence?
Senator Dodd and Senator Biden (both on the intelligence committee) voted against the Kyl Lieberman amendment.
When will the MSM ask this question?
If anything that is going to take out Hillary later it will be her 2002 war resolution vote and what Scott Ritter has persistently said about what she knew and when, and also her “yea” vote for the Kyl/Lieb amendment last fall.
The guns will come out on this. Would like to witness it sooner than later.
Kathleen, we have addressed that issue in innumerable posts here — and a lot of people, far more knowledgeable than you or I (for example, Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson’s op-eds here) have weighed in on this. But keep beating your drum if you must. However, please try not to litter threads — with repetitious comments — that are focused on other topics. Please try to get into the flow of discussions. We know you’re on a mission. There’s always Daily Kos where you’d be most welcome.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning at all. The vast majority of the American people understand that you have to negotiate from a position of strength to get what you want. If the possibility of force is removed from the discussion then exactly what are you going to negotiate with? The fact that the Bush administration cynically doctored the intelligence shouldn’t be held against Hillary. The relevant question is what Hillary would have done if she’d have been Commander in Chief instead of a senator from the state who was actually attacked by terrorists. Do you think she would have invaded Iraq and removed Saddam, who desperately needed to be removed? And if you believe she would have done that would she have screwed it up by doing some very stupid things such as dissolve the Iraqi military, give Bremer and other incompetents carte blanche, no bid contracts, have way to small of an invading army and occupying force, not get the other Muslim nations involved in rebuilding Iraq and keeping the peace? To blame Hillary for Bush’s actions is the height of ignorance and a total red herring. I think it is a dispicable way of equating Hillary with the last 7 years of hell caused by Bush. You folks may be clever with your insidious politics but you aren’t clever enough to fool this country boy.
I would imagine that the number of Rev. Wright’s sermons that condemn “rich, white men”, are probably about the same as those that mention Jesus or God. If Obama was absent during those services, he must have rarely gone to church—a fairweather flocker. But I’ll bet he attentively sat in the front pew for the “dirty ridin’” lectures. You could practically cancel your subscription to Playboy for those pelvic gyrations.
.
Oh, Playboy!
Home of the bunny hutch, where the foos live, meet and greet.
Eh, rabbits?
Not a coincidence: :
2006 Earmarks, Rezko, Wright : 3 huge problems for Obama dumped in the media
within 24 hrs and *on a Friday*.
Any reproter knows Friday is the best day to
dump bad news b/c poeple don’t pay attention to the news on a Saturday.
These are extremly thorny issues for Obama; very troubling and show a pattern of lack of judgment at best, though in my personal opinion I think is far worse (the Wright affair surely is, no opinon here, but hard facts).
Obama’s strategy to dumpp all these together and on a Friday is “divide and conquer” ; to muddle the waters. By releasing 3 simultaneously
the media will try to cover the 3 at the same time hence in fact splitting the time that each alone
would receive: it weakens the impact of each alone in peoples minds: too much into. to handle
(forget the details).
It is far to diabolic for such an agent of “hope and change”.
OAlso bama is trying to run the clock on the news cycle quicly w/thorny and
troubling issues before the PA debate & primary. He will say ” ah, but I answered all of
that, that’s old news, and dismiss the
legitimate queestions level at him”
We, and the Clinton camp should be in no hurry to follow *his* clock. Should take one issue at the time
and run through it one by one. The three are problematic for him an d he
shouldn’t get away with any of them.
The media newscast last night on the Wright story was far too disgusting ….
The whole Wright affair is a huge problem: ask: will Wright be a frequent guest in an Obama WH?
No doubt about that, he would.
The Maytag, Crown, Earmark connection, Michelle’s salary & U of C 1 M earmark,
Rezko and the 11 foreclosures of low income housing in Chicago; leaving hundreds of Obama’s constituencies in the cold (shameful, unforgivable).
The only “change we seek” I see is that of the Obama’s family address from his home in Illinois to Penn. Ave, Washinton, DC.
I am shocked: I visited the web site of the United Church of Christ and found that the president and a whole bunch of pastors take Reverend Wright’s side, praise him, and put the blame for the “attacks” on the media and circles with their own partisan interests–I assume they hint at the Clinton campaign.This is the statement on the church site:
http://www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html
Suskin above raised the issue of teh $25 donations and the amount of people pressured to donate.
I would like to add a question here:
We have all read numerous stories about how Obama is th favorite of such a large percentage of the people in Europe, Middle East, Africa … So I wonder:
Are the Internet donations of small sums $25 -say-
regulated?
How on earth do we know these are US citizens sending money?
How do we know there aren’t tons of foreign people sending him money (over and over in small donations?).
Does anyone know the answer to this?
Oh yes. I think we wrote that up here –> Hillary Clinton’s donation page has a number of hoops required for “foreign” donors in order to verify that they are eligible to donate. Obama’s donation page has no such verification process.
I will ask someone for more details. It is worth bringing up again in a short post.
Thanks Susan, I missed the post where you already bring this up.
But given Obama’s anti-american speech (subtle/not so subtle) it is clear that this is the reason it resonates so well with the europeans left
(that overwhelmingly support him).
A short post on this again would be good (as it ties with Wright, Obama and the “anti-US” hate-speech.
Thanks!
If you listen to the Sun Times interview, Obama didn’t answer things, leaving more questions than answers! Also, the reporters there were not very well prepared!
Land deal - still not answered, but arose questions of Rezko former partner eliminated who had a bid in on the land!
Church - 2007 attendance by Obama during a racial speech never brought up!
Papers for Kenwood deal - Obama claims never knew, yet when on the Woods Foundation, Davis approached Obama for money for a deal and Obama voted for it, are we to believe Obama was never asked to support a Rezko-Davis deal outside his district without being asked?
Meeting Auchi - Obama “no recollection”
Discussions with Rezko over house - Obama “no recollection”
Rezko problems - Obama “no knowledge”
The outcome of these interviews has the appearance of “Take my word and catch me if you can” which has been Obama’s attitude since the begining! Wasn’t this Nixon’s attitude?
Let’s get real for a minute, best time to speak on something politically is friday, so come monday it is usually dead in the water!
Yeap, that’s a well known tactic in politics..
That’s why I wrote in a previous post it is no coincidence Obama dumped the three biggies in the last 24hrs: earmarks, Wright and Rezko.
The media is doing everythging they can to help him survive this through the weekend. Then, he’ll say
“ah this is old news, I answered all that” and
dismiss all the legitimate questions he has not answered and are so so troubling.
Typical politician.