Video: Barack Obama Speech - Keeping Our Faith with Veterans
May 13, 2008
I love that he calls it “race poison.” That’s the irony. It doesn’t just hurt blacks. It really is poisonous for whites as well.
Andrew Sullivan writes:
In the Clintons’ morphing into a crude version of racially angry Reagan Democrats, you can see an almost Shakespearian tragedy. Bill Clinton has a long and admirable record in civil rights; and was on the right side of the struggle in the South in his youth. He has an effortless rapport with black Americans, and they were his core final constituency of support in the darkest days of impeachment.
But like any southerner, Clinton also knew how to navigate racial resentment. In 1992, he interrupted the primary campaign to return to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of a mentally retarded black man. He made a point of attacking the radical black hip hop artist Sister Souljah in his first campaign. He signed off on welfare reform. His genius was in holding together a coalition that included enough Reagan Democrats to win, while never losing wide and deep black support.
But he never ran against a black candidate and neither did his wife. They are used to loving and supporting minorities – as long as the minorities know their place and see the Clintons as the instrument of their salvation. Obama broke that dependency and that relationship. And that was why the Clintons had to do all they could to destroy and belittle and besmirch him.
Precisely. It’s almost like a more triumphant version of the Miss Millie storyline in The Color Purple. Read more of Sullivan’s article here.
“I’ve never gotten into these issues before”–John McCain
I’m just dying to know what other issues facing this generation he’s completely out of touch on. For example, does he even have a technology platform like Obama does? What is his autism plan? What is his urban policy platform? Obama would do well to make sure that voters know that there are a whole set of post-1960s issues that McCain probably isn’t up to speed on.
This was from March 2007.
The New York Times reports:
Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”
Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”
Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”
The pundits who started this story should just stop it. They are getting everyone all amped up for no good reason.
The New York Times reports:
If Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would happen to broker a deal to help pay off her campaign debts – this remains a big if, aides said, because nothing has been formally discussed – the money would not be taken from Mr. Obama’s campaign account. Instead, he would have to make a fund-raising appeal on her behalf, asking people to contribute.
Slate.com reports:
Meanwhile, diarists at DailyKos started hyperventilating that their Obama donations would be given to subsidize Clinton’s ailing campaign. Is their fear justified?
No it’s not. Obama can’t just “pay back” Clinton’s debt. FEC rules limit contributions from one candidate committee to another at $2000, according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack. So even if Obama wanted to cut Hillary a $10 million check, he couldn’t. Nor could he route his money through the DNC, since national party committees can only give $5000 to a candidate committee.
What Obama can do is fundraise for her. Over the past year, Obama has established a formidable online fundraising apparatus that has raked in more than $240 million since the campaign began. If he called for supporters to chip in for Clinton, or set up a joint fundraising committee, he could probably drum up some cash. How much is unclear. Obama/Clinton relations remain icy, and many Obama supporters might hesitate to cut $2300 checks for the candidate they see as overstaying her welcome in order to weaken Obama against McCain. Plus, if small-bore donors have limited funds, they’re more likely to give Obama cash for the general than to get the multi-millionaire Clinton back on her feet.
So no, our hardearned money will not be going to bail out someone worth $100+ million and to pay for someone who lost the nomination on February 5 because they failed to have a post-Feb. 5 strategy and and to pay for the likes of Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and to pay for the many insults to our intelligence and our identities that we have had to endure over the past year…
That is, unless you want to give to that effort.
On the other hand, this might be a good moment for him to reach out to her female supporters by headlining fundraising events for women who support her and wouldn’t mind retiring her debt. They can do a 50-state women’s tour where he can bring them into the fold and she can get her debt paid by them.
haha! Obama can’t even take a leisurely walk through the most elite halls of power in this country, without being mobbed…
He’s looking very Presidential these days…especially in this interview…
Part 1
Despite a bruising several weeks in the national media, Barack Obama supporters in Indiana remain “fired up and ready to go,” confident of victory in Tuesday’s primary and optimistic that the party will begin to coalesce.
The atmosphere at Obama HQ in Gary, IN highlighted that sentiment Saturday, as both the campaign and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) sent out hundreds of volunteers “targeting the whole city,” according to Shana Caruthers, a volunteer in the Obama field office.
“Everybody that comes in here is excited about the cause,” said Caruthers, a lifelong Gary resident. “It’s crunch time. We’re gonna get it. We’re gonna bring it home.”
Despite a perpetual, misty cold, Genie Kastrup, political director for the SEIU Illinois Council, said more than 350 SEIU, Change to Win, and Obama campaign volunteers showed up to canvas the Steel City.
…
Yet on the ground in Gary, Indiana - an undeniable, blue collar buckle in the Rust Belt - all signs indicate an Obama victory.
“It’s gonna come down to getting out the voters,” said Erik Sjobeck, an Obama volunteer who flew in from California a week ago to help. This is Sjobeck’s first time volunteering on a political campaign. He’s been a supporter of the Illinois senator since February, when he was impressed by the personal attention he received after sending a letter.
“I’m still waiting for my letter from the Hillary campaign,” he said. Sjobeck sent that letter in November of 2005.
Despite the remarkable distance, Sjobeck’s dedication clearly is not unusual. Many volunteers came from neighboring Illinois to help.
Mark Inendrino, from Schiller Park, IL, summed up the volunteer’s excitement well.
“We’re winning, definitely,” he said, preparing to head out for a second round of canvassing. He called the Wright controversy “nonsense,” saying “people are smarter than that.”
Devlin Schoop, from Chicago, agreed, saying the controversy has had “no effect whatsoever” on both volunteer - and voter - enthusiasm. He and his wife, Lynda, predict nothing short of victory on Tuesday.
“I think things have been coming together for quite a long time now and, well,” he said, “we’ll leave it at that.” According to Obama volunteers on the ground, Indiana turnout is expected to be high.
“There were a lot of people that were dead set on voting,” said Mark Drury, a volunteer from Hyde Park, IL who spent the morning canvassing Gary neighborhoods. Drury and his companion, Jackie Sibblies, drove to Indiana to volunteer after watching the Clinton campaign advance in recent weeks.
According to most volunteers, however, Clinton has not made visible inroads in Gary.
“I haven’t seen a single Hillary sign all the time I’ve been here,” said Inendrino. Similarly, neither he nor fellow volunteer Bridget Shopp have seen a single Clinton volunteer.
“We actually had one woman who tried to threaten us,” laughed Shopp, of Algonquin, IL.
“She was afraid we were with the Hillary campaign,” explained Inendrino.
Woooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeahhhhhhh!!!
Here is the #1 thing that put me leaning Obama in spring of last year, even though I was neutral about Hillary and was almost willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on her war vote just because she would be the first woman President.
Yet over the course of blogging this campaign, I have come to better understand the candidates and have developed a more intense case for Obama over Hillary on multiple issues. My attitude toward Hillary went from neutral to most negative possible. Here are some of the reasons why:
Democracy
Economic Concerns
Electability
The Environment
Ethics and Lobbyist Reform
Experience
Foreign Policy
Health Care
Homeland Security
Human Rights
Judicial System
Lying
Poverty
Technological Innovation
Women’s Rights
And because of this….
And because I’ve come to understand that this thing is ultimately about this…