For the record I majored in Political Science and I love the debate that occurs every four years as we elect our President. That being said Senator Hillary Clinton, in a brilliant acting performance cried on Monday. I watched, as she appeared to get very “emotional.”
I remembered Hillary's “uncharacteristic” display of “emotions” the previous night. That particular show of emotions has been characterized as Clinton losing control. During that display of emotions Hillary repeated the word change ten times as she tried unsuccessfully to sell herself as an agent of change.
The same day that Hillary displayed her "out of control" emotional outburst Bill told a crowd of people “I can’t make her younger, I can’t make her taller and I can’t make her a man.”
After playing a tape of both incidents (Bill’s remarks and Hillary’s response to Edwards) a political pundit stated, “We wonder what she and President Clinton are going to do to turn things around for Hillary?" "They seem to be falling apart because of her pending defeat.”
The next day at a local diner in New Hampshire, 64 year old freelance photographer Marianne Pernold Young, said "this question is personal." “ How do you do it? Who does your hair?
Please listen to the entire video posted on our site of Hillary's emotional moment. Watch and listen closely to Senator Clinton’s response. As quickly as Senator Clinton had her moment “cried” she makes a remarkable recovery, she positioned her body and microphone.
She then starts her prepared text and/or speech with “This is very “personal” for me, it is not just political, not just public. Clinton ended her speech with the statement that she is going to do everything I can to make her case and then the voters get to decide.
Those attending the meeting of undecided voters clapped and the meeting ended. Notice that the “personal” question” was asked at the very end of the political gathering at the diner.
After viewing Hilliary's acting performance I had an answer to the pundits' questions. The Clinton “did” something that has worked for them in their famous joint 60 Minutes appearance.
During that successful effort to defend against allegations of unfaithfulness by then presidential candidate Bill Clinton., Hillary made her famous response: “I’m not sitting here, like some woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette. I am here because I love him, and I honor what he has been through and what we’ve been through together, and, you know, if that’s not enough for people, then don’t vote for him.”
Additionally, Senator Clinton's political team has been caught planting people with prepared questions in crowds in the past. It doesn’t matter if one can prove that the woman was planted. What matters is the fact that her team has planted at least one person during this election cycle. Therefore, it is possible that they did it again because the polls had her down by double digits numbers. I know that politics is a brutal sports. But is it too much to ask President Clinton and the Senator to play the game fairly this time?
I love President Clinton. I still believe that he was the best president in my lifetime. To quote a favorite sentiment of our current president "history will judge President Clinton’s time in office." I believe that history will confirm that he was one of the best presidents to served this country.
President Clinton graduated from Yale Law School and still lied under oath during a deposition. The alleged sexual harassment case was toss out of court by the filing of a summary judgment motion. After it became public knowledge that he lied under oath President Clinton paid Paula Jones over $900, 000.
As a Christian, I am not judging President Clinton but he did have --- with that woman. Do we as a nation what to worry about Hillary compromising the good of the country in general and the welfare of Black Americans in particular to conceal bad behavior by President Clinton? Behavior that she tolerated and suffered silently about in the past.
Do we want to worry like many of us have for the past seven years about who is really making presidential decisions? Call me a conspiracy theorist or what ever, but isn’t this a perfect way for the Clintons to circumvent the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia states: “Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States, providing that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Taking this one more step further, Senator Clinton voted for Bush Administration classification of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group. What intelligent, knowledgeable, and “experienced” Democrat would give Bush that much power to start another unprovoked war for a second time? Could it be that she wants to have the same unchecked power exhibited by Bush during “her” term as the “President?”
Only after she came under fire from rivals Obama and Edwards did she attempt to adjust her position by co-sponsoring a ”resolution” that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization.
I hope that Americans especially Black Americans are sick and tired of not being able to trust our president. We know that the rest of the world is tired of the same political game and names in the White House. As I typed that last sentence, I realized that for the last 20 years there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
If Hillary is elected this country would have 28 years of the Clintons and the Bushes in the Oval Office. Is this a coincidence? Conspiracy theorist again, after all former President Bush and Bill like each other and are now “good” friends.
Edwards is a recent statement said that he was confident that he would be the Democratic nominee because the last time he checked all of the previous presidents of this county looked like him.
Today one of Edwards’s campaign staff stated that he was going to stay In the race because he can be elected. Really, Mr. Edwards part of getting elected is winning the nomination of the party. You cannot win the party’s nomination.
Although, his comment also disrespect Senator Clinton, it really touches a nerve because I am a black woman. If the party that has received over ninety percent of our vote year at year don’t value us who does? Is it too much to ask that Senator Edwards respect Black Americans and the support that we have given the Democratic Party?
To Edwards I say, Sir go home to your beautiful wife and family. You are male and white. In eight years you will still be a white male. We supported you when you were on the Democratic ticket for Vice President of the United States of America. It is now time for you to show your support for us by getting out of this race.
To President Clinton and Senator Clinton I say, we as a people loved you President Clinton. We loved you so much that our great black representatives saved you from the disgrace of impeachment. We loved you so much that we elected you for a second term.
Thanks for bringing us to the table during your two terms as president. We are a diverse group of intelligent and educated people. We are capable of solving our own problems and we are ready to demonstrate that fact to your family and the world.
To the Democratic Party I say, that the time is now, it is time for you to pay us for being loyal and true. This is Barack Obama’s time to run for the Presidency. Support him and the Democrats will not only take back the White House but we will also gain additional seats in both the House and the Senate. Seats needed to implement the “changes” that Senator Obama is so passionate about making.
To white Democrats I say, you can choose Hillary and her promise that she can beat the Republicans this time. You can choose Hillary because as evident from what she says after her “crying” moment, only she can save this country and I guess by implication, “us.”
There are over 300 million people living in this country. Isn't it time that someone who doesn't look like Edwards and isn't a Clinton or Bush have the opportunity to represent us and to represent the United States of America to the world.
I know there is the fear that we may lose the general elections if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. We know for a fact that we lost the last two elections. We also know that Hillary cannot win the November 2008 general election without “our” vote.
The white pundits are now arguing that Senator Barack Obama isn’t qualified for the presidency because he only has two years of experience in the United States Senate. Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the qualifications required to become president. The above-mentioned articles states that the president must be (1) natural-born citizens, (2) at least thirty-five years old, and (3) must have been a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
As a race of people we have heard it all before we are not qualified although we are looking at the qualifications and we are as qualified as all of the other applicants. We know that our life experiences, as a black person is this county gives us skills that prepares us for the world. Obama is as educated as the Clintons and is as qualified as former Presidents Ford, Carter, Clinton, Reagan, and Bush Sr and Bush II. The only difference is that the former presidents all look like John Edwards.
Finally, win, lose, or draw, I am appealing to all Black Americans to vote for Obama in South Carolina and the remaining primaries. To Black America especially our leaders who like me could not dare to “hope” that Senator Barack Obama could win, I say the time is now. It is time for you to choose Obama. I encourage our black leaders (yes we still need and appreciate you) to chose Obama and endorse him now. After you publicly endorse our Senator, please encourage and inspire us to victory.
We have the chance to witness the manifestations of the promised made by God to Martin Luther King and to our forefathers. We don’t have the luxury of time on our side. We must win in South Carolina. This is our moment in time to save ourselves. We can do this by to casting our vote for someone who looks like Dr. Martin Luther King and who does not look like Edwards.
Vera Richardson is the author of “A Case of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Real or Imagined.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615177018/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller
9 comments:
Save yourself from who?
I thought America is looking for the best President to defeat Bush and his shady politics. At least that is what I thought until I read this?
Senator Obama is the best person for the Presidency.
Black Americans will save ourselves from racism (the appearance of nooses around the country), discrimination, retaliation, second class citizenship, proverty, police brutality based on race, low wages, high crime rates in our neighborhoods, inequality in the criminal justice system, health care issues, etc�.
By: Ben Smith
Feb 22, 2008 01:09 AM EST
Former radical activist Bernardine Dohrn and her companion William Ayers leave court in Chicago on Jan. 14, 1981. Dohrn received a $1,500 fine and three years probation for her role in the 'Days of Rage' disturbance in Chicago in 1969.
Photo: AP
SAVE
Digg
del.icio.us
MORE
SHARE
COMMENT
PRINT
EMAIL
RECOMMEND
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.
Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.
“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”
Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.
Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.
Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.
Dem tension hinges on plagiarism charges
McCain turns tables on Times
Clinton holds back in high-stakes debate
But Obama’s relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides.
In one sense, Obama’s journey toward the cultural and political center is not unusual among national politicians. But its velocity is.
Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.
On the other side of the political spectrum, many in the generation before hers shifted dramatically on civil rights. John McCain voted against creating a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. and later called that a mistake.
The relationship with Ayers gives context to his recent past in Hyde Park politics. It’s milieu in which a former violent radical was a stalwart of the local scene, not especially controversial.
It’s also a scene whose liberal ideological features — while taken for granted by the Chicago press corps that knows Obama best — provides a jarring contrast with Obama’s current, anti-ideological stance. This contrast between past and present — not least the Ayers connection — is virtually certain to be a subject Republican operatives will warm to if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
The tension between the present and recent Chicago past is also evident in some of his positions on major national issues. Many national politicians, including Clinton, have moved toward the center over time. But Obama’s transitions are still quite fresh.
A questionnaire from his 1996 campaign indicated more blanket opposition to the death penalty, and support of abortion rights, than he currently espouses. He spoke in support of single-payer health care as recently as 2003.
Like many of the most extreme figures from the 1960s Ayers and Dohrn are ambiguous figures in American life.
They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.
Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.
But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.
Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.
“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.
And their rehabilitation in establishment circles, even in Hyde Park, has its limits.
Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.
“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him.
But the couple has been embraced, by and large, in the liberal circles dominating Hyde Park politics.
“Bill Ayers is one of my heroes in life,” said Sam Ackerman, a longtime local activist. “I knew Tony Rezko, and he ain’t no Rezko.”
But others in Hyde Park, whose intellectual and political life revolves around the University of Chicago, view the couple with ambivalence.
Today, Sen. Obama said the following:
And yesterday, Senator Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for President.
This is false. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for sending out a mailer that claimed she said NAFTA was a "boon to the economy" when she never did. Today, the University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org concluded "We do judge that the Obama campaign is wrong to quote Clinton as using words she never uttered, and it has produced little evidence that she ever had strong praise of any sort for NAFTA's economic benefits."
Also, Hillary has been critical of NAFTA long before she started running for President. For example, here's Hillary in March 2000:
What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that. [Working Families Party, 3/26/00]
Sen. Obama touts his consistent opposition to NAFTA. But speaking in Illinois in 2004 Obama said the United States "benefited enormously" from exports under NAFTA and talked about the need to continue to pursue trade agreement like NAFTA that support "a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas
Obama Claims He "Never" Supported NAFTA, But Praised The Deal During His Last Campaign
In This Campaign, Obama Attacks Sen. Clinton's Past Support Of NAFTA, Saying He Has "Never" Supported The Free Trade Pact:
Obama: "I Don't Think NAFTA Has Been Good For America - And I Never Have." Obama: "Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. ... Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have." (David Espo, "Obama Hits Clinton On NAFTA Support," The Associated Press, 2/24/08)
But In His Last Campaign, Obama Praised NAFTA:
In 2004 Obama Said U.S. Benefits Enormously From Exports Under NAFTA. "Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA." (Ron Ingram, "Obama, Keyes Court Farmers," [Decatur, IL] Herald & Review, 9/9/04)
Obama Said The U.S Should "Pursue Deals Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." "[Obama] said the United State [sic] should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement..." (Christopher Wills, "Senate Candidates Speak On Farm, Trade Issues," The Associated Press, 9/8/04)
And Even Today, Obama Admits Repeal Of The Trade Pact He Attacks Would Result In A Net Job Loss:
Obama: NAFTA Repeal "Would Probably Result In More Job Losses In The United States Than Job Gains." "Obama, when asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, has said business ties among the countries were now so entrenched that reversing the trade deal 'would probably result in more job losses in the United States than job gains.' Instead, he said the treaty should be amended." (Mike Dorning and Rick Pearson, "Trade Jabs: Clinton, Obama Do," Chicago Tribune, 2/25/08)
Since 2004, Obama Has Also Shifted On Amending NAFTA:
In 2007, Obama Pledged To "Immediately Call The President Of Mexico, The President Of Canada To Try To Amend NAFTA..." "I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street." (Sen. Barack Obama, AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)
But In 2004, Obama "Concede[d] It Likely Will Not Be Possible To Renegotiate Existing [Free Trade] Deals." "'Free trade is important to the health of Illinois, but we need to be more effective in negotiations,' says state Sen. Barack Obama of Chicago, a relative moderate on the issue. He calls for enforceable standards on collective bargaining and environmental protection in future pacts, but concedes it likely will not be possible to renegotiate existing deals." (Greg Hinz, "Candidates Sing From Same Song Sheet," Crain's Chicago Business, 2/16/04)
It's not a perfect solution to the problem but it does reaffirm a commitment that isn't shared by Senator Clinton, who's taken more money [from lobbyists] than any other candidate," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said of Mr. Obama's policy to turn down money from current federal lobbyists.
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign said Mr. Obama's policy lacks substance.
"When Senator Obama is out on the stump, he works hard to give the impression that he has no relationship with K Street or the special interests," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said yesterday. "A little research into his record, however, makes it quite clear that his claims are really just words."
The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) has found that Mrs. Clinton has accepted more than $750,000 from lobbyists so far during the presidential campaign, while Mr. Obama took more than $85,000.
Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the center, said the group's figures include donations from family members of federal lobbyists as well as contributions from state and municipal lobbyists. He also said the Obama campaign has a good track record of returning money from current federal lobbyists once they learn of the contributions.
"The money goes right back out the door," he said.
The records show that partners at Covington & Burling LLP had given the Obama campaign more than $25,000 in contributions last year, including $10,650 since October.
Covington & Burling lawyer Eric Holder, a former top deputy in the Justice Department and U.S. attorney for the District, gave $4,600 to Mr. Obama. An adviser for the campaign, he was registered as a lobbyist in 2003 but does not currently lobby, records show.
Partners at Sullivan & Cromwell, which last year earned $120,000 in lobbying fees from Goldman Sachs & Co., gave more than $40,000.
Despite the frequent talk of lobbying on the campaign trail, contributions from lobbyists are a small fraction of what employees in the banking and legal sectors donate.
Through September last year, employees of lobbying firms gave roughly $2.1 million to presidential candidates, compared with nearly $39 million from lawyers and $24 million from employees in the securities and banking industries, according an analysis by the CRP.
Candidate A is Barack Obama. You may not have heard anything about the incident described above. It has been reported in only one news venue – WND.
Candidate B is John McCain. I'm sure you've heard about his relationship with Vicki Iseman. It has been reported in every major news venue, including WND, and was broken in the New York Times.
What's the difference – besides the severity of the charges? I suspect, for the Big Media, the only difference is the candidate.
The Big Media are swooning over Barack Obama. And now that John McCain has all but wrapped up the Republican nomination for the presidency, the Big Media are, predictably, turning on the candidate they wanted all along to oppose the Democrats' anointed one.
If I hadn't watched this kind of thing happen over and over again for the last 30 years in the news business, I would be shocked.
But I have watched it. In fact, it is this kind of duplicity, partisanship and bias that led me to launch WND more than 10 years ago.
I believed it was time for a real media alternative – one that not only had professional journalism standards, but applied them evenly without fear or favoritism.
It is also why I wrote my most recent book, "Stop the Presses! The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution."
It was time, I believed, for Americans to understand the truth about the way they are spoon-fed lies and deception in a shameless effort to manipulate their behavior.
What am I missing about these two stories?
Is there more than meets the eye?
I can ask these questions as an independent journalist who supports neither Obama nor McCain. In fact, I can promise you WND would report both stories regardless of whether I supported either candidate.
That's independent journalism.
That's the American tradition of reporting.
The Big Media may be losing their hammerlock, monopolistic grip on the eyes and ears of the American public, but its bias and double standards are still a threat to the republic.
The American people have a choice – not just about candidate A and candidate B. You also have a choice about media.
I urge you to exercise that choice – while you still have a chance. Because, if the Big Media have their way, they would happily take you back to the days of media monopoly – the days of no choice at all.
Media double standard on candidates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 22, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
Let me get this straight.
Presidential candidate A is accused of having a risky homosexual dalliance with someone he picks up in a bar, scoring powdered cocaine for his partner and crack cocaine for himself in an incident that allegedly occurred about nine years ago. The named alleged partner makes his charges public, agrees to a polygraph and files a lawsuit reiterating the charges and accusing the candidate of harassment and intimidation. The candidate refuses to deny the allegations.
Presidential candidate B is accused by unnamed sources of having a romantic interest in a female lobbyist in the same year. There are no specific allegations of sexual or drug-related incidents. Both the candidate and the lobbyist adamantly deny any untoward activity took place between them.
Yet, for the Big Media, there is no story involving presidential candidate A, but there is a raging mega-story involving candidate B.
I've been a newsman for 30 years. This is what we call a double standard as big, wide and deep as the Grand Canyon, which happens to be in candidate B's home state.
this is the first part of the above article:
Why would Barack hide the fact that even though his parents divorced when he was two, she remarried a man from Indonesia who was a Muslim and they moved to Jakarta when he was 6yrs old and went to a private Muslim school? He was in high school when she got divorced again that's when he was sent back to live with his grandparents in Hawaii and attended another private school.
It seems like he's hiding that for some reason,he keeps saying his mother was a single parent; if she was it wasn't for long.
Post a Comment