Sunday, March 23, 2008

A "Bumpy" Ride!

(Will Obama recover?) I hate to say it, but NO. I could have dealt with the preacher issue alone, but when Obama added the thoughtless comment about "typical white people," he lost my vote.

I had looked froward to supporting him. If that comment slipped out as easily as it did while he was campaigning and supposedly choosing his words carefully, how much more of his feelings would have emerged later in office?

I'm not voting for Hillary---her motives are somewhat self-focused---so it looks like McCain in '08. I hope the Democrats are pleased with themselves.

Another reader comments:
Yep, Obama just keeps digging the hole deeper. He is such a disappointment. I think most of America has realized his judgment skills are seriously lacking. What kind of man would expose his daughters to the likes of "Rev" Wright??

Obama may be down, but he is far from out! Luckily, Reverend Wright has been put out to pasture where he can do no more harm; however, Obama's "typical white person" comment was certainly prejudicial and a poor choice of words. Both of these issues will continue to haunt Obama's campaign.

There are many miles to go before the election and all candidates are being scrutinized like no other time in history. We seem to dismiss sexual scandals as par for the course... the newly appointed governor of New York proudly revealed in his second press conference that both he and his wife had participated in numerous extra-martial affairs while he served as lieutenant governor. Perhaps being both black and legally blind offer some special dispensation?

Presidents (and candidates) are human beings subject to all of the foibles and sins of their past. Lest we forget, Bill Clinton not only disgraced the office of Presidency, but was publicly impeached for his "sins" and poor judgement. Many consider breaches of personal trust and honesty to reveal much about a person's worthiness for public office. A man (or woman) who will lie to his/her spouse and family would not hesitate to lie to his country to protect himself.

Richard Nixon was the quintessential liar. He lied to everyone, about everything and when caught by the public in a lie, he lied his way out of it. Nixon will be recorded in history as one of our greatest Presidents!

My best advice to the American public is to "buckle your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy ride" to the White House!

Forthright

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, as if Rev. Wright had not done enough damage himself, the media has yet again captured another pastor at Obama's church ranting and raving about nonsense. Today, the pastor compared the media's attention to Reverend Wright to Jesus' death on the cross. Another appalling and offensive concept. Obama better start proclaiming that he won't be associated with such radical nutcases if he wants to continue a shot at this race.

Also, breaking news on Friday...someone breached confidentiality and spied on Obama's passport file. Big whoop. Now today, we find out all three of the presidential candidate's files were checked out on the sly. I guess it is only wrong for someone to look at Obama's because he is black??? This whole thing has caused MORE racism rather than bringing about "change and unity". How sad.

And yes..I am anonymous - my choice!

Ghost said...

The new pastor of Barack Obama’s church delivered a defiant defense of its retiring reverend Sunday, comparing media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to a modern-day lynching that resembles Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans...
Looks like the new pastor has the same problems..

Anonymous said...

Looks like the entire organization has some serious problems.

Anonymous said...

Anything going on at DRMC? Just curious

Anonymous said...

I was just thinking how nice it has been that no one has talked about DRMC.. Guess I shouldn't have thought that!!

Anonymous said...

To the last anonymous...ya must not work there!! Cuz trust me, if ya did, you'd have PLENTY to discuss!! No one knows til they're on the inside...it stinks!

Anonymous said...

the the 4th anonymous.. this is the 5th anonymous.. now the 6th anonymous. No I don't work there. From what I have heard, I am glad that I don't. Even tho I was offered a job there. I hope that things get better for the ones that do work there..
So since you brought it up, and you must work there... What is new at the Mash unit?
Thank You..
4th and 6th anonymous

Anonymous said...

Well, they are getting ready to open the new NICU in April. No one including the doctors can figure out the logic behind this gigantic waste of money. We hear Ray has contracted with a physician group in Jackson to staff it. They might as well stay in Jackson because nobody is going to willingly use DRMC. As for nurses, they don't have enough to staff the floors now, so where are they going to get trained NICU nurses from? The heart center is already a joke throughout the hospital and Ray's 4 million dollar ad campaign has just made it worse. So, nothing really new at DRMC... just the S.O.S. deguised with a new logo.

Anonymous said...

New NICU...wow, what a joke. Would YOU allow your preemie to be treated there? What's sad is they will not allow the Medicaid patients a choice. They will have no voice in the matter. How unfair. Only news I know is they gave Flo Flo her walking papers. She is now the "director" of the "west campus" ie - KDH. Since there's a handful of folks working over there, it doesn't really mean much. She was the director of nursing, and now that job is held by Queen Allyson. More and more power, watch out Ray, pretty soon, she'll have your job too!

Can't stand Hilary and Obama scares me! said...

HILLARY'S LIST OF LIES

By DICK MORRIS

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)


Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

• She opposed NAFTA at the time.

• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

• The billing records showed up on their own.

• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

• She was always a Yankees fan.

• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire d uring a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It wil l be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

McCain apreciates what the dummy democrats! said...

Hillary: Swiftboated!
By Ann Coulter

Hillary is being "swiftboated"!

She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.

Similarly, John Kerry's claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders -- who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia -- but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn't president on Christmas 1968.

In Hillary's defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.

Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke." (What if she's sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. "It proves I'm human.")

The reason no one claims Hillary is being "swiftboated" is that the definition of "swiftboating" is: "producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying." And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media's honorary Republican.

In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are "swiftboated"; Republicans are "guilty." So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn't being swiftboated; she's just lying.

Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary's uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.

I've always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.

It's such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.

Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons -- which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they've been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary "misspeaks," while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.

Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.

And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.

In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed "worthy of Abraham Lincoln," B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements, saying:

"For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table."

So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.

First of all: Watch out the next time you get your hair cut by a black barber over the age of 50.

Second, Rev. Wright's world wasn't segregated.

And third, what about Wright's wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama's defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright's "legitimate" rage over his painful youth in segregated America.

But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright's sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a "dirty word" and a "racist country." He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.

In addition to videos of Rev. Wright's sermons, Obama's church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama's church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness."

What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright's anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his "conversation," even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel's status as one of our "stalwart allies." Why does crazy "uncle" Wright dislike Jews?

Will liberals contend that these remarks were "taken out of context"? Maybe Wright's church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn't great when it said he "epitomized greatness." Who knows? We weren't there.

Can liberals please educate us on the "legitimate" impulses behind Rev. Wright's Jew-baiting?

McCain appreciates what the dummy democrats are saying... said...

oops typos! slip of the hand!
No critiques please! I do know how to spell! Typing, correctly, is a whole different matter!LOL

Anonymous said...

The liberals cannot educate us on the legitimacy of Rev. Wright's comments....because they ARE RACIST LIES! If a white, Jewish, Italian, or any other ethnic group had damned America and made such ludicrous claims about the HIV virus, they would have been IMMEDIATELY crucified. This is BULL! I am sickened by the likes of Reverend Wright and his good buddy, Mr. Liberal Obama. I hope McCain beats him like a red-headed step child!!!
And PS - There are many "white lies" that Obama has told just as Hilary has done, however; based on the fact that he is liberal black, it is all ok, because after all, I'm just a "typical white person".

Anonymous said...

It does get aggravating after a while.

well...don't you think? said...

"If a white, Jewish, Italian, or any other ethnic group had damned America and made such ludicrous claims about the HIV virus, they would have been IMMEDIATELY crucified."

But... he WAS immediately crucified. As soon as those clips were made public, everyone went into an uproar. Forced to resign, ripped apart by liberal and conservative commentators, blasted by the general public and the mainstream media -- one 20 second clip instantly ended his career, ruined his reputation, and caused most everyone to be "sickened".

What more would you have expected to happen to a, say, white Italian preacher?

Anonymous said...

Well, since you asked...I might not expect a front runner for the presidential race to have listened to his antics for 20 years. And, you are mistaken, it was not 20 seconds, it was numerous occasions on which he proclaimed racial hatred. We are all accountable for our actions ALL THE TIME. Sometimes a 20 second lapse in judgment can be the difference between life and death. So, no, he was not crucified and I have heard many African Americans attempt to justify his maniacal ravings.

Ghost said...

African Americans and English Americans try to justify it. but there is no justification for it. I just don't understand how a person that has seen what kind of church Obama went to for 20 years and still want to vote on him for president! Black or white.
People please explain!!

anna said...

"I just don't understand how a person that has seen what kind of church Obama went to for 20 years and still want to vote on him for president! Black or white.
People please explain!!"

I'm not sure there is anything to explain. Some people see Reverend Wright's crazy sermons as a reflection of Sen. Obama and his campaign-- no one's words could convince them otherwise.

Other people do not see one man's occasional ravings as a reason to dismiss the entire campaign-- and probably won't be convinced otherwise. This is simply a belief issue -- should we judge someone on the basis of what their pastor or mentor believes?

I personally wouldn't want to be judged solely on the words of my paster, who has said things that I don't agree with in the past. I am white, but I identified with Sen. Obama's explanation - he likened the most egregious of Wright's statements to his racist white grandmother, or that "uncle with a good heart who says crazy things sometimes" (or similar words to that effect). Both of the fictional persons Barack Obama used as metaphors are, in reality, a part of my own family. Will I "expose" my children to their great-grandfather, even though he spews racist hate? Of course. But I will discuss race with them in a frank discussion before and after, so that they understand the implications of his words, and what we can learn, and what we NEED to learn from them about race, identity, and history. I may not agree with 100% of his beliefs, but he is a mentor in my life nonetheless.

In my mind, we should dismiss Reverend Wright as a disillusioned man, and MOVE ON. Let's judge the candidates instead by policy, by presence, by experience, and by capabilities ... not on silly asides like this. I noticed people trying to pull up negative statements online from McCain's pastor - a ridiculous effort to drag yet another upstanding candidate into this stupid mud-throwing. Let's just drop it and move on to the REAL issues: the war, the economy, .. the things that matter.

Political humor said...

Political humor:
http://www.gopusa.com/cartoons/
Good ones! In this campaign, we can all use a few chuckles at THEIR expense!LOL

rd said...

Anna - very well put! I'm not really for or against Obama but I don't like the way some people are trying to pigeon hole his crediblitly on this pastor of his. Funny how we are so quick grab a flag and throw him out as a "bad American" or "bad candidate" based on some sermon his pastor preached. Frankly I am more worried about the fact that he was a lawyer at one point ... but that has never stopped us from electing people in the past *grin.

Average White Guy said...

I'm just getting completely sick of the whole campaign!

I cant wait for November so we can get it over with!

Guess I have been watching to much Fox news!!

adam brown said...

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is

Anonymous said...

Anna and rd - No one has said that Obama is a "bad candidate". However, it is disturbing to look into the black liberation theory and to see Obama's church so adamantly proclaim that they base their organization on a book written in the 1960's which speaks of "destroying the white enemy". Now, I am not talking about one sermon, one ten minute speech filled full of psychotic and hatred, but rather the most basic principles of which this church was founded. Trust me, if John McCain had attended a church for twenty years where one of the pastors was a preacher by day, but a KKK clansmen by night, do you really think I would support Mr. McCain??? It is ludicrous. Can you not understand that racism works both ways? Hate for another is hate. It is not rose colored and you will never make me believe that it is ok to justify such actions. The lame argument made by some is that "oh, he can't be blamed for his preacher's actions" and "that's just how black religion is". Bull!!! You two and others who are incredulously open minded and liberal are in for a very rude awakening if this man with a dangerous and scary past is our next president. But heck, what do I know?? After all, I'm just one of those "typical white people"!

Anonymous said...

You know... I've noticed that all those out there throwing around the "typical white people" remark are the ones who cannot see outside of their own experience. So, if that is the shoe that fits, I guess I am not a typical white person and I'm proud of it...

I find it funny if Obama's church was founded on this principal that you are claiming he is a racist. How many of you have children at Washington School? Hmmm... why was it founded?... So because of the schools history are you all racists? That church may have a history of beliefs that differs from your own in some ways, but it parallels it in others. The climate of those times led to many things on both sides of the divide. But it's called the past for a reason.

Obama is not preaching a divide. He is reaching out of hope for us to come together as one country. He has family of both white and black, and I have a very hard time believing that he is covering up his true feelings just to get into office and then turn into the devil... pitchfork and all. I just wish people would look to his books, his policies, get a copy of his economic plan, read up on each canidate, and then decide.

Do not go with the flavor of the day splashed across your TV screen(especially on Fox news) that relies on shock media to grab your attention. In an educated manner, find out what is important about each person. And yes, at the end of the day, if his religion is important to you, look at those sources too. Religion is important to me, and you know they actually praise God in that church, too. Imagine that. Try to look with untainted eyes for your answers.

Anonymous said...

i heard dr. gober is moving into the old kdh, where is the wound center moving to?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous---I agree with your comments, and I am an Obama supporter. But I also support Washington School. Please don't single us out as having "racist beginnings," as academies cropped up everywhere in Mississippi during the 60's and 70's, and there were and ARE still are schools in Washington County that appeared at the same time as Washington School. And for that matter, the Catholic Schools didn't have nearly the Protestant population back then as they do now. I am often amused by the non-Catholic "liberals" who think they are protesting the private schools by sending their kids to Lourdes and SJS. They are perceived as simply sending their kids to a private school without the guilt trip. I always thought Catholic school was for Catholic kids whose Catholic parents felt strongly about having their kids' education closely linked with Catholic teachings. What if the only other "private" school in town was Jewish or Muslim or Greek Orthodox? Would those same parents suddenly be big supporters of the public schools? If Anonymous would come have a 21st century look at Washington School, he might see a different view. It's lots more forward-thinking than you remember.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I am a supporter of Washington Schools as well... I was making a parallel point that if those people are pointing to Obama as a racist because of past reasons behind his church's philosophy, then the same would have to be true of us. However, you and I realize that it isn't the truth for us and, in my opinion, is not true of Obama either... other small minds cannot make the connection. It is all for the outside world that they do not try to understand, but not in their house. Get my point?...

Anonymous said...

I think so...you're saying don't judge someone (a candidate or a school) for earlier history that was beyond his/its young patrons' control? Thanks for clarifying the point.

just pick a name... pleeease said...

Good points made by all!

( makes it hard to respond to one point when there are 3 or 4 different "anonymous" talking -- click on "Name/Url" and make up a name before you post! please!)

anna said...

I agree with anonymous at 7:46's point about the fact that racism SHOULD work both ways -- and that it is unfair to give people a free ride if they make 'anti-white' statements. No one should be pardoned for racism - and Reverend Wright hasn't been. Obviously if John Mccain's pastor had been a member of the KKK (this seems a bit more serious that Wright, but for theoretical reasons, we'll stick with this example) people would have reacted MUCH more harshly towards the candidate. Unfair? Absolutely. But unfortunately there IS a double standard -- and that won't change anytime soon. I think, in our society, the same double standard can be seen for gender.

Those who have been, or are, at a disadvantage in society are allowed to be angrily bitter, while those with more clout, cannot angrily demean. Unfair? Yes. Some might say the past should be left in the past... I would agree, but of course, this is wishful thinking... the past affects everything, and we can't let go of it as individuals, let alone as a society.

However, I do not agree, for the record, with anonymous at 7:46's confusion when they wrote "No one has said that Obama is a "bad candidate", but then later goes on to assure us that we "are in for a very rude awakening if this man with a dangerous and scary past is our next president." if that's not a bad candidate, I'm not sure what is! :)

An attempt at impartiality thrown to the side....

Anonymous said...

Where is Forthright? We need a page update!!!!

Danger Will Robinson said...

anna, I never said Obama is a "bad" candidate. However, it is my opinion that he is a potentially dangerous candidate based mostly on his inexperience and apparent lack of judgment. I do not expect everyone to agree here, but I am just grateful that everyone's voice can be heard. By the way, I strongly disagree with the junk about Washington School. Last time I checked the private schools here weren't screaming for God to damn all other races except their own and preaching liberal messages of destruction. So, no go...it's not a parallel by a long shot!