Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditWin or lose, whatever happens next, Barack Obama is now established as one of those rare, courageous teachers who leads the country onto new ground. He has given us a way to talk about race and our other differences with the clarity and honesty that politics does not normally tolerate. Whether this hurts or helps his presidential prospects is not yet clear, but he has done this for us and it will change the country, whatever the costs to him.
His words should discourage the media frenzy of fear-driven gotcha. His speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday may also make the Clintons re-think their unsubtle exploitation of racial tension. But nobody knows the depth or strength of the commonplace fears streaming through the underground of public feelings. No one can be sure of what people will hear in Obama's confident embrace, beckoning Americans in all their differences, leaving out no one, to a better understanding of themselves.
The essence of the blues, as I learned to understand, is what Barack Obama accomplished in that speech--the beautiful and hopeful wrapped in pain and sacrifice, the despairing truths about the black experience in America that mysteriously exalt the human spirit when we hear the music. We don't need to understand why or define the meaning. In this case, Obama himself is the expression of what we are feeling. His speech will live on as a complex, exalting memory, whatever happens, because what he said about us is true.
Remember, this is a very shrewd politician, not just highly intelligent and worldly, but wise about himself. He must have understood fully the nature of what he was doing in this speech because all of his life he has coped successfully with the dangerous cross-currents of race. In that speech, Obama was taking all the risks onto himself, going where no one had dared to go before in politics with awareness he might personally pay a price. That is what leaders do, isn't it?
First, Barack Obama did not speak to Americans as though we are children. His discussion assumed that people could relate to a sophisticated explication of the American experience. He did not repackage the realities of race into uplifting myths. Above all, he did not leave anyone out of this generous approach, not his white grandmother for her folk fears of black strangers, not the cruel narrative of the African-American struggle, not the white working class whose immigrant stories have their own legacy of suffering and resentment. Nor would he renounce his friend and mentor Jeremiah Wright, the minister who expresses deeply felt anger and disappointment at the American story.
If you understand the risks Obama undertook, you can see the beauty and pain in what he did. He could not back away from the risks without betraying himself and all those people who are part of him. On the other hand, he was putting at risk his own great promise as a politician. In psychological terms, what's extraordinary is his refusal to split off himself and his own experience from those others. So he embraced them, knowing the risks. Then he tells us--audaciously--that we are capable of doing the same. Yet most of us do the opposite in everyday life, defining ourselves in contrast to the others we are not, idealizing our own selves by demonizing the others. Obama knows all this. He still insists we can do it. He has seen it happen in life.
Could Obama be right about Americans? The proposition itself is thrilling to hear. We feel ennobled by his hopeful account of who we are, but also a little scared. Obama didn't let anyone off the hook. He threw the choice back at the people. But what if he is wrong? We are scared to find out. His hopefulness makes us feel nervous for him.
Obama sounds like cool blues. The calmness of style, the strength of his self-confidence, pull us through the nervousness. If people have the opportunity to hear him in full and think about it, they will recognize the strength it took for him to open his arms this way, casting aside all defenses and evasions. With the hope and everything else he stands for, this guy is one very strong character.
Obama is the new politics, I believe, whatever happens this year. His way of talking and thinking will shape the future because I think he has got it right about the country.
Well, as the Right and the Hillary supporters will tell you...
"Hope and change are over-rated. Experience at giving you more of the same is what really matters!"
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 1:54pm
Barack "Not that Hussein" Osama is TOTALLY UNELECTABLE now....
Step forward the queen:
HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON aka her thighness
Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 1:55pm
Obama is the new politics, I believe, whatever happens this year. His way of talking and thinking will shape the future because I think he has got it right about the country.
Authenticity is what separates Obama from other politicians. He is not afraid to relate to us on "our" level as opposed to manipulating us with empty rhetoric, put-downs, and divisive politics.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/19/2008 @ 2:02pm
libzsuk-Does your mommy know that you're playing on here instead of doing your school work?
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2008 @ 2:02pm
"Obama sounds like cool blues."
Hope all the Super Delegates are listening closely, to Obama & to their own consciences. Otherwise Billary get to take down the party along with themselves.
Posted by sloper at 03/19/2008 @ 2:03pm
If the Supers want ANY chance to win this November....they will be FORCED into voting for the Queen Bee.....
At that point the final Crackup will commence....
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2008 @ 2:02pm
Seriously, I'M....don't you know the troll psychology?
They don't stick around, if nobody's paying attention to them! You're not helping.
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 2:11pm
Mask-He might go out and shoot up a McDonalds in order to get attention if he can't get it here.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2008 @ 2:18pm
I'M...know the old saying?--
"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it."
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 2:19pm
Mask-I used to raise pigs.They're good people.Don't put them into the same group as mouthshit.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2008 @ 2:27pm
CNN.com 19 February 2008
'...While campaigning in Youngstown, Ohio, Monday, Barack Obama said,....
"Speeches don't put food on the table, ..." '
Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/19/2008 @ 3:08pm
Let's see. . .a totally dishonest speech following a totally dishonest denial the Friday before about smelling the full flower of kookiness is the death knell of the "old politics?"
One standard for Don Imus' on the job racism and another for Rev. Wright's? Obama is done.
The only people fooled by his speech are those seeking some sort of racial absolution from him that they don't get from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Self-delusion is powerful, and Obama certainly knows how to invoke it in a certain subsegment of the electorate.
The issue this past week was about Rev. Wright and his too tight by half tin foil skullcap, not American race relations. Congratulations on getting publicly baited and switched Mr. Greider.
Posted by Boats at 03/19/2008 @ 3:25pm
Posted by BOATS 03/19/2008 @ 3:25pm\
So, BOATS, who do YOU want to see win in November???
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 3:44pm
Malcom X (speaking about the assassination of John F. Kennedy)
'Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad, they've always made me glad.'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/19/2008 @ 3:58pm
At this point, I am leaning McCain. Clinton is evil personified and Obama is a charlatan employing smoke and mirrors more than gravitas and substance.
I can understand the appeal of Obama as "an empty vessel" into which one pours all of their hopes, dreams, and excitement, but he is a tremendously flawed receptacle. If any halfway decent primary opponent were up against him, he'd be finished by now. He has had the good fortune to be running against the Wicked Witch of the Past, and the very inauthentic John Edwards.
It's no wonder that the SNL sketches against Obama's press groupies hit home so hard.
McCain, for all of his faults, is a proven bipartisan moderate. He has actually crossed the aisle for substantive compromises that ticked off his party rather than bloviate about it.
So right now, it looks like McCain is in a one person race if America is looking to elect a three dimensional human being.
Posted by Boats at 03/19/2008 @ 4:07pm
So where's the double standard, BOATS? Obama publicly denounced both Imus and Wright. Imus lost his job. Wright is stepping down as pastor of his church. Seems like they both got the same standard to me.
In neither case did Obama attack the person; in both cases he reserved his condemnation for their mistaken words. It's a pity not everyone who posts to this thread has yet mastered the difference between ad hominem and criticism, wouldn't you say, Mr. BOATS?
Posted by maddox at 03/19/2008 @ 4:11pm
Nicely said, Mr. Greider.
The speech Obama just gave in response to a Fox "News" instigated sleazefest is one for the history books. Obama has --almost miraculously-- thus far managed to gracefully walk the tightrope overtop of that curiously pungent brand of American hypocrisy that is eagerly wafted about via the echo chambers of right wing radio, and our ever increasingly stupefied TV. And his destination by default (whether Obama himself is fully aware of it or not) will be the keenly intensifying need to address America's dangerously deep journey into a dark, deadend alley of fatal war and fossil fuel addiction incurred debt --by fatal I mean deadly to the concept of American empire at a minimum.
The seriousness of the crisis is only slowly dawning on a mass-mesmerized American audience.
Here's but one entree that will soon be unceremoniously stuffed down our gullet whether we prefer it or not.
One can only hope that American priorities will be realigned to something approaching sanity in the nick of time to spare us the worst of the effects of a complete economic collapse.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/19/2008 @ 4:14pm
ABC still has Obama's hypocrisy on full display [abcnews.go.com]
Please do note Mr. Obama's own words:
"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America."
Which I suppose are somehow qualitatively different than the stereotypes he and Michelle have downloaded into their daughters' minds courtesy of Rev. Wright?
I'm sure you are willing to re-educate me on the finer points of sophistry.
Posted by Boats at 03/19/2008 @ 4:24pm
"America is a MEAN country" said Michelle Osama
Wonder if she heard that from the good Rev. Wright with her daughters in tow????
Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 4:24pm
Posted by BOATS 03/19/2008 @ 4:07pm
First, how can you just be "leaning" towards McCain, if his only opponents are "evil personified" and a "charlatan"? Why not a committed McCain supporter?
Second, find few McCain supporters who can answer THIS question...."What is Maverick John offering that's DIFFERENT from what Bush has given us for the last 8 years...specifically?"
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 4:36pm
BOATS, you'll notice that your post confirms my point exactly.
Obama on Imus: "[his words] fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my daughters have to deal with"
Obama on Wright: "[his words] express a profoundly distorted view of this country... [and were] not only wrong, but divisive"
Where's the double standard? He criticizes them both. That's not a double standard. That's integrity.
Posted by maddox at 03/19/2008 @ 4:37pm
Imus is presumably out of Obama's life, the Rev., though retired, is still the Beloved Crazy Uncle.
I suppose though that he turns off his stereotyping in private.
Integrity would have been calling for Wright's firing, oh, say, about any moment in 2007, when he was publicly flogging Imus.
Situational integrity is so ugly. Do you really think Trinty is going to sharply depart from the mold established by Wright simply because of a pulpit change? Obama isn't going to stop attending there though he will shun Imus for all time? You have a curious standard for integrity.
Posted by Boats at 03/19/2008 @ 4:47pm
First, how can you just be "leaning" towards McCain, if his only opponents are "evil personified" and a "charlatan"? Why not a committed McCain supporter?
Second, find few McCain supporters who can answer THIS question...."What is Maverick John offering that's DIFFERENT from what Bush has given us for the last 8 years...specifically?"
I do retain the option of not voting at all. Seriously, I'm not the only person in the land who'd as soon slit his own throat as cast a vote for Hillary.
As for Obama, I'm thinking she's going to destroy him somehow, either in public or in a back room. If he has a lick of sense, so far not much in evidence, if she thwarts him, he should plot a comeback in '12 and let her face the voters on her own "merits" this fall.
In any event, Obam,a fails to impress me. That must be some sort of thoughtcrime or something given the reception.
Therefore, one can reasonably lean McCain at this point without the slightest enthusiasm for it. I suspect I'm not alone in that leaning either.
As for what is different about him than Bush? I already have specified he is far more bipartisan oriented than is Bush. McCain walks that walk, not talks it.
Posted by Boats at 03/19/2008 @ 4:56pm
BOATS is a bore, a provocateur, a waste of time. Nothing interesting to offer. To be ignored.
Posted by sloper at 03/19/2008 @ 5:03pm
Are you suggesting that I should try sentence fragments to increase my sophistication and mystery?
Posted by Boats at 03/19/2008 @ 5:06pm
What exactly did Obama say yesterday that came as news to anyone?
That Americans don't normally talk about race issues publicly?
OK. That may change a little bit in the short run, but soon enough we'll revert back to not talking about race publicly.
Anything else?
I didn't think so.
Posted by Client 9 at 03/19/2008 @ 5:21pm
Posted by BOATS 03/19/2008 @ 4:56pm
Fine, McCain is "bipartisan"....can you give a few specifics of what he'll be bipartisan on?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 5:26pm
I've never read The Nation before and after that drool, I don't think I will again. I'm a moderate democrat and I have to say I'm starting to see liberals in a different light these days. Were they always so soft-headed and I just didn't realize it? I used to read Frank Rich and Dowd and Olbermann. They all make me sick now. Olbermann's attack on Clinton over Ferrarro was disgusting especially when you see how he crawled up Obama's you know what the next night. I have to say, I'm starting to see what the conservatives have been saying about the media. Obama's speech had really significant problems,for those whose eyes weren't misty from the soaring rhetoric. He equated Ferraro's comments with Wright's and even with his living grandmother, giving both sides equal weight. There is no way the comments he mentions from both sides are equal. Outing your living grandmother as a racist and using her as a political tool is offensive. Plus where's the courage here, the only reason he gave the speech is because he's in a hell of alot of trouble politically because of this. Why didn't he give this speech in January. Anyway, I'm saddened by how emotional liberals have become, this wasn't always the way. What's happened to liberalism and the democrats, when did we stop using our brains?
Posted by mark1263 at 03/19/2008 @ 6:17pm
For three decades I have refused to exercise my franchise for the Democratic Party. I did not want to waste my vote for "more of the same" and thus voted for parties of the left. I am now enthusiastically in support of Obama. He has a campaign that is being propelled from the ground up and despite some differences over policy (he should be supporting single payer insurance) his candidacy has been underscored by the need to find something very new: case in point his speech on race. Without pandering, disownership, or compromise, he laid it on the line. I do not know whether it was politically correct. It was, however, honest, compelling and an invitation to open a dialogue about the most profound issue in America. Go Obama!_
Posted by dblake at 03/19/2008 @ 6:20pm
Posted by BOATS 03/19/2008 @ 4:56pm
H.T.O.T.D.???
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 6:55pm
Sorry, bad paste...
meant Posted by MARK1263 03/19/2008 @ 6:17pm |
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 6:55pm
Posted by MARK1263 03/19/2008 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person
love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal-Phil Ochs, (as good as Dylan, but more political)
Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2008 @ 7:20pm
Self-delusion is powerful, Posted by BOATS 03/19/2008 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person
you got that right.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2008 @ 7:22pm
America IS a mean country. health care for kids? nah. welfare for bankers, yessir. you may connect the dots.
thsoe who say that Obama is unelectable because of that flap doodle are out of their minds. period.
the fine speech Obama gave is proof that he's the rill thing, and will be sworn in next January.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2008 @ 7:27pm
Perhaps you prefer Cuba or Iran??? I suggest when you pack your bags you be sure to pack plenty of Burkas.....your gonna need them with your new found freedom
Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 7:30pm
the title of this essay is a play of words on the play"Blues for Mr Charlie" by James Baldwin, whose subject is the murder of Emmet Till. you can look it up.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2008 @ 7:34pm
THROW GRANDMA UNDER THE BUS March 19, 2008
Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems.
By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.
But the "post-racial candidate" thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?
As an authentic post-racial American, I will not patronize blacks by pretending Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is anything other than a raving racist loon. If a white pastor had said what Rev. Wright said -- not about black people, but literally, the exact same things -- I think we'd notice that he's crazier than Ward Churchill and David Duke's love child. (Indeed, both Churchill and the Rev. Wright referred to the attacks of 9/11 as the chickens coming "home to roost.")
Imagine a white pastor saying: "Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God."
Imagine a white pastor calling Condoleezza Rice, "Condoskeezza Rice."
Imagine a white pastor saying: "No, no, no, God damn America -- that's in the Bible for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human! God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme!"
We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, "Isn't that cute?" As a post-racial American, I do not believe "the legacy of slavery" gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.
Obama tried to justify Wright's deranged rants by explaining that "legalized discrimination" is the "reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up." He said that a "lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families."
That may accurately describe the libretto of "Porgy and Bess," but it has no connection to reality. By Rev. Wright's own account, he was 12 years old and was attending an integrated school in Philadelphia when Brown v. Board of Education was announced, ending "separate but equal" schooling.
Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court's decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 -- and obviously long before that, or there wouldn't have been a case or controversy for the court to consider -- it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.
Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it's not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.
So for half of Rev. Wright's 66 years, discrimination against blacks was legal -- though he never experienced it personally because it existed in a part of the country where he did not live. For the second half of Wright's life, discrimination against whites was legal throughout the land.
Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.
First of all, Wright is not Obama's uncle. The only reason we indulge crazy uncles is that everyone understands that people don't choose their relatives the way they choose, for example, their pastors and mentors. No one quarrels with the idea that you can't be expected to publicly denounce your blood relatives.
But Wright is not a relative of Obama's at all. Yet Obama cravenly compared Wright's racist invective to his actual grandmother, who "once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Rev. Wright accuses white people of inventing AIDS to kill black men, but Obama's grandmother -- who raised him, cooked his food, tucked him in at night, and paid for his clothes and books and private school -- has expressed the same feelings about passing black men on the street that Jesse Jackson has.
Unlike his "old uncle" -- who is not his uncle -- Obama had no excuses for his grandmother. Obama's grandmother never felt the lash of discrimination! Crazy grandma doesn't get the same pass as the crazy uncle; she's white. Denounce the racist!
Fine. Can we move on now?
No, of course, not. It never ends. To be fair, Obama hinted that we might have one way out: If we elect him president, then maybe, just maybe, we can stop talking about race.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
Posted by libzsuk at 03/19/2008 @ 8:50pm
If Ann Coulter is your best shot you're even sadder than I thought Libzsuk.
Posted by yutsano at 03/19/2008 @ 9:01pm
Posted by YUTSANO 03/19/2008 @ 9:01pm
2nd or 3rd thread where he's posted that from Coulter. And again, weird that somebody so right-wing would post something from somebody who's declared she'll campaign for Hillary over McCain?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 9:45pm
RE: Blues ...
Hm, doea anyone think a speexh could make a leader. Well, you may say MLK's oratoory skills did earn him a place in history So did Mr. Jessy Jackson, until he did himself in. But these men're different. To be exact, we've become different in the sense that only a few fools among us would follow those kids of "inspirational" leaders. Now who needs that?
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/19/2008 @ 10:22pm
I've heard Helen argue against Obama but not one single statement as to why we should vote for Her Highness or Grandpa. Give us a reasonable alternative (as in NOT Nader) and argue for that. Try building up instead of tearing down, you'll sleep better at night.
Posted by yutsano at 03/19/2008 @ 11:03pm
Posted by MASK 03/19/2008 @ 9:45pm
Three (I counted) and he's on my ignore list. He pretty much violated my only ignore rule, as that irritates me to no end. Multiple posting is banal and aggravating.
Posted by yutsano at 03/19/2008 @ 11:04pm
I usually try to resist the ignore button, but C&P'ing Ann Coulter is beyond the pale.
You used to be funny, pissant. Not any more.
Pffftt...
Posted by drhammer at 03/19/2008 @ 11:06pm
Obama
Fair reporting???
Tonight, on Anderson Cooper:
CNN:
2008 1967 -___________ 41 years old, Born into wealth, Vanderbuilt, lost older brother, Yale Uniersity, went to Burma, and then Vietnam " Haunted by his brother's suicide, Cooper explains, "The only thing I really knew is that I was hurting and needed to go someplace where the pain outside matched the pain I was feeling inside." Cooper describes himself as having become "fascinated with conflict" during this dangerous period of his life." Unmarried, possibly gay, spent two years as an intern for CIA,
On assignment for several years, Cooper had slowly become desensitized to the violence he was witnessing around him; the horrors of the Rwandan Genocide became trivial: "I would see a dozen bodies and think, you know, It's a dozen, it's not so bad".[5] One particular incident however snapped him out of it:
On the side of the road [Cooper] came across five bodies that had been in the sun for several days. The skin of a woman's hand was peeling off like a glove. Revealing macabre fascination, Cooper whipped out his disposable camera and took a closeup photograph for his personal album. As he did, someone took a photo of him. Later that person showed Cooper the photo, saying, "You need to take a look at what you were doing." "And that's when I realized I've got to stop, [...] I've got to report on some state fairs or a beauty pageant or something, to just, like, remind myself of some perspective."[5]
"In July 2005 he covered Hurricane Dennis from Pensacola, yielding one of the most memorable bits of footage from that particular storm. He and John Zarella were standing outside a Ramada during the worst of the storm when a large metal sign blew down. During CNN coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, he confronted Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. Trent Lott, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson about their perception of the government response. As Cooper later said in an interview with New York magazine, "Yeah, I would prefer not to be emotional and I would prefer not to get upset, but it's hard not to when you're surrounded by brave people who are suffering and in need."[4] As Broadcasting & Cable magazine noted, "In its aftermath, Hurricane Katrina served to usher in a new breed of emo-journalism, skyrocketing CNN's Anderson Cooper to superstardom as CNN's golden boy and a darling of the media circles because of his impassioned coverage of the storm."[14]
" In early 2007, Cooper signed a multi-year deal with CNN, which would allow him to continue as a contributor to 60 Minutes as well as doubling his salary from $2 million annually to a reported $4 million.[18]"
Anderson Cooper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Cooper
You looked much better as a golden haired, blonde.
About Patriotism
Dee Dee Meyers said, Obama didn't put his hand on his heart dring the "pledge"
I've heard reported stories that he did not do that during the Star Spangled Banner but NOT dring the pledge
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:41pm
The working class gets it's info from TV... They do not have the time to read newspapers, or do internet. Clearly Fox is Rep: Cheney's favorite CNN is pro Hil MSNBC pro Obama
Are we going to get a Democratic Candidate based on TV ratings?
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:48pm
It's worth the reread: How has America come to recesion, possibly depresion. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/allcomments?pid=299938&rp g=1
Obama said in earlier interviews he sees himself as a teacher, and is a self made one at that,
All this attention to Rev. Wright's so called anger is to divert the real truths about who is destroying America: http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/#more-1979
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Eliot's Mess Published March 14th, 2008 in Articles, Podcasts The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked
By Greg Palast Reporting for Air America Radio's Clout
March 14th, 2008
[To hear it, click on the link below…]
While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort' $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush's new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.
Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there's a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush's man Bernanke was using ours.
This week, Bernanke's Fed, for the first time in its history, loaned a selected coterie of banks one-fifth of a trillion dollars to guarantee these banks' mortgage-backed junk bonds. The deluge of public loot was an eye-popping windfall to the very banking predators who have brought two million families to the brink of foreclosure.
Up until Wednesday, there was one single, lonely politician who stood in the way of this creepy little assignation at the bankers' bordello: Eliot Spitzer.
Who are they kidding? Spitzer's lynching and the bankers' enriching are intimately tied.
How? Follow the money.
The press has swallowed Wall Street's line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn't afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That's blaming the victim.
Here's what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime' mortgage and its variants including loans with teeny "introductory" interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide' became America's top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.'
Here's how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain't worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the "discount" they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota.
Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.' Guess. No peeking. Here's a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren't stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered' as it's called in the mortgage sharking business.
‘Steering,' sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance' or ‘predatory lending' under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.
But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer'm, fake'm, charge'm and take'm.
But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.
Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush's regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of "federal pre-emption," Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.
Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer's investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush's banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.
Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America. Others joined the sharkfest: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup's Citibank made mortgage usury their major profit centers. They did this through a bit of financial legerdemain called "securitization."
What that means is that they took a bunch of junk mortgages, like the Grinning's, loans about to go down the toilet and re-packaged them into "tranches" of bonds which were stamped "AAA" - top grade - by bond rating agencies. These gold-painted turds were sold as sparkling safe investments to US school district pension funds and town governments in Finland (really).
When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide's top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn' a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.
But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide's stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.
Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That's Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.
The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning's house. There was no ‘quid' of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo' of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.
Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo's Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company's stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.
And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street' was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.
Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, "Take him down today!" Naw, that's not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was "Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer" - made clear to Bush's enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn't Bin Laden.
It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans:
"Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye."
Bush, Spitzer said right in the headline, was the "Predator Lenders' Partner in Crime." The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.
Spitzer wrote, "When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably."
But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun.
A note on "Prosecutorial Indiscretion."
Back in the day when I was an investigator of racketeers for government, the federal prosecutor I was assisting was deciding whether to launch a case based on his negotiations for airtime with 60 Minutes. I'm not allowed to tell you the prosecutor's name, but I want to mention he was recently seen shouting, "Florida is Rudi country! Florida is Rudi country!"
Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It's up to something called "prosecutorial discretion."
Funny thing, this ‘discretion.' For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him. Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion' of Bush's Justice Department.
Or maybe we should say, ‘indiscretion.'
************ Greg Palast, former investigator of financial fraud, is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
Hear The Palast Report weekly on Air America Radio's Clout.
Tag: PodcastsPodcasts Listen Now:
Elliot Spizter Gets Nailed Pt 1: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download Elliot Spizter Gets Nailed Pt 2: | Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:55pm
I really liked Obama's quoting the Golden rule,
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Not "he who has the gold rules"
$1,000 an ounce.
9/11 the Big wedding -
Foreigner banking cartel running the US Treasury.
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:56pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/allcomments?pid=299938&rp g=4
http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/ "What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.
"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.
"Now we have to take this same language--these same values that are encouraged within our families--of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other--and apply them to a larger society. Let's talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more." ..............
"But what was lacking among march organizers was a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change. Without this agenda a lot of this energy is going to dissipate. Just as holding hands and singing 'We shall overcome' is not going to do it, exhorting youth to have pride in their race, give up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can't find jobs and futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed, underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage.
"Exhortations are not enough, nor are the notions that we can create a black economy within America that is hermetically sealed from the rest of the economy and seriously tackle the major issues confronting us," Obama said.
"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people's benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1.
30,000 workers from Delta airlines to be sacrificed because of the cost of fuel. Which of the Rockefeller oil international cartel, are jacking up prices, refusing to build refineries, stopping alternative energies, pedelling their Council of Foreign relations, U>N. and eugenics programs, and so called Federal Reserve, and wars for oil and profits???
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:57pm
A history of the Rockefellers is a good place to start. Rockefeller spent millions in grants, trusts, and foundations for things like Planned Parenthood,( population black control) buying the Britanica Encyclopedia ( banning most references to the Inquisition ) and establishing new methods on teaching, which actually didn't work.. http://www.seekgod.ca/rockefeller.htm http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller.html http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm http://www.reformation.org/us_schools.html
They and the other 12 most wealthy families of America are cooperating with the power hungry men who want to rule from Jerusalem, the New World Order. They are bent on destroying America and its Bill of Rights. Research Illuminati: http://educate-yourself.org/mc/mcsvaliinterviewpt5.shtml http://educate-yourself.org/mc/mcsvaliinterviewpt5.shtml http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/247435.shtml http://www.planetquo.com/Illuminati-Design-And-Symbolism-In-The-Israeli- Supreme-Court-Building The trend toward earlier and eariler sexual expression has been pushed down the throats of even elementary children, and the corporation's business profits growing from making sex the goal of little kids (Barbie dolls) etc., has even entered the Supreme Court minds, in recent ruling that parents alone can't determine what's good for their kids in public schools....
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:57pm
CONSPIRACY For the benefit of knee-jerk 'smart fellows' whose minds are befogged by 'slides' and who will be inclined to accuse the Editor of International Currency Review of being a 'conspiracy theorist', the following statement by one of the leading globalist strategists, Mr David Rockefeller, published in 2002*, will no doubt come as a shock:
'For more than a century ideological extremists [sic] at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicised incidents such as my encounter with Castro, to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and over economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ? one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it'.
As will be seen, David Rockefeller acknowledges that he is part of a secret cabal (synarchy) which works against the best interests of the United States. Why has he not yet been indicted, then, for conspiring against the United States under Section 371 of the United States Code, Title 18, 'Crimes and Criminal Procedure', which states that 'if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both'?
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:58pm
"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International Bankers." -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1934
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes...Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." -- Napoleon
"If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of government. I do not expect monopoly to restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it." -- former President Woodrow Wilson
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- former President Woodrow Wilson
Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln, former American President
"Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."" -- former President James Garfield
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws" -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild international banking dynasty, 1790
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!" - GW Bush, September 13, 2001
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GW Bush, March 13, 2002
138."The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, the Bilderberger Group, and the Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens." Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, PhD, former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary-General Manfred Werner, November 6, 2001
Posted by Rese at 03/19/2008 @ 11:59pm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/170907_middle_class.h tm
$200 Dollar a Barrel Oil Is Bilderberg Plan To Destroy Middle Class Elitists use peak oil scam, market turmoil, threat of Iran war to hike profits, torpedo middle class Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Monday, September 17, 2007
The global elite are conspiring to send oil prices crashing through the $200 dollar a barrel mark as part of an organized agenda to hike profits, bring about a global economic crash and torpedo the middle class, and they're not afraid to attack Iran as a means of achieving their goal.
Crude oil prices returned to near record high prices today after having surged past the $80 a barrel benchmark on Thursday.
Now there is serious debate about oil crashing not just the $100 dollar, but the $200 dollar a barrel level in the next two years.
The 24/7 Wall Street blog, which is affiliated with both Dow Jones' MarketWatch and The Wall Street Journal, carried an article over the weekend that entertained the possibility of oil tipping the $200 mark, citing experts in the industry who expect the $95 a barrel level to be surpassed by the end of the year if the recent stock market turmoil continues.
The ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group, a consortium of power brokers from banking, business, politics, academia and oil, met in Munich Germany in May 2005 when crude oil prices were around the $40 a barrel mark.
During the conference, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what has happened.
During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. This information was gleaned from sources inside Bilderberg who have proven reliable in the past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
Though Bilderberg claim they are merely a talking shop and formulate no policy, they were also responsible for the decision to delay the invasion of Iraq until March 2003 after it was initially intended to take place in late 2002.
Bilderberg have sworn to bring about what Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission and a Bilderberg member, refers to as the "post-industrial revolution," which in layman's terms translates as a global economic crash, another great depression and the total evisceration of the middle class.
EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
This will be accomplished by hyping the doomsday threat of global warming in alliance with the promotion of peak oil.
Peak oil is a scam manufactured by the oil companies to create artificial scarcity and drive up profits for transnational oil cartels. It was first originated in 1956 by Shell Oil's M. King Hubbert, who said that only one and a quarter trillion barrels of crude were left, a figure that was surpassed at the end of 2006. According to Hubbert's original calculations, the planet should already have produced its last drop over nine months ago.
By pushing peak oil theories and tying them in with the man-made global warming fraud, Bilderberg seeks to jack up oil prices to the point where the living standards of the middle class become unsustainable and the west is lowered into second world status while fat cat elitists reap the financial and political bounty.
A military attack on Iran is also essential for the globalists to kick-start an economic collapse coupled with a massive hike in oil prices. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told a French TV station yesterday that the world should prepare for war with Iran as rhetoric around the possibility of conflict grows bellicose.
Experts have predicted that should an attack occur, Iran would immediately cease oil exports, pushing the price per barrel well beyond $100 almost immediately, inflating gasoline prices and kicking off a worldwide energy crisis and a recession.
Posted by Rese at 03/20/2008 @ 12:00am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
Worst Person in the World More McCain's concerns on Iraq, Iran March 18: Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claims that Iran is training al-Qaida terrorists and sending them to Iraq.
oops Lieberman had to corrct McCain to say extremists
Pentagon study says no connection between Sadamn and Al Queda... won't publish it online, "politically incorect"
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=71055&start=670
War Without End The global war against terror from a British (aka American) perspective
War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/265331.shtml
Pentagon reports (but doesn't want you to read) No Saddam-Quaeda link author: The US Dept of Defense Mar 12, 2008 20:47
The Bush Administration does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. However, we have it here.
Posted by Rese at 03/20/2008 @ 12:01am
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd304.htm
GOT BLING?
By: Devvy September 20, 2007
© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com
Intro only
GOT BLING?
By: Devvy September 20, 2007
© 2007 - NewsWithViews.com
While cable news networks saturate their airwaves with ad nauseum coverage of O.J. Simpson's run of the mill arrest, as expected, Bernard Bernanke, Chariman of the privately owned, unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve, lowered the benchmark interest rate a full half percentage point down to 4.75 percent. The rationale is to try and stave off a recession which is already underway due to the collapse of the housing market. Many wonder if it's too little, too late. Since conventional wisdom dictates the effects of this cut probably won't be felt for another 12-18 months, it's difficult to comprehend why the DOW would immediately shoot up to close at +329...unless, of course, one understands how the "free" market is being manipulated to the determent of the American people.
Urbansurvival.com weighed in September 19, 2007, with some real perspective vs lackeys like FAUX (FOX) News, Neil Cavuto:
"Free Lunch? While the Fed's policy sounds superficially reasonable, and it could be argued that it will bail out homeowners who are already seeing their homes repossessed in record numbers, the real beneficiaries of the cut will be financial institutions. The Fed knows full well that had the free market been allowed to prevail, the market would have collapsed, just as it did in 1929. What we would have surrounding us would be failed pension plans that were hip-deep in equities and liar's paper, there would be wiped out pensions, even more massive declines in home ownership, the whole gamut of bad juju for the economy. All of which would be marvelous, if it were to arrive at no cost. Unfortunately, it doesn't. The not very well hidden cost is the quality of life in America continues to decline because of incipient inflation, which though masked from public view by and ostensibly stable economy, the corrosion at the core continues."
'Quality of life' is exactly how most Americans identify with prosperity. Naturally, tens and tens of millions of Americans have no idea what prosperity really means because they have now lived their entire adult lives in indentured servitude (slavery in the form of "Social" Security, Medicare, IRS) and credit card debt. The people of this nation are drowning in debt, yet millions don't seem to get it: debt is NOT prosperity.
While tens of millions of Americans have no understanding of our monetary system, they are starting to feel the vice tighten around them at the grocery store with stables like milk and eggs already soaring up 15-22% per item. Yesterday I paid $1.49 for a single bunch of fresh spinach domestically grown. Six months ago it was $.59 cents. The American people are being groomed to accept $2.75 per gallon as some sort of bargain. In November 2001, crude was selling for $18.00/barrel; in the past week we've seen it go over $80. Congratulations, Mr. Bush, your invasion of Iraq for oil plan has enriched America's oil companies beyond imagination, even though most Americans don't understand how they've been swindled. The working class is now feeling panic and looking at poverty. For the working man or woman, an extra $20 - $25 per tank a couple times of week to burn in hours of commute traffic means cutting non essentials such as entertainment, travel and eating out 2-3 nights per week. Keeping the economy afloat depends on spending. Couple that with hundreds of thousands who took equity out of their homes and spent it, are now looking at higher interest rates and houses not even worth what they now owe. Here's more to sour your day:
"In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs noted: "Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq." The U.S. in an odd situation in which it is funding both sides in the war on terrorism. We finance the defense of the Free World against its sworn enemies through our tax dollars. And at the same time we support hostile regimes through the transfer of petrodollars." Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, America's Oil Dependence and its Implications for U.S. Middle East Policy, October 20, 2005
http://www.247wallst.com/2007/09/with-oil-at-rec.html
The Stock Blog Wars Heat Up | Main | More Tainted Products From China, Drugs This Time » September 16, 2007 With Oil At Record Highs, Talk Of $200 A Barrel 24/7 Wall St. has run three or four pieces recently that suggested there are strong cases for $100 a barrel oil. With the $80 mark reached last week, some oil industry experts do not discount the possibility that crude make get close to $100 this year. Jeff Currie, head of commodity research at Goldman Sachs, describes it as "a cyclical bull market for oil". "There is a risk that the oil price will spike to $95 per barrel by the end of this year if the market remains in significant deficit," he told The Telegraph.
Now part of the debate has begun to move to whether oil prices could hit $200. CNN Money recently ran a piece looks at a growing school of thought driven by analysts "who generally believe oil production has either topped out or will do so in the next couple of years."
One expert summarizes the case for CNN: The world will have to produce 118 million barrels of oil a day, up from its current 85 million barrels per day, just to satisfy projected demand by 2030, according to the Energy Information Agency. "That's never going to happen," said Richard Heinberg, a research fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and author of three books on peak oil.
To justify projecting oil at $200, Wall St. would have to believe that oil production will not grow after the end of this decade. Oil companies and oil-producing countries tend to push statistics which say that there is much more oil in the ground. This means supplies will be abundant over the years to come.
If there is not a a growing imbalance between supply and demand, it is hard to justify the 8x increase in the price of oil over the last 10 years.
And, sometimes the past is prolog.
Douglas A. McIntyre
Posted by Rese at 03/20/2008 @ 12:01am
Oh good gravy.
Hope the change and change the hope.
The pure vacuity of Obama's message is dumbfounding.
Frankly, if I'm the change I've been waiting for, why have I been waiting?
Posted by cguy04 at 03/20/2008 @ 03:49am
Hillary,
This is Barry call me about a "mixed" ticket. Have you seen the news. We can barely keep it under wraps. McCain is in the Middle East discussing foreign policy while I am over here giving stupid speeches about my racist cracker grandmother and my old time friend Jeremiah. Anyway, we need to get together and figure out a way to derail the war in Iraq. We need to snap defeat from the jaws of victory soon babe!
Dr. Ayers, from up the block there in Chicago land. Give me a call too bud. We might need to start a riot at the Convention if I am not on top. We know how to do politics right here in Chicago.
I wish all those crackers would just vote for me and shut up. I am entitled to be president. I thought everyone knew that by now.
Anyway,
Call me.
Barry in 08
Posted by SkitheRockies at 03/20/2008 @ 07:38am
Why has this Greider piece been taken off the web page so quickly & relegated to the archive? Other pieces, some rather less significant, have been sitting there for days.
Posted by sloper at 03/20/2008 @ 08:31am
Can I ask a simple question?
Obama was a bright Harvard Law School Grad who could have gotten a job in any city in America. His white grand mother in Hawaii made sure he had a good education. Why did Obama choose to set up shop in the most toxic waste dump of American politics and racial hate? Chicago? The reason is because Obama wanted to be a part of the political scene in Chicago, he wanted to be a part of the Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Culutre of Hate against white people. He has never denounced this and he won't. He kicked his grand mother to the curb and chose Jeremiah Wright. It is simple as that.
Posted by SkitheRockies at 03/20/2008 @ 08:35am
Barack Obama 18 March 2008: 'Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean '...Though he was raised an Episcopalian, [Howard] Dean joined the United Church of Christ in 1982 after a dispute with the local Episcopal diocese over a bike trail....'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack Obama 18 March 2008: '... Rev. Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. ...Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nat Hentoff -- The Village Voice -- 11 June 1996 -- 'I didn't want to be the target of his [Dan Wolf's] quizzical look: "Do you really believe that?"...'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack Obama 18 March 2008: '... my white grandmother ...on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe...'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) ....... 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ....... ..................................... 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/20/2008 @ 10:11am
Is that all we hope to get? One song? If so, I guess that is all we deserve.
Posted by Lil at 03/20/2008 @ 1:24pm
Obama and now Greider miss the boat or life raft of ordinary Americans who worry about healthcare, rotting schools, safe streets and jobs. Give them the concreteness of hope not the deconstructionism of lofty phrases; speak to the "power and Glory" of America as Phil Ochs put it not its original sin (wow I thought The Nation at least was beyond that language; respect grandmothers for their strength rather than outing their failure... in short talk to the realities of day to day America not as if you weere at some ephemeral conference at the University of Chicago. Saul Alinsky would have hated the speech and told Obama he has learned nothing!
Posted by oldlefty at 03/20/2008 @ 1:49pm
The racist, anti-semitic, and un-American ideology that Obama feels comfortable with and wants to pass on to his daughters has now been exposed. We now understand his wife's statements and why she is only now proud to be an American.
Which is it Obama? Over the last 20 years did you or did you not understand the preachings of Rev Wright? At first you didn't know, but then you did hear and that's ok because he and his generation was oppressed - right? Now you try to equate Rev Wright and his hate-mongering church with the statements of Ferraro or Rev John Hagee? Not even a slick politician (or lawyer) like you can make that happen (or actually believe your severely flawed logic). Were you jealous that Rev Wright didn't include you when he traveled w/Louis Farrakhan to visit Moammar Gadhafi in Lybia?
Unfortunately, one cannot pick their family or the religion they are born into (in his case he was raised Muslim), so I'll give his mother and grandmother a pass when his speaks of their racial mis-understandings. But one can choose their mentor, their spiritual advisor, their church, thier religion (as he did at Rev Wright's church) and their friends.
Barak Hussein Obama has chosen to associate with an ideology that is NOT inclusive, tolerant, or remotely in agreement with the American values (diversity), morals or foreign policies.
Hopefully we wont let the media sweep this one under the covers. The sheep costume has come off, and the wolf is coming into view.
Not only is Obama a liberal, he is also a radical un-American, anti-semitic, racist that we can't afford to have in charge of this great county or it's future. Furthermore the words Obama chose in his speech weren't honest, emotional, or heartfelt – just ear candy for the masses.
Posted by rcalli01 at 03/20/2008 @ 2:36pm
Ignore the hateful posters here - so many of them.
Incredible speech. Great person. Honest man.
10 times better than anything the GOP could dream to put forth.
My vote as a WHITE american stays with Obama.
Posted by bonncaruso at 03/20/2008 @ 3:09pm
Thanks, BONNCARUSO - I agree on all counts. It's nice to be spoken to as an adult. No sound bites, no up/down, good/bad, right/wrong, black/white (haha)oversimplification. I think we're ready for complicated thoughts and real leadership. For a change.
Posted by stonepier at 03/20/2008 @ 3:37pm
Abraham Lincoln -- Quoted in The Washington Daily Chronicle, 7 December 1864
'...One of the ladies urged that her husband was a religious man... the President said, "You say your husband is a religious man; tell him when you meet him, that I say I am not much of a judge of religion, but that, in my opinion, [this]... is not the sort of religion upon which people can get to heaven!"'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/20/2008 @ 3:38pm
Kudos, William Greider, for a beautifully written and valuable piece. TheNation is one of the rare places to find this kind of quality. If only we didn't have to sift through the sophomoric swill of the likes of MASK and I'M NOBODY and LIBZSUK. Thank you. RonP--founder, DearDemocrat.com
Posted by deardemocrat at 03/20/2008 @ 4:44pm
I still can't understand people still thinking Obama is racist. He did not throw his grandmorher under the bus. Actually he told something personal about his life. He's not disowning family because something they say or opinion they have is in conflict with my beliefs. Whats so hard about that to understand? Was he too honest with you? Should he have talked to you like you were stupid? I thought his speech was spot on. Obama addressed both sides of the racial divide. He can speak from experience. He has lived on both sides. Well, if you don't mind being belittled by your politicians then so be it. I'm just glad he had the guts to speak out on race. Alot of people were wondering when he would address the racial divide in America. He has and quite well. He was speaking to other mature adults primarily. I'm sorry if the message went over your heads.
Posted by k330k at 03/20/2008 @ 6:16pm
Damn, I wish I could edit the post. My bad. "my beliefs" should be "his beliefs"; "grandmorher" should be "grandmother"; should be "because of something..."
Well that was ridiculous. I'm gonna cook dinner now. Have a great evening, everyone.
Posted by k330k at 03/20/2008 @ 6:20pm
I thought Obama's speech on race was good. He addressed an issue that has been toxic in America for too long. However, in my opinion, his use of his maternal Grandmother's fear (which was generational) was ill conceived. In addition, his attempt today to explain his point missed the mark and regretfully added more arrows to the quivers of his detractors. The old sayings about holes, when you are in one, stop digging, seems to apply here.
Posted by Next Door at 03/20/2008 @ 7:56pm
Nice creative, reflective article. Impact on electorate - slight negative: I think Obama already has the blues vote, and due to Wright he's lost some of the moderate white vote. The apoplectic neocon haters appear to have pushed themselves to new lows, e.g., no effect.
Posted by winyahn at 03/20/2008 @ 11:26pm
As AL Pacino Said that famous Line and It seems to apply to a lot of people"you can't handle the truth" in regards to the speech Barack made.
I have said in a earlier post if Barack had jumped off the Empire State Building trying to prove his point,and did a double sommersault before landing,a lot of peolpe would have said,why didn't he do a triple?
Posted by eniobob at 03/21/2008 @ 07:59am
Something I've noticed with the coverage of the divide between the Democrats is that the MSM doesn't really seem to get where the divide originates. Yes, Obama and Clinton have, for the most part, identical stated platforms, but that doesn't mean their supporters don't differ. It's more than just race and gender, with Obama getting the majority of African Americans and Clinton getting the majority of women. What has also happened is that the liberal wing of the party has gotten behind Obama and the moderate/conservatives have gotten behind Clinton. Obama may not be farther left on Clinton on his platform, but his message has galvanized a progressive movement that, to some extent, began to come together in 2004 and helped the Democrats win so well in 2006. The reason Obama has come so far so fast is because he has essentially tapped into the feelings of the left, which since the 1970's has had to take a back seat to Reagan Revolution and the deregulation of business, tough on crime, pro-military, socially conservative agenda it brought with it. Clinton, on the other hand, speaks to the moderate/conservative section of the party, that helped Reagan get into office in the first place.
The animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters is really the animosity between these two groups. Obama supporters are mistrustful of the wife of the democratic president who went along with the Reagan Revolution, instead of doing anything about it. He supported NAFTA and went along with the deregulation of the banks, which is debatably, one of the causes of the current mortgage crisis. He advocated for more prisons, tougher sentencing, and increased funding for the War on Drugs. Although he did cut some military spending, Clinton also continued to fund wasteful programs such as missile defense. The only good thing that could be said for Clinton, from the liberal perspective, is that he was more socially liberal than the Republicans on things like women's right and gay rights. In standing his ground on these issues; however, social issues became the only difference between the two parties, which set the Democrats up for failure in subsequent elections. By defining the Democratic Party, solely by social issues, many people that would have supported them, on say, labor issues, i.e. working class whites, chose to vote Republican for their more conservative stand on social issues. Meanwhile, the Democrats alienated their base by, for the most part, ignoring, or at times, attacking liberals and hoping they will vote Democrat because they know they won't vote Republican. Hillary Clinton appears to want to continue these policies, as one of her supporters accused Obama's supporters as being "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, trust-fund babies" (i.e. liberals).
I really think the divisions between the two wings of the Democratic Party have become too strong for either Obama or Clinton to win the election. Many Obama supporters are going to view Clinton as a conservative in liberal clothing and many Clinton supporters are going to view Obama as a…well…liberal.
I do think that Obama has done something that no one in recent decades has accomplished, by really giving a voice to a progressive/liberal movement and I don't think it's just going to go away if he doesn't win in November, just as in 1976, when Reagan lost to Ford, the conservative movement didn't go away. If anything it was given more power by the policies of Carter. I think that if McCain wins the election in November, which he is likely to do, it will, in my opinion, make the progressive movement even stronger (since I'm about 85% sure McCain plans to invade Iran and reinstate the draft and we should all know he's not going to do a thing about the economy or health care and will only modestly address the environment).
The country is becoming more liberal anyway. The Greatest Generation is dying off, and the Millennials are coming of age and becoming interested in politics. That is going to swing the country left no matter what else is going on. I'm not sure if Obama will necessarily be at the head of what he has started but I seriously doubt anyone is going to do much to stop it. And that should be very good news to all my fellow liberals/progressives out there.
Posted by metinker at 03/21/2008 @ 12:55pm
really think the divisions between the two wings of the Democratic Party have become too strong for either Obama or Clinton to win the election.
let's not get too carried away, shall we? the divisions in this country are between the repubs and the dems. the latter are doin' jes' fine.what's a litte intramural dust uo when what's at stake is the most power in the whole woild.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/21/2008 @ 8:34pm
Wright was smeared. Here's the speeches in question without the creative editing by Hannity.
Chickens have come home to roos (actually Wright is quoting a white US diplomat [youtube.com]
God Damn America sermon [youtube.com]
Congratulations America. You let a bunch of liars manufacture something for you to hate, and forgot all about your problems.
I don't think I'll ever see these videos on TV.
Posted by johnny canuck at 03/22/2008 @ 12:10pm
DISAPPOINTED IN GREIDER.
Barak Obama, like Hillary Clinton, has voted for hundreds of billions of dollars to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Can that be excused by an appeal to the Blues?
More than that, Obama like Clinton has refused to start a filibuster against war funding - and that would be a veto-proof way to end the way with only 41 Senate votes or abstentions. Obama was against the war - until he had a vote and then he was for it. The inverse of Edwards who was for the war - and against it when he no longer had a Senate vote. But give any of them the vote and they vote to kill. Kucinich did not do that. Ron Paul did not do that.
Where is Mr. Greider coming from? I am afraid the giddy "left" punditry are agog over Obama, because Obama is like them (us) but Black. But Black is not enough - and after Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice, I do not know why that is not obvious. I am afraid that Mr. Greider's analysis is that of a spoiled kid who does not need to take account of obvious facts since he does not have to live amidst the rubble and devastation of Iraq.
There is only one candidate in the race now who is against the war and that is Nader. And the Zogby poll last weekend had the following results:
McCain - 44%; Obama -39%; Nader - 6%
McCain - 44%; Clinoton -39%; Nader - 6%
6% is Nader's floor; his votes will grow. And there is only one way for HRC or BO to get those votes which they need in order to win. They must adopt Nader's positions on getting out of Iraq pronto and cutting the bloated military budget instead of calling for 100,000 more men and women under arms. as BO, HRC and JM do. And throw in single-payer while you are at it.
Nader/Gonzalez in all 50 states and D.C. in 2008.
Posted by john Walsh at 03/22/2008 @ 1:59pm
We are accustomed to the trajectory of power starting at the top moving down whereby the government requires little from the citizen. In contrast a trajectory of power from the bottom up requires citizen participation in a government for the people, by the people, of the people. Obama is the first candidate in decades who shares that sentiment and is willing to shake up things in Washington. He learned as a community organizer in order to accomplish something comes from a position of power with the support of the people.
To maintain power enterprise and special interest groups depend on a divided electorate to make sure that does not happen. What else explains the corporate-owned radio and TV cable news show hosts distorting the issues.
Media moguls are not interested in change. They would rather have you jumping to conclusions by using any trick in the book sure to illicit a knee-jerk reaction. Playing Rev. Wright's controversial statements on a loop of tape repeatedly is the most recent example of the press manipulating public perception. They knew portraying Rev. Wright in the worst possible light would profoundly affect Obama's campaign. However a little common sense and reasoned logic in addition to doing a little research will dispell any doubts you may have about Obama. Watch one of Rev. Wright's entire sermons to judge for yourself whether the media unfairly took Wright's words out of context.
Power structures are loath to lose influence and control. But the people want real change. The "established" ways no longer work. Things will change one way or the other. Everyone has a part to play. In the scheme of things no matter how large or small, each part is equally proportionate to the whole.
Granted words alone can only accomplish so much. Oratory that inspire people to act is the key to successful leadership. Millions, inspired by Obama's words, are participating in the political arena for the first time.
To break thru generations of established societal mores and beliefs is best served by a leader who transcends race and gender in order to unify individuals from all walks of life in a shared common purpose. Obama proved his mettle by demonstrating his ability to do that.
Bettering the human condition and furthering social justice defines the vision we share. That is why Obama's message resonates. His leadership skills are beyond doubt. Bringing about cataclysmic change which may or may not be in the offing or bringing a vision to fruition depends on setting aside our differences to work on something bigger than ourselves.
The choice between special interests and people interests is ours to make. Obama has the people's interests in mind. He spent his entire adult life working for social justice.
Once you understand that the "establishment" will do everything possible to preserve its best interests the pieces begin to fall into place. A divided electorate raises the odds that a government of the people, for the people and by the people will come to bear. Right now government works for special interests. They want to keep it that way.
An apros pos reminder -- short, sweet and simple:
"united we stand, divided we fall".
Posted by serena1313 at 03/23/2008 @ 02:39am
As AL Pacino Said that famous Line and It seems to apply to a lot of people"you can't handle the truth" in regards to the speech Barack made.
That was Jack Nicholson you dope!
Posted by Sliver at 03/23/2008 @ 1:16pm
After reading this outrageously ridiculous blather, a Marlon Brando line from "Last Tango in Paris" keeps resounding in my mind:
"What a steaming pile of horseshit"
Posted by chinpoko at 03/23/2008 @ 3:15pm
It's become too ugly on the Obamacaca's side. Alrignt, if Bubba is like McCarthy, then Obama must be a Hitler. Read this.
------------
Obama Aide: Bill Clinton Like McCarthy Mar 22, 3:58 AM (ET) By MATT APUZZO
SALEM, Ore. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is trying to clarify comments by former President Clinton that seemed to question Barack Obama's patriotism - comments an Obama aide likened to Joseph McCarthy.
Clinton's campaign said the comments were being misinterpreted and quickly posted a clarification on its Web site. But retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak said he was disappointed by the comments and compared them to those of McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/23/2008 @ 10:31pm
Now the most extremist liberal starts straying. He needs Ted Kennedy and the liles' votes only for the primaries. Smart this guy Obama. Too smart. Dangerously smart.
---------
Obama: Don't Label Me Liberal Obama's promise of a new majority, and the question it prompts
By Robin Toner Published: March 23, 2008
WASHINGTON: At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/23/2008 @ 10:40pm
One of courageous teachers who leads the country onto new ground. He has given us a way to talk about race... ??? Exactly, a new way to TALK!!! Where were Obama actions for 20 years in confronting the tone, words and stuck-in-the-19th-century mentality of his (former) pastor. He had been a state's senator, not just one of many in the pews. He admitted he lied about not knowing about his pastor's world views. He found some of them inexusabke and devisive. But why just now? Oh, I forgot, that his urgency of now... (such as falling behind in the pools). Hard to believe the urgency of the honest dialog about race did not exist a year ago or two or three. Actions speak lowder but, when there is shortage of real courage such as speaking the truth that may hurt your standing in your core constituency, Obama is quick to substitute it with the rethorical one and the Nation is quick to believe whatever its choosen Messaih says. We don't choose our grandmothers but we do seek out and choose our mentors. So the speach was far from being historical, just another politicain trying to salvage the polling ratings.
Posted by Zoya at 03/24/2008 @ 01:22am
As someone's mentioned, the guy's just too smart. Dangerously smart. He could turn everything negative about him into his own political gains: votes, money, big time endorsements; and just by a speech or too. Or are we all so dump asses anybdy could manipulate our minds and souls so easily.
-------------
Swift Boating the Speech It was a great piece of oratory, and a good short-term political tactic. But it won't help him beat McCain. By John Heilemann Published Mar 24, 2008
Few events in this relentlessly eventful campaign season have felt as momentous, as freighted with portent, as the speech that Barack Obama delivered last week on race. As a piece of rhetoric, Obama's address was pretty much everything one could ever hope for from a presidential candidate on the vexed topic of black and white: nuanced, candid, gutsy, and replete with context. But Obama's oration was more than a speech--it was a political maneuver. And, as such, at least in the short term, it was as nearly as effective as it was eloquent and erudite. It helped Obama move past the raging controversy stirred up by the rantings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. It put him back on the elevated plane where he thrives. And, in the words of one Democratic strategist, "It strummed the mystic chords of the press corps, which has been south on him since Ohio and Texas."
In the longer term, however, Obama's speech did nothing to defuse an issue that Republicans clearly intend to beat him senseless with this fall--assuming that, as seems increasingly likely, he secures the Democratic nomination. Quite the contrary.
In GOP circles, the incendiary video clips of Obama's former pastor are seen, not surprisingly, as a gift that will keep on giving. And indeed, the furor around them has caused Republican strategists to rethink their preconceptions about whether Obama or Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general-election opponent against John McCain. "Once, there was a clear impression that he would be tougher," a senior McCain adviser tells me. "But, after these past few weeks, I don't think that's the case anymore."
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/24/2008 @ 02:47am
ZOYA
Go listen to the full speeches. I posted some links. Wright is no racist by any stretch
Posted by johnny canuck at 03/24/2008 @ 12:38pm
Posted by JOHNNY CANUCK 03/24/2008 @ 12:38pm
You are wasting your time.
This episode is exactly what the racists among us were waiting for. An excuse to bait the rest of us into their world of fear, of things that are different from them.
If you won't take the bait, they will move on. You cannot change their mind, because it was made up before this came out. They won't look at your link, because it might force them to accept their blatant racism.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 03/24/2008 @ 5:51pm
This is your candidate. While his campaign workers toil, he surrounds himself with luxuries.
---------
Obama hits St. Thomas, meets with governor 'unofficially'
CNN Exclusive video of Obama vacationing on the island of St. Thomas. Photo credit: CNN/Welch.
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, U.S. Virgin Islands (CNN) -- For three days, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is enjoying some private down time on the island of St. Thomas, a source close to the U.S. territory's Government House in the capital of Charlotte Amalie confirmed Monday.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/24/2008 @ 11:32pm
Hopefully this recent flap doesn't ruin him. If it does it's a shame. If someone like him goes down now, after coming so close to actually having a decent, and seemingly genuine candidacy with his kind of character that may actually have some "walk the walk" behind the "talk the talk", it's just sad. If somehow Clinton gets it, or worse, McCain wins in November, then we truly are a total nation of fools.
Posted by molotov at 03/24/2008 @ 11:45pm
Well, if you call things their names, why on earth you should be apologizing. Let me tell you I always suspect politicos of the type like B. Richardson and B. Obama. Not black not brown not white either. They use all of that to their full advantage. Who's one Mr. Richardson until Bubba gave him road to prominence. Virtually, nil. All big big zero. But once he got there, the guy started jokeing for his own political gains. Shameless. the same could be said about the black who once called Bubba no less than the first black prez. Ungrateful. Dangerously ungrateful. Juda is a mild label.
----------
No Carville Apology for Judas Remark
Mar 25 01:06 AM US/Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton adviser James Carville is refusing to apologize for comparing New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to Judas. Carville made the comparison to The New York Times after Richardson, once a member of President Clinton's Cabinet, endorsed Hillary Clinton rival Barack Obama last week for the Democratic presidential nomination. Carville called it an "act of betrayal," and pointed out that it came during Holy Week.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/25/2008 @ 02:23am
Some men from the Nation were rather quick in linking Hillary to Spitzer. Alright how bout these pals of ObaMacaca, all black?
------------
Paterson Admits Past Cocaine Use by Azi Paybarah | March 24, 2008 | Tags: PoliticsDavid PatersonEliot Spitzer David Paterson is still adding to his string of confessions.
"I tried it a couple of times," he said in an interview with NY1 News, when asked if he had ever used cocaine.
It was his first television interview since he became governor last week.
Host Dominic Carter asked Paterson a number of questions about past drug use. The governor also admitted he has used marijuana, but added that he has not touched illegal drugs since his early twenties. ------------- Detroit Mayor Charged With Perjury
Mar 24 11:49 AM US/Eastern By COREY WILLIAMS Associated Press Writer
Beleaguered Detroit Mayor Charged With Perjury
DETROIT (AP) - Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star and Detroit's youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages contradicted his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/25/2008 @ 02:47am
How many of you Obama-haters have actually seen/read Wright's sermons/sermon-transcripts?
Until you do, could you not act like you know what you're talking about?
Posted by freeminded at 03/25/2008 @ 08:07am