Needs a barf alert.
Remember when they said Hillary and Bill were the smartest couple in the world!
Good grief. The NY SLimes never touched the Rev. Wright last week. Now they are going fawning over Obama.
And some say the NYT doesn’t have a comics page . . .
you forgot “Barf Alert”
my keyboard is a mess
Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy.
Good grief, why’d they leave George Washington out?
This speech would have been a lot better if the Obama campaign had gotten James Earl Jones to read it rather than Obama.
Pinchy is in the tank with the Hate-America Marxists. There's a shocker.
Courgae? Nope.
Political? Yes.
Last Sunday Obama said he never heard any of that offensive rhetoric from Wright while he was in the pew at church...and today, in his speech, he changed his story and said he did.
He is an out and out liar...now spinning his tale for political expediancy.
As if though his “pastor” and mentor for 20 years and all that disgusting hate wasn’t enough, or his ties to the Weathermen Underground, or his endorsement by Farakahn...this tells us all we need to know about the man. He is a sham, and his non-patriotic views and those of his wife have been formed through 20 years of mentoring by the likes of Wright.
He cannot distance himself and repudiate himself from himself. He is who he is, however smoothly he can give a speech...and so now Obama’s own chickens are coming home to roost.
I remember Rolling Stone getting the same kind of giddy over Jimmuh Carter’s Law Day speech in ‘74 and we know how that turned out.
I didn’t get past the ‘exerpt’ and I think this qualifies for a two-bag barf alert.
Looks like the NYT took their false teeth out for this one.
Kneepad bridge. They just gave a full lewinsky to a bigot.
Gretta Van S. had a vote run during her program asking if the “O”s speech made them feel more favorable of him -
The NO’s came in at 87% -
that makes me feel safer
I think a lot us were uncomfortable with him (after saying last week that he had never heard or known of the Bullfrog's many, many incendiary sermons - and now admitting he did but..) equating the deep, wild and dangerous statements for decades, meant to whip up hatred of the 'rich white people' - he comes out and equates it to things we've all heard in our churches; to what Geraldine Ferraro said and then, for the first time in his campaign; acknowledges his white grandparents - by throwing his grandmother under the bus - couched in praise of her raising him and loving him and then labels her a racist - with an accusation that was, itself, only a half truth.
He said his grandmother was uncomfortable with being approached by black men on the street.
However, in his first book he writes it differently. He says she came home upset because while she was waiting for a bus, a large man, a panhandler ask her for money - and kept getting more aggressive about it. She said she was glad the bus came just then because she was afraid he might hit her on the head. Upon questioning by her husband, she described him as black.
Excuse me, but I would also have been afraid, whether the man was black or white or purple.
Bottom line is, "O" reminded me of a little kid who was been caught hanging with a hoodlum gang and making excuses for their action - and his excuse is, after first denying it but now confronted with proof, says, "OKay. I did it. I'm sorry. But what about all those other people who did something wrong. And, oh, by the way, I don't agree with the gang or the gang leader, but I'm gonna still hang out with them and the leader. They're my friends."
I surmise a psychiatrist would have a field day with this very conflicted young man. As he once said, after college, he went in search of his 'blackness'. He had a black father who deserted him when he was 2. Later, his mother left him for his white grandparents to raise.
So he went to Chicago and came under the influence of the Bullfrog - and seems to crawled under his wing, looking upon him as a surrogate father.
But no one along the way seemed to've taught him the proverb about: "Oh what tangled webs we weave when...."
Far from being presidential material
This is the NYT editorial tomorrow? I can’t believe what a bunch of foolishness.I love you Barack, you are the man, you will be President and I can’t wait. There I cut this article short.
Good Heavenly Days. I guess I am just exhausted from all that is going on in the Democrat party. Can not get over that the Governor of NY admitted that he had affairs, as did his wife. And that is the new Governor! Where is the outrage?
One way that liberals win debates is to prevent the other side from stating its views. In this editorial, the Times said, “Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright....” In other words, the Times has decreed that any further discussion of Wright is taboo.
Because nothing gets between McCain and his Democrat masters. Nothing.
May I suggest an antidote: The AP Style Guide on Defending Barack Obama http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987923/posts