Posted on 11/09/2008 7:25:51 AM PST by an amused spectator
OK. I'm not going to bother posting the article, since the next four years are going to be a constant Obama love-fest, and we're all going to get tired of 24/7/365 articles like this.
Just an observation to Todd Lewan. Todd: Obama was elected because the stock market imploded just before the election, and the New Obama Government Media engineered pinning the blame on the Republicans. This was a lie.
So, your entire article is a crock of bunny poo.
Now, let's get to it, and start the list from this Ossociated Press piece.
These are the obvious Obama-ites in the article.
We're just going to have to keep track of these people. There's no real point in reading what they say, since most of it will be faxed from the new Obama Department of Media office.
Wonder who is going to be named to the cabinet position? ;-)
At the beginning, Hitler was quite popular, too.
I AGREE.
It’s monumental in that the most liberal presidential candidate ever, won. (I guess we’ll have to ignore the fact that the had the entire establishment media advocating on his behalf and spent well over half a billion dollars on his campaign for the time being. Campaign finance ‘abuses’ only matter when Republicans win.)
The amusing thing is those who made this election about the race of the Democrat candidate were all on the left. With respect to race, conservatives are far, far ahead of the left when it comes to regarding people as individuals, not members of groups.
What side of the political ideological spectrum advances the notion that ‘because your skin color is X, you should vote for the candidate whose skin color is X’?
The left lives perpetually in the 1960s. They find it hard to believe that people would actually vote for someone else because they didn’t want higher taxes, more entitlements, extremist social policies, and a weak foreign policy, and not because the candidate was simply African-American.
It’s not “sophisticated”, “intellectual” or “progressive” to vote for someone on the basis of their skin color. It’s racist and unacceptable here in the 21st century.
The article quotes eight historians, and I posted the names of the three that I thought were Obama-ites.
I then went and looked up the '400 Historians Against Impeachment [of Bill Clinton]' from 1998.
Naturally, there were only three historians from the article who were also on the list of 400 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/petition102898.htm).
The very ones I posted. **smirk**
It's going to take a while, but the schadenfreude is going to be great...
Enough with the superficial race nonsense. The time has come to discuss the content of Obama's character.
Honestly, we cannot deny that the first black President is monumental. The man and the administration are not good for the country, but it’s still very historic.
It may be "monumental" for racists like the Democrats, but Republicans and conservatives got over the skin color thing a LONG time ago.
So, no, it's not monumental for me. Barfsack Okenyan is just another guy from the other side who is not qualified for the job.
I am more concerned of a timeline of events after he is found ineligible to be nominated as the 44th President of the United States.
The Fall from grace, the shame, the finger pointing and desertion of his rank and file.
Or its covered up to prevent riots and he knows he is now an impotent POTUS and in some fashion perhaps worthy of a sci-fi thriller he is “removed” from office, a faked illness like a stroke, mental illness, anything that would require him to abdicate the throne and not cause a civil war.
I would think thats whats in store for us.
Life is Wasilla settle down yet? How do you guys like the latest sleaze about Palin, the daughter of two schoolteachers, who doesn't know Africa is a continent?
The Main Stream Obama's New Government Media is scum.
Perhaps the fact that a black President does a lot to dispel the idea that the nation is essentially racist escapes many. That alone makes it monumental.
Also, I sure did see an awful lot of Freepers promoting black candidates such as JC Watts based largely on skin color, so...
The nation IS essentially racist. The Democrats are racists, and until they nominated a black guy, there wasn't going to be a black president, period, because they're half the electorate.
Why do you think the Blue Borg Cube cities are also called the Democrat Plantations?
I don’t believe that. I believe there is racism, no question. But I also believe that we too could have elected a black man. We have candidates that would have been great, but we tend to be reactive and not pro-active. We also are not grooming candidates. Right now the closest we have to a groomed candidate is Palin. We should have more than one option for 2012. Clinton and Obama are perfect examples of grooming candidates, and both won. Disasters for the country because we choose to run retreads against them.
Our problem is that we keep choosing bad candidates. Bush Sr., Dole, McCain... basically it was their turn, so we let them have a shot. But all 3 ran pathetic campaigns, 2 because, to be blunt, they were too worn out to keep up.
Does the name "Clarence Thomas" ring a bell? A black Republican candidate would have been crucified.
Clinton was groomed, Obama wasn't groomed.
Obama got into office with the greatest October surprise on record.
The stock market meltdown was either one of the greatest fortunate (for the Democrats) coincidences in American political history, or it was something else.
Having seen a great many political machinations over the last 11 years at Free Republic, I don't believe much in coincidences...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.