Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination
An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.
People don't seem to learn from history, which may be obvious. But I'm talking about you. All the intelligent people who think they know what they are doing and think that change is on the way .
I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people. And it would probably greatly inspire a lot of people who have felt oppressed over the past 8 years. But honestly, I don't think he stands a chance. Democratic voters are voting with their hearts and not their heads. From having watched many presidential elections from more of a neutral stance, I can say that to really win, you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own. Sure, you can win by a narrow margin, but that is hardly marks the beginning of change. Change begins with the populace changing their attitudes. Leaving race out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies.
So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years? I don't think so. Obama supporters, you have risked too much. So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't
though.
Hasn't this guy been in the news enough for the last two years? Can't we get his name right yet?
It's Barack.
First of all, I'm not sure why this is "news for nerds", but I'll readily concede that it is "stuff that matters".
Obama may have the nomination, but someone really ought to tell Hillary. Last night, during her non-concession speech, she stated that she's "making no decisions tonight". Today I heard on NPR that she is "open to the Vice-Presidential spot", even though she may not take it...she "just wants to be considered".
Sweet Zombie Jesus...what will it take to make this woman go away???
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The site has had a Politics category for a couple years now. This election affects many of us, and it is certainly "stuff that matters".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have minimal interest in this subject, but even I know his damn name is spelled "Barack", not "Barrack".
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).
Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.
Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.
Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
His campaign's websites use Linux
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Are you suggesting that the spell chequer was somehow wrong?
Don't you know that the Computer is your friend, and any deviation from its approved spelling can lead to your being used as reactor shielding?
Anyway, Obama would be demonized with any name, and regardless of his hue. No matter who he is, if he's a D and he's running, then he'll be the "single most liberal member of Congress" since Che Guavera or whoever, an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America, will have gotten a "free pass" from our "overwhelmingly liberal media," would put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists, "emboldening our enemies," etc. It's the same script, every time, all the time. The Republicans always use the same words to galvanize their base, because, well, it works. Who or what Obama is or isn't has little to do with how the Republicans will vote.
More directly, policitical stories always generate a lot of page hits. They also afford an opportunity to study the site's demographics on the sly.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Balrog Obama? Now that sounds like a candidates I can trust!
You do know that if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
In the US there are two major political parties, and each one puts one candidate up for the election in the general election for President. But before the general election, each party has the primary campaign, where individuals within each party run against each other for the right to be the candidate in the election. These primary campaigns basically involve citizens (when it's their state's turn) going and voting for the candidate that they want to represent whichever party. Depending on the rules of the particular state, sometimes you have to be a registered member of that party in order to vote, and sometimes they're open to anyone registered to vote at all. Basically the way it works is that depending on how many votes you get in a primary, then you get a certain number of delegates. Delegates are basically voting representatives for that state, proportioned by the relative populations of each state,and are expected to vote in accordance with the results of the primary popular vote in that state.
You don't need to win one of the primaries to run for president, but you need to win one if you want the support of one of the major political parties. For various reasons, it's currently not particularly practical for a candidate to win the general election unless they are a candidate from one of the two main parties.
The two major parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party creates the specific rules that are used in their own primaries to select their candidates. The democrats, for various reasons, have come up with a complicated system that not only has regular delegates, but also has "super-delegates." Supers are usually (but not always) individuals considered particularly important to the democratic party (elected officials, party leaders, etc), and they are free to put their delegate vote towards whichever candidate they wish. Basically, they're individuals who's vote counts for way more than the average person's. Their role is restricted purely to the democratic primary however, in a general election, their vote counts for no more than anyone else's.
That's just a brief overview, without the history of why super-delegates exist, but there's plenty of information out there to be found on that.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
For the love of God, man! If you don't like the Republican/Democratic candidates, don't sit at home: vote for a third-party candidate. Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Historically the Republicans have plenty of ties to terrorists, and nobody seems to care.
It's entirely possible to love and admire your spiritual advisor while thinking that his more worldly theories are insane. There is at least one person in my life like that, although his theories are somewhat more tame. But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president. I'm utterly sick of this kind of bullshit talk. If you don't like him, fine. Say so. But saying that it is impossible to like him if you know him is ridiculous. Plenty of people do. Accept that other people can have opinions which do not match yours.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Perhaps America shouldn't have declared independence, because they obviously still need baby sitting.
"if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result."
That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.
Funny how you touch on shit that doesn't matter in the least, yet leave out the one thing that really does paint Obama as an elitist, insensitive bastard: him going on about how people only like guns/religion because they're poor, a month or two ago.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
"Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting."
Both of those assumptions are false. I will only support a candidate willing to uphold the rights of the citizenry. Show me such a candidate. My vote is of little consequence, especially when it is a vote for a candidate who cannot get a majority. Freedom of speech is the more effective route: persuading lots of members of the public to eventually bring about a viable candidate.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Is Obama a black man with a white mother or a white man with a black father? As a racist white male, this question has been causing me night terrors!
Someone needs to tell him about the rich fat cats in the Republican party who like guns and religion. Dick Cheney for one.
1. Obama himself
2. Joe Biden
Yes. We should remind people that it doesn't matter if you're black or white. The only color that matters is green.
an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America
Elite: 1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status. 2. The best or most skilled members of a group.
Why is it that people think "elite" is bad? Would you rather have a president who is smarter than the average citizen or just average? For the past 8 years we've had a president who is as dumb or dumber than most people (or at least he likes to pretend he is).... and that didn't do anything good for the country.
Exactly. The Republican Party is not "conservative". That word is only used to get votes. In fact, the Republican Party has put the U.S. government into far more debt.
There are, in effect, two Republican Parties. One is a real political party. The other is extremely corrupt and merely says anything necessary to get control. The real purpose is control, not managing the U.S. government for its citizens. For example, search digg.com and reddit.com for the term "martial law".
There has been conflict of interest because of the fact that the president and vice-president and their families and friends and associates have a history of investment in oil and weapons. The purpose of invading Iraq was to get control of the oil supply, so that the price of oil would rise. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating; he was selling as much oil as he wanted.
The reason for the U.S. government's plan to invade Iran is to further restrict the supply of oil. If the U.S. government invades, the price of oil could easily become $8 per gallon; it is necessary to have oil to make our societies function; people would have to pay any price.
Also, his name is "Barack" Obama, as others have noted. I wish Slashdot editors could be real editors, and check their work.
I just wish for once a person would run on something other than a slew of social issues that they have no power to change. And worse yet, I wish people would stop voting for canidates based on their stance on abortion or gay marriage or anything else. The ideal person, for me, is the person who can evaluate situations as they come along and apply a little bit of common sense in government. Maybe this describes Ron Paul, maybe it doesn't. In the end, I know that this is just a dream because the large parties will never nominate someone who goes against their social agenda and people will never vote for someone who goes against their beliefs.
Yes, it did not matter so much in england that Tony blair waited until AFTER leaving office before converting from Church of England to Roman Catholic. That is, he waited until he was done politically. I am guessing that the simple fact is, that nearly all politicians in England are either agnostic OR church of England. After all, how many lords are muslims or hindus?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm generally a conservative. I hesitate to call myself a republican, though that is the party I'm registered with, but of the two majors, they are closer to what I believe in. A libertarian might be the right term, though they tend to be rather... Extremist. The point is, I'm not a Democrat and didn't get to vote in that primary.
Regardless I am what you might call a moderate conservative. I have and will certainly cross party lines. I vote based on who I think will do the best job, not a D or an R. So I'm the kind of voter that the democrats need to be after. In my case, I'll almost certainly vote for Obama if he's nominated. If not, I'll probably vote for McCain. I don't like Clinton at all. She seems very totalitarian, in that she thinks she knows what's best for the economy, for you personally (her video game stance for example) and so on. That is opposite to what I think. I think in general government should try and stay out of things, when practical. They should be a force that guides the economy, not controls it, and that ensures people have freedoms but that they don't infringe on others, not that hands out a list of what is right and wrong.
So for me, Obama is good. I don't agree with him 100%, but then I don't agree with anyone but myself 100%. However over all I like his policies, and I think he'll be good for the nation. Clinton, no, sorry, I won't go that route. While I don't think McCain is as good a candidate as Obama, I think he's better than Clinton.
I'm not the only person I know who's the same way either. I have a number of friends with similar political views and the thing I hear is "I hope Obama wins because I'll vote for him, but if not I'll vote for McCain."
Hardcore republicans are a lost cause. They'll vote R no matter what. So while they might hate Obama more, it doesn't matter since they won't vote for Hillary either. They are all R all the time. The people who matter are those who come down on the conservative side, but aren't caught up in party dogma.
Now I have no empirical evidence as to who will vote what way, but this assumption that Clinton has the ability win win republicans where as Obama doesn't is just silly. Neither will win the party voters, and I and my friends are proof that there are at least some out there who feel Obama yes, Clinton no. We probably aren't the only ones either.
No candidate is going to have a walk in the park this time around, all of them have something that a non-trivial portion of America has a problem with. However that doesn't mean Obama has no chance, in fact I'd say it is quite the opposite.
I still want to know what he is going to change? I haven't really been able to figure out much of what he plan's to change?
I can't vote (I am not an American Citizen, have never been to America ... ) but the result *will* effect me ... to whom do I complain!
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Well, here's the quote:
I guess you and I just read things differently, because I got a bit more nuance out of his statements, and "people only like guns/religion because they're poor" doesn't quite capture it. Seeing the economic viability of your community crumble, seeing the way of life of your parents crumble, can be a polarizing experience, and yes, people cling to things, things they consider symbolic of their way of life. I don't see anything especially patronizing about saying that people are pissed off and that when they're pissed off the symbolic things matter more than they might in times of prosperity.
Did any of you see the speech yesterday by McCain? Who does a speech in New Orleans and not have a single black person show up? The differences between McCain and Obama are so stark that people have very little choice in the matter. 3/4s of this country want the war to end. A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the war. He has made that painfully obvious. A vote for McCain is a vote for continuation of the same policies that have made Bush the most unpopular president in the history of the country. On top of all of that the turnout for this election is going to be massive. Election boards nationwide have reported that turnout for just the primaries this year have exceeded turnout for general elections past. What is energizing people to come out like that? Probably the same feelings that makes Bush unpopular. Independent voters are breaking hard to the left for Obama. And in reality, if you want the best indicator that people are going to vote a Democrat president in, look at the Republican house and senate seats that have been lost already to Democrats this year. Across the country seats held for decades by Republicans are being won by Democrats or are being polled as likely Democrat pickups already. There is one house race I know of in the south that voted 70% for Bush in 2004, it is that Republican of a district. Yet today, it is polling 65% in favor of the Democrat candidate. The turnarounds nationwide are, in some cases, that big. There is no way this country is about to continue the policies of George W Bush with a vote for McCain.
Even Bush's country accent is fake--he's not really a country boy, not really a rancher, etc. But the populism button keeps on spitting out the votes. As cynical as I am, I still find it depressing.
"More taxes means less freedom"
So it follows that places like Afganistan and Sudan are on the top of the freedom list and the scandanavian countries are near the bottom?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes.
What part of "black" did you not understand?
When he's not Bush Light, McCain understands this.
And Sen. Obama is offering exactly what as an alternative to more war? Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq, despite how many Americans want that (it'll be a bloodbath if we leave now, we're told, as if Iraqi are so busy laying roses at our soldiers and mercenaries' feet). His Iran threat to the Chicago Tribune ("[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action? ... [L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.") and his recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
As Cindy Sheehan recently reminded us, the Democrats have a strong history of war making and a lot to apologize for:
Digital Citizen
Isn't one of the things he is running on improved international relations?
The real interesting thing will be to see what Bill does on January 21st, 2009. Does he file for divorce? Does she? Etc...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
He did NOT say "people cling to religion and guns because they're poor" you spin-monkey shrill a-hole.
Here's a quote so you can stop spreading that bullshit "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." And that quote is from a freaking right-wing Roman Catholic website! (the first three pages of my google search were all from right-wingers trying to make Obama look bad, go figure).
Jesus christ all ready. All he basically said was that they're living in dried up commuinities that keep getting passed over by the government even though they're promised relief, which of course frustrates these people (eventually leading to becoming bitter against the government) and they turn to ("cling") their hobbies and beliefs to express their frustration.
Take your obnoxious right-wing out-of-context political spin and shove it up your ass.
A choice quote from your link: "Watching the never-ending spectacle of glassy-eyed white girls gone wild for this mulatto, and knowing the Negro libido and psyche, one finds it almost impossible to believe that he has never taken advantage of his opportunities."
Would you care to renounce that author?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Obama will get us out of Iraq. But he's not a mindless pacifist (no reasonable leader ever should be). There's a big difference.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I can se Mccains slogan. Obama shall not pass.
It's because most such people are using elite to mean snobbish. The two often coincide, but as you point out, not by definition.
That doesn't make sense. That's Gandalf's line, not Saruman's. :)
I don't have any mod points left, but welcome to my friends list pal. You've just echoed the feelings that made me become an independent.
I think the final straw for me was when Team of Rivals came out, and all of the neocon pundits essentially ran a smear campaign... against Lincoln!! The Republicans of today are in name only.
On the bright side, as long as "we the people" continue to push back against bad government and work to retain basic personal and economic freedoms, mediocrity from a President is usually good enough.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
You mean like the batshit crazy idea that the Jews are the chosen people of Jehova and anyone that brings harm to them will incur the wrath of the Lord? That's not racist or crazy, riight.
Religion at its most basic level is racist, crazy, nonsense propaganda that should be ignored in its totality in a political campaign. I just wish he'd had the guts to remain atheist as he was raised, but you can't get elected President as an atheist.
My Babylon
Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq
... if any, are we going to take military action?
Ooh not "immediate" withdrawal. It'll be fast enough for most of us.
at what point
Oh yeah, that's a terrible threat there. "There may or may not exist a point where we would want to use military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons". Wow, so hostile there, compared to Bush's peace offerings.
Considering that he has also been heavily criticized for saying he would speak directly with Iran's President, i.e. use diplomacy, this 'threat' seems pretty irrelevant.
is recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
Funding a war in progress -- and in particular caring for our people damaged by this war -- is completely different from not objecting to it. Guess what? It'll cost money to get our troops out of Iraq too, so when he proposes a spending bill that includes this money, don't lump that in with "supporting the war".
Democrats deserve no slack, and should be given none.
I don't hold the actions of Nixon or Reagan against Bush Jr; I see no reason to hold the actions of JFK against Obama. Because that makes no sense.
The enemies of Democracy are
Pulling out over-night, as many seem to want, is possibly the worst thing to do. The government (and army) is nowhere near the point that they can actually control the country, and seeing the mighty american army leave like that will only help to bolster the extremists, Iran etc.
Hi. Hate to break this unhappy news to you, but the current government is fundamentally incapable of controlling the country, because it is seen as illegitimate by most of the country. Any government formed under occupation, no matter how many stained thumbs you show off, is going to be seen as thus. No matter how long we stay, that government will fall as soon as we leave. Or it will have to start being very un-Democratic in order to stay in power. Either way, it will be brutal.
Also, this entire Iraqi enterprise has bolstered Iran, and nothing we do before we leave is going to change that either. The government, and especially the army, is closely tied with Iran. The largest political party, SCIRII* was formed by Iraqi exiles living in Iran. Their militia, the Badr Brigade, has effectively transformed itself into the army. It's the same militia, but now wearing uniforms with "official" standing. Remember in that recent farce of a conflict, where the Iraqi Army was trying to push Sadr's militia out, and failed miserably? Remember how they were calling Sadr "Iran-backed" in the stories to help justify the action? Well, he is Iranian backed, but the Prime Minister's party and SCIRII are even more. So in the conflict that comes after we leave, whoever wins, it's a win for Iran.
So while we shouldn't leave instantly, we shouldn't dawdle because there isn't much point. We should start drawing down, over maybe a year, two tops, and dedicate our time remaining to all the public works projects that we have failed to finish. Maybe it'll all be blown up the day after we leave, but maybe we can at least leave a positive last impression on our way out. Sticking around trying to prevent the inevitable is just making things worse.
* Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, they call themselves something else now, without the scary "Islamic Revolution" part. Must have made the Iranian pedigree too obvious.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hard to believe, but never the less, true.
A second piece of wisdom. You do yourself a disservice praising and quoting a piece liberally sprinkled with the following kinds of phrases: "Magic Negro", "Negro clown", "young gentleman of color is claiming to have had a sexual encounter with Saint Barack", "because Obama is a socialist, a Democrat, and - especially - a Negro". It strongly suggests that you yourself are quite comfortable with overt racism and pathological hate. And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Cornelius, that you are engaged in a crude form of psychological rationalization for your own unstated racist sentiments.
A little self-introspection may be in order.
YOU SHALL NOT PASS... legislation, because that's the job of Congress.
And if no one runs that I feel I can vote for? I'm not allowed to complain that all of the candidates suck equally? Where was the vote that I missed to get a candidate who doesn't suck? Your logic makes no sense at all.
That said, I'm voting for Obama come November.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
I'm not sure what part of "The US government is responsible for infecting zillions of blacks with AIDS," mis-citing the Tuskegee experiments (which didn't infect anyone with syphilis, but rather allowed their infections to go untreated) as evidence, is being taken out of context. The same can be said for many of Wright's other ridiculous claims.
And I don't think for a minute that Barack Obama believes any of that crap. But I do question his honesty and his judgment in how he handled the whole mess, and those are issues of character that are relevant in a Presidential campaign.
Care to give any specific examples of Obama's supposed corruptness?
"Octoroon" sounds like an eight-sided cookie.
He's dirty as fuck, more corrupt than a Louisiana politician.
Appropriate analogy! McCain was eating cake with Bush as New Orleans, Louisiana drowned. While people were dying in one of the greatest natural catastrophes in US history, McCain and Bush were licking delicious sugar icing off each other's noses!
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
wiki sez:
"Quadroon" is someone of one-quarter black ancestry. A quadroon has a biracial parent (black and white) and one white parent. In other words, the person has one black grandparent and three white grandparents.
"Octoroon" means a person of fourth-generation black ancestry. An octoroon has one parent who is a quadroon and one white parent. In other words, the person has one black great-grandparent and seven white great-grandparents.
How is the media 'deciding'? He has a majority of the delegates to the convention. I don't think the media repeating this fact is 'deciding' anything.... it's reporting.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
> He's dirty as fuck, more corrupt than a louisiana politician.
Oh I doun't doubt Obama is a fully integrated part of the political machine 'yall got up there, but you Yanks don't know squat about corruption.
We have a Governor in Federal Prison. He got elected while under indictment, with the endorsement of BOTH major parties. Of course due to our crazy open primaries his opponent was David Duke so it wasn't like we had much of a choice.
We got us a Congresscritter who got caught with $90,000 in 'cold hard cash' sitting in his freezer. He is still in Congress, reelected by nice margins.
We got us a blooming idiot down in New Orleans as mayor, prone to foot in mouth like 'ya wouldn't believe. Makes Wright look like a beginner in the whitey hatin' business. And totally incompetent. You want to know why New Orleans didn't really TRY to evacuate, look no farther than Ray and the Ray Nagin Memorial Bus Lot.
We just got rid of a Governor who was so incompetent her own party made sure she didn't run for reelection.... didn't help em though, Jindal cleaned their clocks anyway, so we have some room for optimism.
Democrat delenda est
Wow even a slashdot user 137 can post racist articles.
Quotes from the first article...
"being a Negro in America"
"uppity Negro"
"upstart Negro"
"Magic Negro"
"Negro clown Alan Keyes"
"Negro libido and psyche"
"and â" especially â" a Negro"
The media decides who gets name recognition. Why do you think Ron Paul did so poorly in the 'scientific' polls? Because he didn't have name recognition due to the media having a near blackout on info about him in the early part of the Republican race, and then once he started wiping the floors with the other candidates at the debates, they did everything they could to make him seem like a lunatic/crazy old man. The media has a monopoly on who gets recognized by the public, and subsequently who gets elected.
Check this out too:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6185320
Know how much of this guy's money wound up in kickbacks to Obama? Loads!
And this one is a statement of belief that America is institutionally racist, which brings us to the crux of the matter.
Rev. Wright clearly believes the government, and America as a whole, has been (which it certainly has), and still is (which is debatable), institutionally racist. Do you really think that belief, a belief in institutional racism, is in itself racist? Really?
I'd also question the wisdom in equating 'the government' and 'America' with 'white people'. It's possible to accuse the government of racism without accusing all white people of racism.
So basically that's zero out of six. Well done!
the fact that he's attended these sermons for decades certainly doesn't speak well for his character. And again, if you actually check out the sermons, you'll find they're not 'overtly racist'.