Town Square

Post a New Topic

Tell me is ain't so Barack!

Original post made by Sean on Mar 20, 2008

It is very painful for me to write this post.

I loved Barack. He took it over the barriers of race and biogtry. I thought he was the new hope for this country. I saw, and felt, his hope.

However, he just sat there while he heard his pastor spew hate. He seemed to say that his grandmother is, somehow, equal to that black bigot. She may be a bigot, but she had no public forum. No comparison.

I defended Barack, among my friends, when his wife made unwise remarks about America. I now feel like a fool.

I am depressed.

I can't believe that McCain now has a chance in California.

Tell me it ain't so.

Comments (61)

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm

It is so; just like I said it would be. Sorry. That's what happens when hysteria hits a political candidate; they go down faster, and harder when the there people thought was there isn't there any more.


Posted by it sure is so, a resident of South of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I am one democrat who has been for Hillary all along. Aware that Obama will likely get the nomination, I decided some time ago that I'll vote McCain in an McCain-Obama contest, voting Republican for the first time in my 5 decade long life.

BTW it was pretty clear from day one that Obama's discourse was pretty shallow. We did not have to wait for his pastor's story to realize that there was not much to Obama's candidacy to really root for.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2008 at 7:40 pm

the refusal to wear a flag pin was kind of a clue, doncha think? yet, folks made fun of us who were leary of him for that ...

but, like you, I am bummed. I actually had some hope that maybe, just maybe, this guy, though I despised his policies, was just naive, not another America hating far leftie.....


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Never fall in love with a politician, they'll break your heart every time. For those who do wear the flag pin, I wish they would wear it correctly, at the viewer's left and the flag's own right.


Posted by Coulter Loves Limbaugh, a resident of another community
on Mar 20, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Refusal to wear a flag pin was a clue about what???
Do you realize that the vast majority of americans do not wear a flag pin? What does that say about most americans.
Wearing a flag pin is very cute--not sure what it means--but you do have to look at the people that do wear flag pins and wonder what really is important for them (i.e. symbols or real action, for example or getting Osama Bin Laden or changing the name of frnech fries to american fries). yep, those are the people that wear american flag pins--meaningless gesture--done solely for postturing and to tryt o look patriotic. an empty gesture by scoundrels, who avoided actually serving in the military.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 20, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Never been an Obama supporter, but I think this whole preacher mess has been blown up way out of proportion.

Fact is, blacks have faced some terrible things in this country. Fact is, why wouldn't there be some anger in the pulpit about it.

Fact is, white preachers have said America's going to hell--like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and nobody demanded that the politicians *they* supported disown them.

I'd love it if we could get dump the whole personal-religion issue out of politics. However, the reaction to Obama and his minister strike me as a real double standard. I read Obama's speech and I liked it--more than I usually like his stuff.

As for whether it's Hillary or Obama in November. Well, I'll vote for either one over McCain because either one of them is more likely to have policies I support and nominate judges I want on a court.

I mean, geez, did you really think that the African-American community hasn't gotten upset over the years over its status in this country? Are you that unaware of that simmering anger?

And Obama didn't agree with it--he *acknowledged* it. And even that gets people into a tizzy.

I didn't vote for him, but I feel sorry for the guy.


Posted by Janet, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 7:00 am

Sorry, but the latest polls show that if a Presidential election were held today John McCain would win by 10 points over either Obama or Hill Clinton. That means the war in Iraq will go on for another 8 years and the value of the dollar against other world currencies will fall to near "0".

I'm a democrat but we just can't get it right when choosing a Presidential candidate. If middle of the roaders like Biden or Dodd were going up against McCain they'd probably win. That's America for you.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 7:01 am

I sometimes wear a flag pin [correctly] but always wear a wedding ring except when working under the hood of my car. Denying the value of symbolism while supporting the PC that sees careers ruined by a single word is a perversion of common sense. I won't do a Fritchie, but I can understand revulsion at those who wear the swastika.


Posted by Sean, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 21, 2008 at 8:29 am

OhlonePar,

I am afraid the problem is deeper than what you think. It isn't a Jerry Falwwell or Pat Roberston analogy, it is a David Duke analogy that best fits.

I am just stunned by this.


Posted by Proud democrat, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Mar 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

If any non-republicans are interested

Web Link


Posted by grandma was sold but in a different way from Barack's, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 8:44 am

Agreed, Sean..

OP: Saying a country is going to hell for various reasons is not the same as saying g-d america, or blaming one race ( esp one gender of one race) for all problems..huge difference. I despised Falwell, but even I never heard him blame problems on a race.

Also, politicians do not choose who endorse them..but they DO choose where they go to church ( if they do) for 20 years and how they raise their kids.

I left my first beloved church over its stance on gays and women in the priesthood, and darn near left Christianity altogether. I left my second beloved church, where the priest was incredibly great and brought me back into the Church like Barack says Wright did, over the horrific anti-republican/Bush hatred pouring out of the priest's husband's mouth, and over the fact that one day I found that we were all supposed to say "amen" to a prayer to the effect that the US should bow to the desires of the UN ( where 3/4 of the members are DICTATORS..and we are supposed to abdicate being the oldest democracy in the world and having had millions die for our right to VOTE???)....that was the final straw, and we left.

It was horribly painful, to this day I grieve it, but a moral person will not be complicit in immorality. Remember the Lutheran priest who penned the words to the effect of " I stood by when they came for the Jews, and did nothing, and the Catholics, and did nothing and the etc...now they have come for me and there is nobody left to stop it"

Staying in a church that preaches bull is complicitly acknowledging you agree..you agree with your presence, you agree with your money, you agree by raising your kids to listen and learn the stuff..You are complicit in the message preached.

You are stretching mightily to try to defend Barack's attendance for 20 years to this church.

I don't care how much pain or anger I have suffered as a woman whose legacy is a grandmother who was sold into marriage in Africa ( and I am white..)..I have never, ever tolerated anti-man, anti-African crap, and I can not support, or even tolerate, the continuing sowing of hatred in this country on race.



Posted by read Sowell, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 8:47 am

What is particularly galling about the constant crying by the Wrights of this nation, is that study after study shows that those blacks who immigrate here do as well as whites, and their children do as well as whites..

American whites are racist? Then why do blacks from other countries fare as well as whites here??

Read Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" for a fascinating book on black-white race issues in this country.


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Mar 21, 2008 at 9:26 am

If Obama weren't still a strong candidate, I doubt we'd see a daily attempt by Clinton supporters to start threads here trying to bring Obama down. There's a curious similarity in the subject lines, suggesting a single author, or a single playbook.



Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50 am

Before the other thread was locked for some strange reason, a "proud democrat" posted links to various "proofs" of Limbaugh being the cause of race being an issue...I saw the links, and excuse me but they were of Limbaugh reacting to OBAMA's statements of race....so now we can't react to race statements or it is racial?

Again, I say it is not the right who has made race an issue, it is the left...

Again, I dare anyone who believes the wing-nut assertions about Limbaugh to actually LISTEN to him for 3 hours per day...even for ONE WEEK...to see how you have been misled. I used to believe what others said about him, too...until I was dared to actually listen to him...don't believe what OTHERS say, listen for yourself.

Speaking of which, someone else posted an article by Anderson Cooper who supposedly listened to Wright's sermons and "interpreted" them for us..and concluded that he has been horribly misunderstood. As if Cooper's take were a reason to dismiss how horrifying Wright's speeches were.

Please, listen to the sermons YOURSELF and make your own mind up.

Stop letting others think for you...

Please note, I am saying listen to BOTH of them..Limbaugh and Wright. Note, I am not advising listening to just one of them...this is one of the basic freedoms, the freedom of speech, that millions of Americans have died to defend. Take advantage of how lucky you are, and LISTEN for yourselves...


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 10:51 am

By the way, if some vile posts were deleted before the shut-down of the other thread, isn't there a way to lock out the vile posters, instead of shutting down the whole thread??


Posted by Proud democrat, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Mar 21, 2008 at 10:57 am

Perspective--you clearly did not read my link carefully. The article was written by Roland S. Martin and posted on Anderson Coopers 360 Blog.

Not sure why the other thread was locked now--maybe it goes against Palo Alto's genteel nature of politics.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 21, 2008 at 11:25 am

granted, not written by cooper, but cooper posted it so it is a cooper approved message. missed who wrote it, but still read what it said..

points still stand of former post..

would love to know why the other thread was locked out..


Posted by Proud democrat, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Mar 21, 2008 at 11:40 am

Another interesting commentary from the same writer who posted on the Cooper Anderson Blog:

Web Link


Posted by triumph of hope over experience, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 21, 2008 at 12:28 pm





Obama and Michelle have no doubt rebuked sympathetic elite white

audiences, and by both their presence and purse have let it be known

that they consider the Rev. Wright's rhetoric tolerable, but they have

no idea that the vast majority of Americans that they heretofore have

rarely come into contact with are a far different audience, and find

the Obamas both more privileged than themselves and undeserving of any

more of a pass than any others.


fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm

"If Obama weren't still a strong candidate, I doubt we'd see a daily attempt by Clinton supporters to start threads here trying to bring Obama down. "

And the thing I dont get is what's the point? Clinton and Obama are done with California. Hillary needs to get landslides in the remaining primaries to catch up in delegates which recent polls dont indicate are in the cards for her. Just seems like wasted energy to me.


Posted by triumph of hope over experience, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 21, 2008 at 3:25 pm




Few politicians are as accomplished as Richardson; even fewer are as accomplished while projecting his air of bumbling and incompetence.

By many accounts this impression is just a lack of charisma, and he has "substance" to make up for it.

But the endorsement, embraced publicly by Obama, should provoke private shudders:

This man is hexed.


Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2008 at 4:16 pm





According to a new poll by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion,

82% knew about the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama's speech about race in America.

Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, 52% said it made them less likely to vote for him.

Moreover, 56% of blacks said the speech made them less likely to vote for him.

So Obama is bringing Americans together in a dislike of his speech, though I suspect that shared dislike does not represent much bridging of racial differences.

Obama gave a speech focusing on race as a way to distract from the issue of religion,

but the focus on race does not seem to have played well with blacks or non-blacks.



Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2008 at 5:31 pm

well certainly this episode did not help him.

The question is, did it sway the voters enough in the states that still have primaries to make a difference?

The poll is interesting, but I think it was nationwide wasn't it, so then it has people that already voted in the primaries in it.

and that 56% above was a range 56% to 31%, quite a large margin of error. Also is a Clinton or McCain voter that is less likely to vote for Obama interesting?

The poll left me with too many unanswered questions.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Mar 21, 2008 at 5:46 pm

obama cannot win fl, oh, or pa against mccain

the superdelegates know this

it's over, and the deal is sealed

hillary is the candidate


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I'm not convinced that the super delegates will "Al Gore" Obama. Pelosi has spoken out against it and she carries a lot of politcal muscle in her party.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 21, 2008 at 6:49 pm

pelosi doesn't care about national outcomes, and her job will be almost as easy with mccain as it would be with hillary - that's a wash - so she will protect herself and please her liberal base. come august, pelosi won't matter because the handwriting isalready beginning to appear on the wall


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2008 at 9:21 pm

So who do you expect to orchestrate this powerful end run?

Someone powerful will have to lead them in this direction, it wont come out of thin air. Keep in mind that a lot of those super delegates have bases of their own to please. So who takes them in this direction against their self interests? I dont see anyone in the democratic party with that kind of power talking that strongly about Hillary.

Keep in mind that if the democrats overrule their own voters, then winning the general requires convincing the independants to go with them and that will be harder. Neither party wins this without the independants.


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 21, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Gallup poll rated candidates as "honest and trustworthy" by Americans,

John McCain (67%)
Barack Obama (63%)
Hillary Clinton (44%)

I think this gets in Hillary's way in the general election.


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:11 am

the gallup poll is irrelevant because the campaign is fluid. look at how obama lost so many independents after the speech. also, if you want to use that poll, look at all the categories, like "has a clear plan for solving the country's problems". hillary skokes barack in that category, so it cuts both ways - - - - - - - look at the map of pa, scroll down, nice cluster analysis that refers back to ohio...pa will be a hillary lovefest..and some superdelegates like pelosi who don'tmind working with moderates will not vote counter to their state caucuses, but watch out if obama's slide continues, and even if it doesn't, many moderate democrats will slide toward mccain...obama has already lost a lot of independents...so, tell me that obama will win fl, oh, pa...no way!


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:12 am

here's map of pa url Web Link


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 7:03 am

If nothing else, this is fascinating.

If I had no kids, I would just be watching this with extreme interest.

Since I have kids and care deeply about where this country is going, wanting them to be able to have jobs and make at least as good of a living as I have....I am very, very worried about this whole country heading further and further left.

well, we just have to ride the tide and set up trust funds for our kids, I guess....

I actually knew someone once who voted for a proposition that she KNEW was bad economically for this state, ( she was a highly educated banker, and understood economics)....but she told me that she just wanted to "feel good" about the vote, since it was a democrat side vote, even though she knew that in the long run lots of people would be hurt from it. When I asked her how she could possibly feel good about voting in a way that she knew would hurt the next generation, she said that it didn't affect her kids, because they will have a trust fund, so they will have enough...

THAT is the problem with a lot of rich liberals..they know their own kids will be fine, so they keep voting in ways that hurt everyone else's.....


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 7:06 am

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans"
The US has, unwisely I believe, stayed the hand of just retribution of Isreal against Palestine agression, and the US and The United Kingdom almost alone supported opposition to apartheid. To have asserted otherwise was a lie and an abomination. White Christian americans cast out the KKK to the gutter they deserved. To the extent that blacks chose to hold themselves seperate from society, they bear the main responsibility to cleanse their ranks. I would prefer that they become americans as the majority of their numbers have.


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2008 at 8:10 am

walter,
are you responding to the right thread?
I dont see that quote in this thread.


Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2008 at 8:15 am

pam,

Frankly,

When I look at the 3 left standing, I think any of them would be an improvement over what we have now. I'm not anti Hillary, I just think the reality is, she has lost and just has trouble accepting it because she is so close.


Posted by perpsective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 8:31 am

Walter is quoting from one of Wright's speeches...

Everyone should listen to the speeches that Barack and his wife have subjected their kids to...Kids growing up in that environment are no better off than kids growing up in the hate-brainwashing rhetoric of the Wahabi's schools.

( I can't call him "reverend" and I can't call it a "sermon")


Posted by narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

Sean,
This reader has heard some awful things in church and outside of it and some appalling statements from family members. Most americans have heard and PARTICIPATED in words and sometimes acts of disrespect towards one group or another. I have never heard catholic candidates taken to task because of the Catholic church active participation in slavery, active participation in fascism, outright support for dictatorships, anti-semitic acts and the consistent support and cover up of child pornography. Likewise, all other christian groups and churches. So, i'm afraid that's difficult for me to accept that any candidate ( of any color) that has embraced their religion has embraced it totally or that when we still love family members whose beliefs we loathe, we are embracing those beliefs. Reasonable people know how to distinguishing one or more momentary heated speech from consistent behavior. Reasonable people also know that meaning can only exist in context in this case our american experience with a particular holocaustic bent: that of slavery with all its horrific criminal implications. Moreover , in the course of our lives we all hope that the "bulk" of our good is more relevant than our pecadillos here and there: that's what I give to pastor Wright and all of you. He should have put the American experience, good and bad in context but so should all of us.

It looks as if senator Obama is being judged far more harshly than the other two candidates. If that's not bigotry then I don't know what bigotry is.

Mostly, I have seen people voting not with their hopes, but with their prejudices and looking for anything they can inflate to make someone look bad even if it's not true (we are already speaking of the Obama's "subjecting" their children to "speeches" as if they had somewhat held them down while Parsor Wright spoke (ONCE only as it has been reported) and then repeatedly rewinded those particular "ofensive" remarks over and over again "forcing" their children.

Do you think that McCain, who loves families so much that for a while he had two at the same time ( his wife and children in the East Coast and his mistress whom he later married in Arizona) or Hilary Clinton whose role in various scandals has never been clear (though legally she is off it seems) are better candidates because they never heard Pastor Wright
one speech?


Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 22, 2008 at 11:20 am

so, agree with your sentiments about shrub, but not with what you say about hillary. hillary is a fighter, and a good person. the same is true of mccain and obama. the difference is the breadth of vision in obama against the ability to get things done by hillary. hllary has a more realistic visin of what can be done, and will go out and do it. obama will promise the moon and in the end get no more done than hillary, if that. mccain is going to surprise a lot of obama supporters (or hillary supporters) if obama gets into the general election...it's going to be a dogfiight and obama will most likely lose.


Posted by narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm

One of my points was precisely, the all candidates have done not so nice things and yet they are basically good people. Why pile it up on Obama and not on the other two also?

I don't think hillary is so much of a fighter. Because she continues to press her electability despite the fewer delegates it makes it look as if she is brave: I am not sure that what she is, is a very strong willed person for whom backing down is a "personal" defeat. That has nothing to do with fighting for the country when it's hard to do so. In Hilary's life what I see is the first lady of arkansas with a cushy life that the great majority of women can't have ( NO domestic duties of any kind-no cooking , no standing in line, no cleaning, no dividing tasks with husband, no making ends meet (arkansas' budget did that for her) all protection. She chose to be a board member of Walmart and went with the crowd there
( the other board members). She tried and failed health care siding with health care companies and showing no judgement and no fortitude.She told an audience that young people today "think work is a four-letter word," (as a mother of hard working young people I didn't like that neither did her daughter). She "usurped" (by sheer will and stepping on others) the New york senatorship candidacy from another proven woman democrat and she couldn't care less to even read the Iraq reports when she was about to undertake a vote for war. I have no doubts that Hilary has persistently tried to be on the top but I wouldn't call her a fighter. She seems to be unable to say no when it takes courage and judgement to do so. In that regard McCain is stupendously more courageous
and far more of a fighter (just look at the bills he sponsored...)

This is a tight election. Senator McCain is a fighter. Whoever is his opponent is going to have a hard time. Whoever is the next President is going to have a hard time. Let's not give the country a hard time because we happen to like one candidate or another,
Decency by the voters means looking at candidates resumes' ( the 300 bills Obama sponsored, the many McCain passed and his modest stunning bravery, and what Hilary really did with her life for example....) and judge who will be better at serving us. Not who is a man, a woman, who is black , who is Caucasian, who is old who is young, who is Botoxed who isn't...

I lived through a woman prime minister in the seventies and I lived through Mrs.Thatcher's tenure as prime minister (that's what brought me to America as a part of the so called "brain drain"- she undertook to throw a blow so severe to science and technology that even today you can feel it's ill effects). Neither women left the countries in a better shape that when they were elected and neither has a prominent place as a uniter or as a promoter of decent economy: both had to resign in disgrace. We are not electing a representative for woman- we are electing a president: may the better woman or man win.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:59 pm

narnia, you haven't facts behind you about the Catholic Church, you are spreading old anti-Catholic lies, nor logic behind you about the difference between Wright's "church" and others.

Wright's "Church" supported, through attendance and finances, a political thought that is abhorent to Americans..one that blames America and blames whites for all the problems of our nation and of our world, instead of loving us for being the best at freedom and equal opportunity for all, in spite of having warts that need removal.

Wright's view is one that ignores the absolute fact that there is no place else on this earth where a black man or woman has as much opportunity, equal to every other color in this nation, as s/he does here.

Wright's view ignores that whites died for blacks, and paints with one paint brush all whites NOW for what some whites THEN did or thought.

Wright does not represent Christianity, or even his own denomination ( I hope!!). He wasn't simply disrespectful, as I have, indeed, heard in some churches ( the only disrespect I have ever heard is against Republicans, frankly), he was spreading hate, hate, hate.

By any name, anywhere, what he "preached" was vile racism, and regardless of what you may think, the vast majority of Americans are way, way past judging people on skin color.






Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Good grief, Narnia, I don't believe for one moment that you lived through Thatcher, with your comments about the effect of her govt.

She, like Reagan, presided over the saving of the English economy, bringing it from the brink of collapse, much like Reagan did, and having it pull far, far ahead of every other European socialist economy.

Please note, European countries are starting to figure out how to cut their double digit unemployment and stagnant economies, and it is through doing what Thatcher and Reagan did...less taxes and regulation of those who risk starting new businesses and employ people...


Posted by narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I first heard in the catholic church at Mass that" all Jews are bad, they killed Jesus, except perhaps (and here Father Noble paused) Mr. Abecassis sitting there in that pew" (and he pointed to Mr. Abecassis whose family had converted to Christianism some 400 years earlier) without a signal of disapproval from even those who knew Father Noble to be wrong. I am quite adamant that the catholic church is responsible for the Inquisition, supported abetted and promoted slavery, gave active support and voice to fascism in the twenty century and a host of other horrific happenings. Those are so documented history that only the insane will want to deny them ( even the Pope apologized for some). My point is that even such horrific acts committed that doesn't make the Catholic doctrine any less important or doesn't eclipse all goodness of other catholic acts. Ditto for all other churches. Perspective doesn't display much perspective:

Spreading hate against others has been a constant in all religions, but it doesn't deter from its fundamental tenets I think. Just as father Noble ranted against Jews (byw, this was a common occurrence in the 50's even in America) Perspective rants against Pastor Wright- (both she and Pastor Wright are wrong) as if the obsession with one of his sentences (minor and Inconsequential) is going to do any good to this country .....
There is a lot of racism still in America most of it overtly but it is not as much as it used to be. For it to become the way it is many people, mostly black had to display their courage on the streets and many payed their courage with their lives. Where was Perspective then?


Posted by Narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Perspective seems to confuse what she believes in with reality . It's a way of thinking that defies me. Without knowing me she is prepared to affirm that I didn't live through the dark years of Mrs. thatcher Unhappily, i did live through Mrs. Thatcher. Having promised that lower taxes would put more money into our pockets with a logic reminiscent of a corner green grocer mrs. thatcher went on to be the task master of an economy so bad that she was forced to resign by her own party (she did put some 5 pounds/year more in my pocket all consumed and insufficient to pay for services previously thought of as being essential and free or reduced). I was in the Bay area when she resigned and Ronald Reagan was already out of the White House. Let's not confuse the two. Very different policies and very different people .The Regan Revolution had many interesting aspects but the consequences of his policies are debatable.

I am so sorry that I can't compete with perspective on the interpretation of facts not in evidence. I have some degree of reluctance to engage in arguments not grounded on a modicum of objectivity.


Posted by reality, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm

narnia, your pseudonym is appropriate ...


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm

perspective, who is white, was getting bloodied in race fights in the south, because perspective dared to mix with blacks in the days when whites got beat up for talking to blacks.....

nowadays the same area has black-white couples pushing baby carriages down the street and nobody even blinks.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Perspective,

I actually spent some time in England under Thatcher--it was grim, no question.

So whites died for blacks. Blacks have also died for whites. Doesn't change the fact we're still dealing with the effects of institutionalized racism in this country. Just because you didn't own slaves doesn't mean that we still don't see the effects of that historical fact. Or that we only outlawed racial discrimatnion 44 years ago.

I'm also amused at your concern about the country going too far left. Hello? Bush is no leftie and his economic policies have been disastrous. Historically, the economy has done better under Democrats.

Did you know that Carter put through an initiative to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 20 percent by 2000--and Ronald Reagan rolled it back? Think about what better shape we'd be in if we'd had 30 years of increasing self-sufficiency instead of increasing dependence on foreign oil. Quite possibly no war in Iraq with its unprecedented costs.

I don't know why Republicans are so consistently poor at managing the economy--perhaps they can't deal with the idea that some management is needed, so they're poor at figuring out long-term strategies. I mean Bush, among other things, is clearly a very short-term thinker. But then he has a history as a very poor businessman. Clearly bad, too, at hiring the right people for the right job. I've always thought that if Bush weren't a Bush he'd have found his niche as the manager of a car dealership--good shmoozer, good people skills, smart enough to manage parts of a business--but nothing bigger than that.

He's an argument against political dynasties.

As for November, I think all three of the remaining candidates have serious weaknesses. McCain's party doesn't like him and he's inclined to say the wrong thing. Hillary churns up dislike--though I think she has the advantage of having survived the GOP attack machine--she'll only look better in some ways. Obama lacks experience in a big way.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 3:18 pm

op, you are great in educational discussions, but your economic knowledge needs some polishing.

read anything by Thomas Sowell...recommend starting with his first couple books on Economics, maybe Applied Economics, ( Thinking beyond stage one).. Written in a way that all of us can understand.

THEN we will be able to discuss economic policies ( forget the D and R stuff, let's just stick with what actually works) without the chasm between us.


Posted by triumph of hope over experience, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 22, 2008 at 3:19 pm


On CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and the major three networks concerning the Obama

speech, 90% percent of the African-American studies professors,

pastors, and pundits not only defended the Obama two-decade presence

and subsidy to the Wright ministry, but, terribile dictu, defended Rev. Wright.

The result is a depressing echo effect that will only hurt the Obama campaign further.

Here's the script: a CNN or Fox airs the infamous Wright tapes, the

African-American expert guest then comments and in various ways

defends Wright—and the net effect will only evoke further outrage on

behalf of the Asian, Hispanic and white viewer, who feels race

relations, due to Obama and Wright, have gotten only worse and are in

need of a reality check, albeit one the Obama base of African-American

activists and white elites would not necessarily welcome.







Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm

By the way, time was grim at first under Thatcher, yes..because she was cleaning up the mess and the mess takes at least several years to clean up. Sort of like the first couple years under Reagan, and the recession we were heading into in the last year of Clinton, which worsened with 9/11, and yet still we managed to come out of it with the best rise in GDP since Reagan's years.

Understanding what is happening now economically is a long discussion and will require much writing...will attack it later..


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 3:30 pm

yes, triumph, I agree. I am really depressed. I think this is going to backlash against blacks, and I am really, really upset at the huge backward step this is going to make in race relations.

or, maybe it will backlash in a positive way...maybe it will wake up the hate mongers and make them and their followers realize that wallowing in hate and blame just makes things worse.

maybe it will actually have been a good thing to come to light.


Posted by triumph of hope over experience, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm


I have been listening to Barack Obama's apologists gush about how

wonderful his Philadelphia speech was, and how important it is to have

a serious discussion of race in America of the kind Obama now has initiated.
Obama himself made the latter claim.

So my question is:

if this discussion is so important, why did Obama commence it only

AFTER he had been exposed as the patron of an anti-American racist?


for an incisive cartoon see below link



Web Link










Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Barack in his recent speech cleverly shifted the subject to his white grandmother. You can in no way equate what his grandmother may or may not have said or done with what this prominent Chicago pastor has said and done, who was bent on influencing hundreds if not thousands of people in his congregation and community. Look at what this man has said: it is appalling, uneducated, and ill serves those who are striving to get ahead in the world.


Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm



In the midst of all of this pseudo-religious mumbo jumbo let us not lose sight of a key fact.

Consider the Nazis.
They developed a "religion" based around the idea that the Aryans were the descendants of an ancient Master Race that had fled to the polar regions during the Great Flood or something like that.

Hitler once described Christianity as being for sissies.

This comic-book-like religion was created not from actual facts but as a necessity for the Nazi philosophy. The religion descended from the philosophy, not vice versa.

And so it is with Black Liberation Theology.

There is nothing whatsoever in Christianity that inspires such thought. As in the Nazi religion, the precepts of Black Liberation Theology descend from the desires of Men, not the word of God.

Whether this is true for modern day Islam is debatable.

But there can be no doubt about Black Liberation Theology.
It represents the concepts behind Black Power distilled down to their essence.


It's beliefs represent a window into the soul of such people.




Posted by just words, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Mar 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm



Some of Cone's quotes have drawn controversy, especially in the political context of the 2008 Presidential campaign, as opponents of Barack Obama, whose pastor Jeremiah Wright was inspired by Cone's theology.

For example, in his 1969 controversial book "Black Theology and Black Power", Cone stated that

"Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not."

Cone also wrote that

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community.

If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.

Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.



Just words?






Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Yet another in a growing list of 1960s "philosophers" who planted the seeds for the destruction of progress in academics and racial attitudes.

read David Horowitz's "The ProFessors" to learn more about what Universities have been teaching while we have been sleeping, and you will understand how it is that some apparently educated people can not separate out intellectual logic and facts from ideology.


Posted by narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 6:52 pm


Perspective says"
"By the way, time was grim at first under Thatcher, yes.."

At first?

Unless we are all living in an Alice in Wonderland forum Mrs Thatcher resigned prompted by her own party because she was in the midst of a financial and economic disaster about ten years after her "miracle" had started- plenty of time for good results, but there weren't any. Thatcher couldn't manage the economy. I remember her "innovative" tax poll and the street unrest leading to her resignation.
She was a mess throughout her tenure-the first few years were the best. Some of her foreign policy decisions were quite appropriate but the economy? NO, it was really bad. Were it not for the "Falklands War" (glory was quite predictable ) and an *Irish republican party (IRA) bombing it's doubtful she would continue in power (fear is a great winner of elections).
It is not what you read or what you think that is reality-it is outside us and it is a great disambiguator if you care to check it now and then.

Let me answer "Just words":

White South Africa was adamant that God was at their side through their Christian churches.....
Injustice only riles you when you don't like the person...You call that ethically fine?
did you denounce the such white churches (in south africa and here)? Speak a little louder because I can't hear you.
Obama already said he repudiates what Wright said-that's it.

How many times have you heard , observed something awful and let it pass without comment for very good reasons ?
You don't want Obama? Fine. But please don't be unfair and picky on your targets. That is not nice. In fact I would call "not nice" an euphemism.

* btw, The IRA was maintained in operation which involved horrendous massacres
even of children-by american contributions from Irish catholics. Should we explore the fundraising of politicians who received contributions from the Irish Americans who also contributed to the IRA and its violence? Or the catholic church ties with those who are or were members of the irish republican army? Or what's good for the goose is not good for the gander if either the goose or the gander are from a different back ground or a different party?
As I said senator Obama said he repudiates the ideas that "the wright speech" promotes. I for one am glad that he denunciated the speech but not the person who he knows to be good and honorable but sees it in a way that Obama and many of us doesn't as a result of experience. Let us move on to pressing questions about the governance of the country, to all of the candidates. Each one of them has ideas, good ideas (gee, even "the other side" can have good ideas): let us concentrated on those and evaluate them. And then vote.


Posted by narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 22, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Perspective ,

you live in place that is sustained almost entirely by science and technology and you wonder what Universities have been teaching?
What do they teach when they operate linear accelerators, develop statistical applications
design structures and deepen the knowledge of geology? when medical breakthroughs occur when biologists try to understand malaria,etc...
Where do you think medical personnel learned life saving techniques?
At your kitchen table? During an internship at your household learned environment?



Posted by to narnia, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2008 at 9:32 am

This is why you will find a higher percent of math/scientists who are fiscal/social conservatives. They learned how to think their way out of the liberal brainwashing they got in their first 2 years of mandatory liberal arts "education"

Not too many liberal arts majors have improved our technology, our economy, or our medicine.


Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2008 at 9:44 am

Web Link

The above is an extremely well written history of Thatcher's achievements, which are still being implemented to the good of England.

Caution, if you are of a certain mind-set, which doesn't want facts to confuse you away from your world view, don't read this. It is from the Heritage Foundation by a British Scholar.


Posted by paul, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04 pm



I suggest that narnia and others who want to rant about christianity, the IRA and Thatcher start another thread.

This thread is about Obama, his affiliation with black liberation theology and the impact of that on his electability.




Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 23, 2008 at 8:08 pm

obama simply can't win in the blue collar states - not against a likable moderate like mccain....remember that the polls are only a snapshot in time...the gop attack machine hasn't even warmed up...hillary has already withstood those attacks and knows how to parry...obama will look like dukakis by the time the gop is through with him in november


Posted by about that "attack machine", a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2008 at 8:32 pm

GOP "attack machine"...as if there isn't going to be a Dem "attack machine".

One thing is absolutely certain, regardless of party, both will do whatever they can get away with to get their candidate nominated.

already happening between obama and clinton...will keep happening between the winner of that race and mccain.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 3,524 views

See Me. Hear Me. Donít Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,748 views

Foothills Park: a world away
By Sally Torbey | 11 comments | 1,578 views

Universal Language
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 1,361 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 7 comments | 932 views