VOTE FOR THE FORMER WALMART UNION BUSTER
It's amusing how the racists among us research far and wide to try to find negatives about Obama himself and find little or nothing. So they try guilt by association. Any black man with his background (raised by white grandparents) would need to read widely among black authors in order to understand how he really fitted into this society. He would have to read the bitter and the moderate. That is how intelligent people inform themselves. Having read these people, listened to Rev. Wright, his grandparents, his professors, he found his own life view. Are some of you guys simply not intelligent enough to understand this, or are you simply so partisan you pretend not to.
David Brooks the Conservative columnists wrote in the New York Times that he and others had investigated Obama intensively and found (I quote):
"Obama did not respond to his fatherlessness or his racial predicament with anger and rage, but as questions for investigation, conversation and synthesis. He approaches politics the same way. In her outstanding New Yorker profile, Larissa MacFarquhar notes that Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed. He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways".
Again
"Like most of the rival campaigns, I’ve been poring over press clippings from Obama’s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none. The unity speech he gives on the stump today is essentially the same speech that he gave at the Democratic convention in 2004, and it’s the same sort of speech he gave to Illinois legislators and Harvard Law students in the decades before that. He has a core, and was able to maintain his equipoise, for example, even as his campaign stagnated through the summer and fall."
This is a Leader to be proud of. Here is a highly qualified lawyer, an honor graduate of Harvard who elected to spend early years after graduation on the streets of Chicago helping displaced factory workers like many of you. Just think that 425,000 of us contributed $40 million dollars to his campaign last month. He is the only candidate who does not owe anything to the people who outsource your jobs and foreclose on your homes. Some experienced Senators have braved the wrath of the Clintons to tell you so.
Hillary on the other hand has a checkered past.
She started out as a Goldwater girl, a supporter of the most conservative man to run for president in living memory.
She served on the board of Walmart for six years during which time Walmart ruthlessly fought any attempt at unionization, paid low wages and provided no healthcare. Did this show the heartfelt solidarity with labor she now claims. She is still the favorite of the rich. Twenty wealthy rich donors recently ganged up on Nancy Pelosi on her behalf. What do do you think they expect in return. How can any right thinking union member vote for this darling of the out sourcers.
She served on the team that investigated President Nixon but her Supervisor refused to give her an "honorable discharge" when the project was finished. He says she lied, was unethical and unjust.
Recently she lied about her visit to Bosnia. I for one would not have employed any manager who told that kind of rediculous lie and would not even admit he lied. If she really believed her story when she told it, as she claimed, then she is a nut case.
It seems to me any reasonable person must see there is no comparison in personal qualities. That I think is the reason why your Senator who had planned to stay neutral felt compelled to take a stand.
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 9, 2008 - 10:55pm.
VOTE FOR THE FORMER WALMART UNION BUSTER
It's amusing how the racists among us research far and wide to try to find negatives about Obama himself and find little or nothing. So they try guilt by association. Any black man with his background (raised by white grandparents) would need to read widely among black authors in order to understand how he really fitted into this society. He would have to read the bitter and the moderate. That is how intelligent people inform themselves. Having read these people, listened to Rev. Wright, his grandparents, his professors, he found his own life view. Are some of you guys simply not intelligent enough to understand this, or are you simply so partisan you pretend not to.
David Brooks the Conservative columnists wrote in the New York Times that he and others had investigated Obama intensively and found (I quote):
"Obama did not respond to his fatherlessness or his racial predicament with anger and rage, but as questions for investigation, conversation and synthesis. He approaches politics the same way. In her outstanding New Yorker profile, Larissa MacFarquhar notes that Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed. He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways".
Again
"Like most of the rival campaigns, I’ve been poring over press clippings from Obama’s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none. The unity speech he gives on the stump today is essentially the same speech that he gave at the Democratic convention in 2004, and it’s the same sort of speech he gave to Illinois legislators and Harvard Law students in the decades before that. He has a core, and was able to maintain his equipoise, for example, even as his campaign stagnated through the summer and fall."
This is a Leader to be proud of. Here is a highly qualified lawyer, an honor graduate of Harvard who elected to spend early years after graduation on the streets of Chicago helping displaced factory workers like many of you. Just think that 425,000 of us contributed $40 million dollars to his campaign last month. He is the only candidate who does not owe anything to the people who outsource your jobs and foreclose on your homes. Some experienced Senators have braved the wrath of the Clintons to tell you so.
Hillary on the other hand has a checkered past.
She started out as a Goldwater girl, a supporter of the most conservative man to run for president in living memory.
She served on the board of Walmart for six years during which time Walmart ruthlessly fought any attempt at unionization, paid low wages and provided no healthcare. Did this show the heartfelt solidarity with labor she now claims. She is still the favorite of the rich. Twenty wealthy rich donors recently ganged up on Nancy Pelosi on her behalf. What do do you think they expect in return. How can any right thinking union member vote for this darling of the out sourcers.
She served on the team that investigated President Nixon but her Supervisor refused to give her an "honorable discharge" when the project was finished. He says she lied, was unethical and unjust.
Recently she lied about her visit to Bosnia. I for one would not have employed any manager who told that kind of rediculous lie and would not even admit he lied. If she really believed her story when she told it, as she claimed, then she is a nut case.
It seems to me any reasonable person must see there is no comparison in personal qualities. That I think is the reason why your Senator who had planned to stay neutral felt compelled to take a stand.