It has occurred to me that Obama has had his eye on the Cracker House very early on. His seat in the senate was just a stepping stone and he knew it would be, hence his habit of voting “Present” so not to muddy his record. Again, political genius.

Fort that same reason, though, I don’t understand why he continued to hang with the Rev. He needed that association to get elected to the senate, but once he had that seat, I’m surprised that he didn’t start to distance himself.

I like Rev. Wright for the simple reason that he makes white people uncomfortable.

For the record, I was neither an Obama nor a McCain supporter. I felt that both candidates sucked and I threw my vote away by voting for the Libertarian ticket. My theory is that we will continue to get terrible candidate after terrible candidate until there is a viable third party. This won’t happen until they become eligible for campaign financing. And you won’t see a true leader until that time.

Bill Ayers is not old and tired. Time should not diminish his role as a
terrorist—and an unrepentant one at that. He is relevant not only because he is a terrorist, but because he establishes a long list of unsavory characters Obama has associated with. That is the
relevance. Your example is in reverse: I went to high school with a dude that later in life shot and killed someone. If you try hard enough, I bet you can somehow make me an accomplice. If your high school friend shot and killed someone, then you decided to become friends with him, then it would be a good analogy.

To go to a radical sermon at Reverend Wright’s church once knowing his divisiveness, could be considered bad judgment, but to go there for 20 years is an affirmation. Wright does have a 1st Amendment right to say what he wants. But that does not protect Obama, nor does it make it right. I have the right to say whatever I want, but to do so in a radical and hateful way would preclude me from advancing in any endeavor that required razor sharp judgment—which I would hope a leader would possess. For hypothetical reasons, assume Wright was a bad judgment call. Then add to the mix, Sirhan Sirhan, Rezko, Phleger, Farrakhan, ACORN and what you have is an entire political career defined by bad judgment calls. Indeed, hardly someone capable of leading a country.

As far as the improving our relations in the world, I could care less what the populace of a mostly socialist Europe thinks of America. They were bitching about us as we were saving their asses twice last century. I can assure you their leaders do not share their sentiment. As usual it is our capitalist system and willingness to use our military for their defense and very existence, that should, and probably will, give them pause if Obama follows through with his plans for our military, and national defense—as our power and its determent goes, so goes the EU.

It is not about time we had a minority leading us… it is a about time we had a true leader leading us, regardless of race.

I never declared his presidency a failure. Only he can make it a failure. But his mantra of change is a bit off, and his promise to appoint outside the beltway is already broken. It doesn’t matter to me because he did not lie to me about his hope and change, and it is not a promise to me that he will have to break. It is with the myriad groups and sub-groups that believe he will make good on all his promises, even though most of his promises contradict each other

The choice of Emanuel as Chief of Staff is simply brilliant politics: it’s just political “good-cop, bad-cop”.

The Bill Ayers line is old and tired. I went to high school with a dude that later in life shot and killed someone. If you try hard enough, I bet you can somehow make me an accomplice.

The only credence the Reverend Wright criticism carries is that it calls into question Obama’s judgment. Not for attending the church, but for continuing to attend after the controversial remarks were made, considering his political aspirations. As far as the Reverend is concerned, he is exercising his freedom of speech. Don’t have to like what he says, but since I am primarily a white male born in this country, I have no idea what it is like to suffer from prejudice of any sort, so I give him props for not being an Uncle Tom.

Obama’s election instantly improves our international standing. As the once (and hopefully future) leader of the free world, it’s about freaking time we had a minority leading us.

The election is over and Obama won fairly handily. Let’s see what he can do, now that he has the ball. At least give him the opportunity to get sworn in and actually do something as president before declaring his presidency a failure.

Obama stated many times he never heard Wright give all the sermons that were anti-American, anti-Semite: God Damn America, chickens come home to roost after 9/11, etc. 2008 was four years after Obama said he went every Sunday. But the difference is he was either lying in 2004 or 2008. I pick 2008 after the Wright mess hit the media. Or perhaps he was lying in 2004 try to solidify his Christian persona. Which one is more damaging?

He also counts on the public being unable to comprehend that someone could lie so frequently and about everything.

That’s because more of them have some shred of morality and cannot imagine anyone living in such fraud as he does.

That’s the disbelief: No one could be that big of a liar, could they?

Meet Barack Hussein Obama, whose words appears to mean only what he said, until the last syllable is uttered and the sound of that last syllable fades away.

Thus what he says never connects to what he just said or is about to say.

Nice con, eh?

But, then, he needs suckers to believe the con.