Democrats & Liberals Archives

The So-called Liberal Press

Throughout the reign of the conservative movement the conservatives had the most fun when bashing the press as being liberal. Whenever any newspaper or other media would stray from the position of the far right, they were called liberal in a knee-jerk reaction.

Now that liberal people are beginning to assert themselves, I thought I detected a slight movement away from this ridiculous reaction. This was a mirage. Nothing of the sort was happening. The media, are prejudiced against liberal candidates.

On the one hand, all the radio and TV stations are day-and-night airing the blasting of America by Obama's pastor Rev. Wright. On the other hand, John McCain, who has been praised by Rev. Hagee, who condemned America in no uncertain terms, gets a free pass. How else can you explain the following:

Using Nexis and Google News, I went ahead and did another search this morning. How many of the nation’s largest daily newspapers ran stand-alone articles about McCain’s outreach to a bigoted and nutty televangelist?

Here’s the list:

  • Washington Post — Zero
  • New York Times — Zero
  • Los Angeles Times — Zero
  • Boston Globe — Zero
  • Chicago Tribune — Zero
  • USA Today — Zero
  • Wall Street Journal — Zero
How come McCain can be supported by a Hagee and the media say nothing? But if Obama is supported by a Wright, the story is every place you go?

McCain's association with Hagee was condemned by the Speaker of the House, the chairman of DNC, Catholic groups on both right and left and Jewish groups. Did you know that? How could you when the so-called liberal media are mum about conservative McCain's foibles - and ready to condemn a liberal Obama whenever possible?

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 24, 2008 5:31 PM
Comment #249043

Video 1 - TPMtv - criticizing our government policy
Video 2 - Glen Beck - Prophecies part 1 of 7 end of days
Video 3 - Hagee Honoring Isreal Sense of humor
Video 4 - John Hagee tells Glenn Beck that Obama is NOT the Antichrist

Hagee stands up for Isreal. Perhaps that’s why we don’t see him in the media.

I watched over thirty minutes of video of Hagee. He said God Bless America. Not once did he say the N word.
Hagee didn’t insult me as a catholic the way the other guy insulted me as a white guy and an American.

No media? No media message.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 24, 2008 6:58 PM
Comment #249054

If Obama had thrown Wright under the bus the ‘liberal media’ would have ripped him to mincemeat for not having ‘family values.’
Welcome to the double standard of the pathetic right wingers.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at March 24, 2008 8:51 PM
Comment #249055

If it was a white pastor who said those things about blacks the liberal press would have CRUCIFIED HIM.

Posted by: KAP at March 24, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #249064

The Rev. Wright thing was out there in far right wing land for a long time, but was ignored by the main stream media. Then the writers strike ended and people started researching and found the clips. I saw it first on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who used it as the counterpoint to the Ferraro story.

This Hagee guy isn’t McCain’s pastor, is he?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 24, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #249070

So Paul, I gotta ask … does SNL have it all wrong? I would find it hard to believe that the comics got it totally wrong. In fact there is a part of the media that gives this old man hope. That the entertainment/media found the Obama worship funny enough to make fun of on SNL.

But then again, SNL might have it wrong. Like how the mispotrayed Clinton and Bush in all those different skits. None of that was based in reality. Bush is not an idiot. Clinton was not a womanizer. I would have to agree … they were reaching on those fronts.

Posted by: Honest at March 24, 2008 10:20 PM
Comment #249074

Paul I think the comment from the righties that the MSM in general had a liberal bias may have been true in the mid to late ‘70’s. Its been completely turned around since that time, in fact most news outlets are so sensitive to the “liberal bias” threat that they go out of their way to be neutral. Of course the right wing still fails to acknowledge this as it works to their benfit not to. Anyone with a brain today can see the MSM is so corporatized as to be lacking in any stories that might offend anyone of either political persuaison. The free press is pretty much a joke in this day and the cons are still the victims of “liberal bias” only in their own minds. Its an embarrasement to any decent conservative to try and haul that “liberal bias” crap out as a defense to their position on any issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 24, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #249075

First of all, McCain does not consider Hagee to be his “spirtiutal father,” and has never called him such. Nor has he been a member of Hagee’s congregation for twenty years… or ever.

This isn’t even a small subtle difference. It’s a difference as big as the Grand Canyon.

What’s more, McCain’s ties to the guy don’t seem to be any more than an endorsement. Farakhhan has endorsed Obama—what does that mean? Nothing.

It’s interesting that you think the media ought to be dragging McCain into the mud on such thin stuff just to balance out the damage done to Obama.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 24, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #249084

LO dont you find Farakhan’s views to be right of center? If so to endorse Obama over McCain does say something.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2008 12:05 AM
Comment #249107

I found this post on another blog and thought it was quite appropriate reasoning with regard to the McCain Hagee situation.

One area of Pastor Hagee’s biblical exegesis not mentioned enough (at least in my opinion) are his views on Israel.
The “good” pastor is on record as stating that God will punish the USA for supporting the creation of a Palestinian state - he will let the terrorists unleash bloodbaths here in the USA as reprisal. And that Israel and the USA should destroy Iran.
While I was taught that God put America first in my previous cult (the Republican Party), it’s pretty clear that I must have been misinformed. Pastor John has clearly proven that the Lord’s got another more favored nation.
In a McCrazy Administration, this sober belief will have a ready reception.
The burning theological question is I suppose would Jesus bomb Palestine first or Iran?Then we can settle the details of whether cluster bombs or nuclear bombs are more in line with good Christian teachings.

McCain apparently elicited this mans support. They apparently share similar views as to the value of eliminating Palestine and Iran. Hagee is a gay bashing, Catholic hating bigot of the worst kind. There is quite a list of hateful, prejudicial biased blurbs espoused by this man. Of course Hagee claims that most were taken out of context and McCain readily supports that position. It is now quite clearly obvious that the selective snippets of Rev. Wrights sermon were taken out of context. Yet some of you fail to accept the obvious in an effort to further an agenda. Please tell me how is this not a double standard? How is this not hypocrisy? Why is it okay for McCain to have an ongoing conveniently vague association with Hagee? Yet it is taboo for Obama to have an association with a black man of opinion.

Posted by: RickIL at March 25, 2008 9:59 AM
Comment #249113

If you look at your ham and eggs breakfast, you understand the difference between involvement and commitment. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.

The relationships are just not comparable. Obama had a long term (20 year) relationship and commitment with Wright. In McCain’s case he is being endorsed by these guys, among many others.

I think Obama’s speech - rejecting Wright as (my interpretation) a crazy old man whose ideas are based on past reality - is correct. Obama also says that he cannot reject the old coot because he kinda likes him. Like a crazy uncle who says crazy things but is still lovable to those around him.

As long as Obama rejects the rhetoric, which he does, I will not ask him to dump his embarrassing friends. My father used to say lots of weird things in his old age. We all have friends and relatives like that.

So…we should lay off Obama on this one, and John McCain should never even have entered the calculation.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #249114

Should wackos have a voice in government? Truth be told- Yes, they should.

McCain got a wacko’s endorsement, and frankly Paul, I DID hear about it. The bottom line, though, is this-

1. My concern about McCain is that he is corrupt.

2. My concern about Obama is that he is very liberal and, perhaps, cleverly disengenuous.

3. My concern about Clinton is that she has no value stucture at all apart from a deep craving for political power.

and- 4. People keep finding a bright and sunny side in the political rantings and ravings about the choice we must make in this election.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2008 10:30 AM
Comment #249119

It is important that each candidate for president receive a full vetting of their actions, words and associations. Do we really want to elect a president only to find out later that this person has some very harmful baggage that will require his/her attention rather than be fully focused on the job?

Now is the time to shine the light of truth on the candidate and determine what is true, false, or of little value.

Trust the American voters to sort it all out and assign their own value. No one can fool all of us all of the time.

Posted by: Jim M at March 25, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #249127

Hagee aint and never has been McCain’s pastor. Wright is Obama’s pastor. That’s the difference.
If Wright wasn’t or had never his pastor his support of Obama wouldn’t be relevant. The KKK could support Obama. That doesn’t mean that Obama shares their beliefs.
The issue here is Wright has been Obama’s pastor for 23 years. And he has listened to Wright’s bigoted preaching for 23 year. That’s a very good indication that Obama believes what Wright is and has been preaching. And there’s where the problem comes in.
If Obama had a problem with Wright’s beliefs why did he stay a member of that church for 23 years? Or a least why didn’t he try to get him removed from the pulpit?
Evidently Obama is just as bigoted as Wright. You are known by the company you keep.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment #249167

Ron Brown

As stated earlier after listening to Wrights entire sermon it is apparent that the selective snippets of his sermon were presented in such a matter as to present a false image of the intent of his message. In other words those snippets were taken out of the actual context of the message. As a result it is not fair or correct to judge him on those snippets. But I suspect you are not genuinely interested in knowing the reality surrounding those selective quotes.

Posted by: RickIL at March 25, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #249168


What was the context of Pastor Wright’s message in question then? If I misheard the sermon, then I am very interested in hearing what the real context is. Please qualify your claim.

Posted by: submariner at March 25, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #249169

RickIl, I agree with Wright on drugs, jails and sentencing guidelines, and still object to the G D America part, to which my response would be F U Wright. The fact is that this is a phenomenon of the 24 hour news stations, who need something to say on the air, and cannibalize eachother’s stories.

I get my news mostly from ABC or CBS news, and then watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and Chicago Tonight after on ch 11. I am actually hearing different news from people watching CNN, MSNBC, and that other one, and haven’t heard much of the praise singing that people talk about.

Youtube is also a significant news source on the most talked about breaking stories, but there you have the phenomenon of people trying to flood it with their particular viewpoint by posting misleading titles for videos whose contents are actually the opposite of the title.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 25, 2008 7:32 PM
Comment #249190

Did Wright change his suits several times during his sermon? I saw the clips too. And he had on different suits each time. And there was different folks around him too. This leads me to believe that he’s made these bigoted remarks on several different occasions.
And the whole time Obama was and still is a member of the church Wright pastors.
I’ll bet if Obama was running on the Republican ticket y’all would be screaming for his head on a silver platter. And the Republicans would be defending him just as blindly as y’all are doing.
Funny how what ticket a bigot is on makes a difference in who’s attacking him, and who’s defending him.
No bigot belongs in ANY public office. I don’t care what party they claim or what color their skin is. A bigot is a bigot. And Obama is a bigot.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 26, 2008 12:02 AM
Comment #249192

We don’t have a liberal media or a conservative media, We have a corporate media. And the only free speech we have costs a million dollars a minute.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at March 26, 2008 12:33 AM
Comment #249196

The difference is Wright was Obama’s pastor for more than 20 years….

Also Wall Street Journal isn’t really part of the “liberal media”.

Posted by: John Miller at March 26, 2008 3:32 AM
Comment #249403

Ron Brown

Agreed, there is no place for bigotry in government. There is no place for bigotry period. I too have viewed quite a few videos. Wrights post 9/11 sermon is the only one I found that is in its full context. There is no doubt that snippets from that sermon were taken out of context. All the other snippets would indicate a man with definite racial biases.

I know many bigots, white and black. That however does not lead me to believe that anyone who associates with them is the same. I would imagine that if we took a really close look at our current legislators we might find a surprisingly large percentage of bigots. I also suspect that the percentage will lessen with each new generation. Those hatreds and biases that have been instilled by older generations are gradually taking a backseat to sensibility and the need to move beyond them. My father, his brother, all their sisters and two of my brothers are bigots. I however am not. Yet I am still able to communicate with them on a regular and civil basis. I realize there is nothing I can personally do to change their views. All I can do is not get involved when such conversation comes about and hope that maybe someday they will see the need to move beyond such petty biases.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. I personally see no indication of bigotry in Obama’s demeanor. I see him as part of that younger generation that is evolving beyond the notion of color related biases.

Posted by: RickIL at March 28, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment #249470

Watching the liberal press tear into their own candidates as radial left faces off against radical left is really great!

But it seems to me that Obama has become the darling of the progressive far left and Hillary is hanging on to more traditional or moderate democrats. So the real smear mongers are on Obama’s side and man are they smearing.

Hey, weren’t you folks just so proud a few months ago to have such wonderful and qualified and capable people to choose from? LAUGH.

Posted by: Stephen at March 29, 2008 12:04 AM
Comment #249500

It’s unfortunate that the Obama critics here have obbiously not heard his speech about race.
In it, he accepted the roles played in his life by both Rev. Wright and his bigoted white grandmother.

Rev. Wright comes from the angry age of black activism, which followed the dogs, clubs and bullets unleashed on King’s peaceful marches, which followed generations of lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Just what is the appropriate degree of anger allowed in that context?
Yet, Wright said: “..governemtns change.”That’s a call for hope, not a curse on the nation.

What Obama learned from his grandmother was that
she loved him and sacrificed for him in spite of her prejudices. What Obama apparently learned from Rev. Wright was to hate the sin, not the sinner. There’s a radical Chirstian idea for you!

Speaking of spiritual advisers, I wonder where the outrage is about Billy Granam’s spiritual guidance provided to a series of US Presidents? He was, as he himself has avowed very anti-semitic for much of his life. Is that okay?

Maybe we could just avoid all these controversies if everyone wore the politically correct lapel pins?

Posted by: sisuntas at March 29, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #249510

Sisuntas, Obama’s supposedly “prejudiced” grandmother made sacrifices to raise a black child and according to Obama, once said something that Jesse Jackson also once said: that there were times when they felt a moment of fear when crossing paths with black men on the street.

If this is racism, then it’s an incredibly mild form of it. And you have to ask yourself if elderly white women really have been completely safe on the streets of America from black men. If so, then you might call it a mild form of racism. But if it’s not so (and it ISN’T), then it’s an even milder form.

There is no comparison at all between a remark made in private by an elderly woman which has a basis in fact and Wright’s public rantings and ravings about how AIDS is a white weapon against blacks and the rest of the hate he has spewed.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 29, 2008 10:03 PM
Comment #249519

Loyal Oppostition,
Obama had the good sense not to list every sigle comment his gandmother made. Race is, abviously, still such a divisve topic, some folks would never get over parsing her words to death. He clearly indicated, however, that referring to fear on the streets was far from the only thing she said that dealt in stereotypes.

Taking your premise, that she had good reason for her fears, I find it amazing that you can’t be equally undersatnding of black anger in the ’60s and ’70s. I lived through that era and remember only too well the civil rights workers who were murdered, and the murderers were protected by their communities. In the face of that, what emotion would you expect except anger? Were they supposed to say ‘thank you’?

Those days have passed, and Obama’s generation lives in a different world. one where such excessive emotions are no longer appropriate.
But history is histor and no one should be called on to forget it.

Actually, I’m somewhat shocked how little the current generation of blacks knows about what it took to get them to a place where anger is no longer necessary.

When we honor Thomas Jefferson, we take his relationship to his slaves in the context of his times. The same should be done whan talking about Rev. Wright. That it isn’t just shows how much of a problem racism still is. Two different skin colors = two different yardsticks.

Posted by: sisuntas at March 30, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #249559

Wright (and for that matter, Obama’s grandmother) are not running for President of the United States. So although it’s interesting to talk about how they were shaped differently by their times than we are today, and how we should judge them differently as a result, it’s not really that important.

You said yourself:

Those days have passed, and Obama’s generation lives in a different world. one where such excessive emotions are no longer appropriate. But history is history and no one should be called on to forget it.

Absolutely right. I couldn’t agree more.

I wouldn’t go to a Klan meeting—much less go to one once a week for twenty years—just so I can remember history. And I certainly wouldn’t expose my children week after week, as Obama did, to “excessive emotions which are no longer appropriate.” Obama is a grown-up, but kids don’t need to hear things like that, and have a much harder time understanding what is appropriate and what isn’t. Especially when they hear it from grown-ups in position of authority and influence over their lives.

Neither would I watch a Klan meeting and say, “You know, these Southerners really do have some legitimate grievances about carpetbaggers and everything they went through during Reconstruction.” Even if there is a kernal of truth to that, and even if you can make excuses for Wright, there’s no excuse for remaining in his congregation for decades and exposing children to outmoded forms of racial hatred. Not if you don’t agree with what is being said yourself.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 30, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #249567

Loyal Opposition,

Your position is one I ascribed to until I ran up agaisnt brick walls when putting them into practise.
I also dividid people into right and wrong thinking groups and acted strongly whenever I ran across people saying bigoted things. The result: I converteed no one, but antagonized many, cutting off avenues of communication and persuasion.

Like you, I would not attend a KKK meeting, seeking out confrontation. However, if a speaker said something offensive in a larger context, I would stay and draw him into a dialogue.

I draw another parallel with the many political arguments I had with my father as a teenager. When either of us crossed the line and became aggressive or intolerant, we would both stalk away angry, and learned nothing from each other. When we listened to understand the other’s context of thinking, we had delightful conversations, though not necessarily agreement.
The latter approach was far superior to running away from home, because my father hated FDR or something.

In the current political flame throwing, people like Hagee and Wright are represented by cartoon figures and snippets from preached sermons.
The inflmmatory phrases do not come close to representing all they said or all they taught. I don’t know too much about Hagee, but I know Wright’s passion was actually family values and love of community.

My father had many faults, the most irksome being his self-righteous know-it-all stand. He taught me many valuable lessons, however, about responsibility and hard work and intellectual inquiry. I chose which of his lessons to take to heart, which to oppose and how to love him, regardless.
So, I understand Obama on a personal level, and I also think that’s the best way to get value for your efforts.

I am not an idealist. I am a pragmatist with ideals. The time and attention devoted to blunt right-or-wrong arguments would be better devoted to deeper, more meaningful discussion about where should the nation go from here, re race, religion, and so much more.

Posted by: sisuntas at March 30, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #249572


I don’t disagree with anything you said in your last post (except for the characterization of my position as dividing people into right and wrong thinking groups—which is really not what I’m doing).

But what’s going on here is that you’re changing the subject—something you can hardly be faulted for since it’s exactly what Obama has done himself.

Yes, we can remain close friends with people and have harmonious family relationships with people whose beliefs we detest and who make inflammatory statements. And we should try. Neither should we seek confrontation for confrontation’s sake just because we think we’re right and are itching for a battle.

Those are all good and noble ideas. The thing is, though, that in Obama’s case, he—more than any politician in recent memory—has made a very big deal about unity, harmony, and “bringing people together.” And he has proposed himself as just the person uniquely qualified to that. All at the same time he’s not only been a twenty-year member of a hateful pastor’s church, but has called this pastor his “spiritual father.” This goes WAY beyond just tolerating somebody’s eccentricities, something we agree we should try to do.

This is a very serious problem, not because of Wright’s beliefs, but because of what and who Obama claims to be—a unifier.

If John McCain said that he wants to bring Americans together and David Duke is his “spiritual father,” I suspect that you would see this problem a little more clearly than you do now.

Making excuses for David Duke, or sensitively trying to understand just what is wrong with that guy, would be besides the point. David Duke wouldn’t be the subject of concern (any more than he already is). The question, a very legitimate one, would be how the hell could McCain be who he claims to be while maintaining such a close relationship with a hate-monger.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 30, 2008 8:41 PM
Comment #249589

Loyal Opponent,

RE: changing the subject.
The subject is very broad, and without changing it, I (like Obama) adress separate aspects at different times. Race relations, personal relationships, religion, politics - that covers enough ground for a veritable tome, if it’s to be tackled at one go, as a single subect.

You keep referring to the ‘hateful’ Rev. Wright. I don’t think it’s fair to judge a man by a few excerpts from his life. I see him as the preacher of familiy values and love of community, how to lead an honorable life, who at times said some inappropriate things. So, all those years Obama was listening to him,as you say. were spent soaking up lessons on how to live a Christian life. If he sometimes heard inappropriate words,I’m sure he could put them in the context of history, Dr. Wright’s history black history, the history of the civil rights movement and, of course, US history.

History incudes horror stories as well as inspiration. It’s natural to be angry during some chapters and to be inspired by others. Obama sees hope in US hisotry, and Wright seems to do so also when he says “govenments change’.

Why is adding context so hard in this case? We are not agonizing about Billy Graham, a self avowed anti-semite for most of his life, advising a whole series of Presidents. Other than the color of his skin, why can’t we see Wright in he same kind of context, one encompassing the entirety of his public and personal life instead of just selected snippets?

I would say the same thing about Hagee. I don’t like what he has said about the Catholic Church, but I don’t know enough about him to judge him as a man or a preacher. I trust McCain to judge for himself what part of Hagees’s advice to aceept and what not to.

Outrage has become fashionable these days. It leads to stupidites like the ‘macaca’ scandal. We are so busy being outraged by details, we miss seeing the whole picture. I often suspect that we are forgetting how to think and, instead, rely on knee-jerk gut reactions.

Obama’s speech on race was phenomenal. For the first time. a politician spoke to his audience on adult terms instead of offering word candy. He didn’t offer quick fixes. He didn;t say it would be easy to overcome. He acknowledge the racial resentments flowing in BOTH (or all) directions.

The message was a unifier par excelence, because he didn’t lay blame or appoint designated victims. We’re in this together, and we should listen to each other, with respect, before passing judgment.

Listen with rspect…I like that.

Posted by: sisuntas at March 31, 2008 5:34 AM
Comment #249600

The comparison you’re making with Hagee is wrong and unfair. The guy endorsed John McCain—that’s it.

If you want to compare Hagee’s endorsement of McCain to anything, it shouldn’t be Obama’s 20 year relationship with his “spiritual father” but Lous Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama. Are you going to say that you trust Obama to judge what part of Farrakhan’s advice to accept and what not to?

Also, I’d like to add that a Protestant minister making negative remarks about Catholics isn’t anything special. That’s what Protestantism has been about for hundreds of years, since the time of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Rejection of Catholicism is why we have Protestants in the first place. And it goes both ways. There’s a long and time-honored tradition of Catholics attacking Protestants too—sometimes literally, as happened in the Inquisitions. This is all VERY old news and has been going on for ages. Literal wars have been fought over these disagreements—many, many times. We can be thankful that the wars and the burning of heretics at the stake is a thing of the past, but I don’t see these verbal barbs as being terribly surprising or newsworthy.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 31, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #249628

Loyal Opposition,

Rather then compare Hagee and Wright, I was bringing in strands of similarities from a variety of sources, including the personal experiences of a long life. I am not making a political argument, as I don’t know yet who I will vote for. I am presenting a philosophical approach to all areas of life, politics being just one part.

It’s interesting that you dismiss Catholic/Protestant sniping as just the usual stuff. At the same time, when it comes to racial sniping, anger is re-interpreted as being synonymous with hate, and it’s never to be forgiven or forgotten.

On the one side, you can’t let go of Farrakhan and of Wrigh’s, taken out of contect, phrases of anger.
On the other, you dismiss all past religious and civil battles as being irrelevant.
I don’t understand the duality there.

I’m saying that history is relevant, but that understanding history should not doom us to get stuck in it. We make choices now, today, infomed by history, but looking for new ways forward to suit a new era. In my judgment, Obama is trying to do that.

The following may illustrate what I like about Obama’s approach. There was a flap about someone on his team (I forgot the name) who is vocally anti-gay. Obama didn’t bow to pressure to fire the man, showing he can live with different viewpoints as long as the people involved don’t diparage or hurt each other. Pro gay rights people and an anti gay advocate could work well together as long as they treated each other with respect.

That is an innovative way to deal with conflct, and a unifying one.
It’s like bringing sportsmanship back into sports.

Posted by: sisuntas at March 31, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #249798

“How come McCain can be supported by a Hagee and the media say nothing? But if Obama is supported by a Wright, the story is every place you go? “

Easy. It is because the fundamental question becomes “Who is an America hater?” The person running for president who comes from a proud military service and one who was brutally imprisioned and tortured by America’s enemy? Or is it the other guy running for president who is endorsed by the New Black Panther Party, Louis Farakkan and takes close personal advisement (for the last 20 years) from Rev Wrong - a racially divisive minister who preaches a loathing for America because of our past history on slavery.

Is Obama an America hater? Jury is still out on that one because the guy is such a big question mark on so many issues, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Mcain sure ain’t.

Posted by: b0mbay at April 3, 2008 7:55 PM
Post a comment