No matter whom I support and how hard Clinton tries, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. So its probably better not to lose mind over whats happening. In the end, all this discussion is inconsequential.
Just sit back and enjoy the circus.
Is India becoming a playground for the intolerant? The evidence is mounting that it is. Jodhaa Akbar cannot be screened in Rajasthan because some Rajputs have taken umbrage at the heroine's name. Sania Mirza has court cases slapped against her for resting her foot too close to a national flag; Richard Gere for resting his lips too close to Shilpa Shetty's. Viking Penguin has been served a legal notice because Jaishree Misra's historical novel on the Rani of Jhansi actually treats her as a human being. Our most famous living artist, M F Husain, is living in exile because he fears harassment if he returns to his own country — at an age where he should be able to live with love and honour in his homeland. An exhibition in Chennai on Aurangzeb is shut down after protests by Muslims claiming it misrepresents the mediaeval emperor. Taslima Nasreen, a persecuted author to whom India had given asylum, has now fled the country, her peace of mind and health broken by the relentless hounding of fundamentalist Muslims and the cravenness of both the West Bengal and Indian governments.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Time_to_stand_up_for_a_tolerant_society/articleshow/2890122.cms
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Ok, you knew that your mentor made Anti-White remarks that can be considered 'controversial'. (I assume based on the context). What did Obama do to 'Change' his attitude and make him 'Hope' for a future without racism. Did you make an effort to bring in 'Change' in his attitude. What is your reaction, just disagreement?? Like many of US?? You are not one of us - you are running for president. If you cannot 'Change' the attitude and the mind set of a person who is closest to you, What 'Change' can you bring in to the entire nation?
Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.htm
Yes... media will sing praises on his speech and those who support Obama would claim it to be the singpe most important speech on race post civil rights movement. I've already seen head lines that use words like bold, unconventional, daring, unique etc... This carefully crafted speech does nothing to change the status quo. He explained in pages and pages how we have come to this point. He says he condemn Wright's speech but went on to subtly explain why he would give such a speech. And explained why White's have resentments against the Black community and that they are born from the circumstances. Renestment doesn't mean racism. That appplies to both sides. And this speech is supposed to be about racism and not resentment.
Everyone knows there are resentments on either side. And that all races need to work towards the 'perfect union'. Ok. Whats new. This is what any person who wants to talk diplomatic about the race situation in USA would say. Any politician who is looking for votes would say the same thing. Those words suddenly do not gain weight just because they are spoke by a black politician.
I expected him to talk about the harsh realities and what needs to be done. I expected him to talk straight and condemn wright in all its content and intent. If we keep looking back at the History, how can the 'Change' happen. I expected him to strongly warn all the commentators and political pandits to stop bringing race into the picture. I expected him to tell Blacks that it is time to stop blaming whites for every problem they face and ask them to stop cry 'racist' even at the harmless comments on race (bill clinton, ferrero etc). A small town racist in Alabama is not responsible for the murders in Oakland. I expected him to inspire Blacks to get rid of the hiphop bitch and ho culture and the guns on the street culture. America is providing equal opportunity to anyone who has the will to succeed. I hoped he would raise the need for that will power. I expected him to pursue young blacks to stop looking at the past and work towards a bright future. I expected him to address the root cause of the poverty in black neighbourhoods and layout a plan to wipe out the economic disparities.
Hmmm.. Not This Time. All we got is another politically motivated and extremely calculated speech. And in all possibilties he is going to be praised by all with out question. And his speech would likely inspire (sic) many more votes from the 'American Idol' nation.
I preferred Clinton over Obama based on the debates and other speeches from the initial primaries. I felt Clinton was more informed in what she was talking about and I thought having Bill Clinton on her side would be a great asset. We'd have a great 'buy 1 get 1 free' offer.
Obama while a good orator, I did not think his speeches were inspirational. For, I did not think he was strong in the content. I did not understand from the speeches what 'Change' he wants to see and how he is going to bring that change. It felt like KCR of TRS saying that splitting AP into two states would magically solve all the problems of Telangana. Obama did not come across well when talking issues and answering questions in the debate. He was dodging questions and wavering around while giving answers to straight forward questions. More importantly, I could not see an accomplishment of his that stands out to convince me that he is capable of changing America. Its like making a mid level manager, the CEO of a multi billion dollar company. He might be good at what he does, but that would not make him qualify to the most important job in the world. I guess, Americans are ready for any one after George Bush.
While he talks about Hope and Change, I felt that he is also a seasoned politician not unlike Clinton trying to get to the white house. He said he was going to bring in new kind of politics, but it is for all to see in the past few days he is anothe feather from the same bird. His politics did not last half the campaign. He was an underdog, and media loves underdogs. He is not any more and we can see Media already having a field day. And Wrights and Rezkos cases are only the start.
I always hear from the media that Clinton is divisive and polarizing. Having been in America only from 2002, I did not have much idea about the Bill Clintons' time that gave her an image of a polarizing figure. While I think they are not rational, I can see why people have uncomfortable feelings about her. And I see that people want to wipe out the slate clean and start afresh with this new guy. Which I felt is an escapist mind set. Truly, I am more impressed with Dr. Ron Paul and his message. He truly reflects change. But America is not ready for the Change he wants to bring in.
Between Hillary and Barack how ever, I'd any day go for more knowedgeable, tried and tested Hillary. She has the will, the strength and the skills to get the America back on the track that veered off in Bush's administration. Obama is a smart politician who like Clinton, benefitted because of his historic candidacy, but he is not ready for the job. My guess is Obama would become Democratic candiate but would be defeated by McCain in November.
Update:
Add Texas and Wyoming Caucuses for Obama. Its 14 out of 15, And the one clinton lead was in American Samoa 2 delegates to 1. It more or less a unanimous sweep for Obama. Whats troubling is, if you take texas where primaries and caucuses were both held on the same day with same electorate, Obama while trailing in the Primaries by a good 4%, leadin the caucuses by atleast 15%. Thats a huge disparity!!
That leads to the question - are caucuses democratic and do they represent the public choice?? Remember, there are no caucuses in the general election. We would never know what would have happened if primaries were held in those 15 states instead of caucuses given the Results in TX. Definetely something to think about for democrats at the convention. I am sure Clinton will bring that up late in the game.
Obama lead the delegate count in 12 of the 13 democratic Caucuses held. With 262 delegates vs Clinton's 135, i.e two thirds majority.
After reading the article in NYTimes on how Caucuses are held, it looks like Clinton is not too far behind Obama in popularity as it appears to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/opinion/14collins.htm
Posts
All Comments
