Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Recalls a Fuller History

By Alec MacGillis
FORT WAYNE, Ind. -- Had Barack Obama attended a service today in Memphis commemorating the 40th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, it would likely have inspired further comparisons between the two men, the slain civil rights leader and the rookie senator who has become the first truly viable African American contender for the presidency.

But Obama decided he needed to keep an earlier commitment to appear at a Democratic Party event in North Dakota this evening, even if it meant leaving the spotlight in Memphis to Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Instead, he chose to spend the first part of the anniversary day here in Indiana, which has allowed him to evoke a second figure from the 1960s: Bobby Kennedy.

Kennedy was campaigning in Indianapolis when he learned of King's assassination, and he proceeded to relay the news to a crowd of voters in a black neighborhood, urging them, in one of the more notable pieces of spontaneous American political oratory, not to betray King's ideals by allowing their grief and anger to flow into violence.


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) speaks about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., on the 40th anniversary of his assassination at a town hall meeting at Wayne High School in Fort Wayne, Ind., Friday, April 4, 2008. (AP.)

Obama clearly was seeking to cast himself as the heir to both men as he delivered a roughly 10-minute prelude to a town hall meeting at a high school gym here packed with a racially mixed crowd of about 2,800. While focusing on King, he also recalled Kennedy's ability to serve as a conduit to his black audience that day. "As the shock turned toward anger, Kennedy reminded them of Dr. King's compassion, and his love. And on a night when cities across the nation were alight with violence, all was quiet in Indianapolis," Obama said.

In his remarks on King, Obama reminded his audience that King had been concerned not just with racial justice but with economic justice, and that he had been in Memphis to show solidarity for striking sanitation workers. "It was a struggle ... for the opportunity that should be available to people of all races and all walks of life," Obama said. "Because Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic justice and the struggle for racial justice were really one -- that each was part of a larger struggle 'for freedom, for dignity, and for humanity.' So long as Americans were trapped in poverty, so long as they were being denied the wages, benefits, and fair treatment they deserved -- so long as opportunity was being opened to some but not all -- the dream that he spoke of would remain out of reach."

Obama tied this message to today's economic troubles, saying the country was still falling short. "The dream is still out of reach for too many Americans," he said. And he reiterated the call of his speech in Philadelphia two weeks ago, given to address the incendiary remarks of his longtime pastor, that the country needs a "politics that lives up to Dr. King's call for unity" instead of one that "used race to drive us apart ... feed the forces of division and distraction and stop us from hearing our problems."

"We have to recognize that while we each have a different past, we all share the same hopes for the future -- we all hope we can find a job that pays a decent wage, that there will be affordable health care when we get sick, that we'll be able to send our kids to college, and that after a lifetime of hard work, we'll be able to retire with security," he said. "They're common hopes, modest dreams."

To further drive home the Kennedy link, the campaign arranged to have Obama introduced by Joe Riley, a local lawyer who served as the chairman of Kennedy's Indiana campaign in 1968 and was with him that day in Indianapolis. Riley -- white haired and peering over reading glasses -- was explicit about the comparison to Obama.

"I believe that Senator Obama has captured the passion of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I believe that Senator Obama has been able to identify and be passionately involved with the poor, the uneducated, African Americans, Hispanics and the middle class," he said. "Robert Kennedy ... talked to [people] as Senator Obama has talked to people, that we need change. Not the change of something that is easy, but the change that is hard -- and he can do that. If Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were here right now ... they would believe that Senator Obama was standing for the same issues that they were concerned about. They would say that we need a president who would change the course of this country."

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 4, 2008; 2:22 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mark Penn Apologizes for Colombian Trade Meeting
Next: Clinton Reflects on an Early Meeting of King

Comments

Are any reporters investigating the allegations that Larry Sinclair is claiming? He claims he performed a homosexual act with Obama while using illegal drugs in 1999. He has filed a lawsuit against the DNC. So do not assume who will be the next president when the case is still unsolve.

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM


This is a perfectly legitimate question in view of the fact that there are two legal documents available: a statement of claim and an affidavit. I presume the statement of claim is a matter of public record.

Posted by: James | April 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Faird,

Have you ever raised a question that the polygraph was in itself a deception that tried to discredit the claim that Larry Sinclair had made about all the terrible things that Sen. Obama did?

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 6, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Faird,

Have you ever raised a question that the polygraph was in itself a deception that tried to discredit the claim that Larry Sinclair had made about all the terrible things that Sen. Obama did?

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 6, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Faird,

Have you ever raised a question that the polygraph was in itself a deception that tried to discredit the claim that Larry Sinclair had made about all the terrible things that Sen. Obama did?

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 6, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Faird,

Have you ever raised a question that the polygraph was in itself a deception that tried to discredit the claim that Larry Sinclair had made about all the terrible things that Sen. Obama did?

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 6, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Faird,

Have you ever raised a question that the polygraph was in itself a deception that tried to discredit the claim that Larry Sinclair had made about all the terrible things that Sen. Obama did?

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 6, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Editorial Endorsement for Barack Obama: New York Observer
==========================================
On February 5, Obama
January 23, 2008 This article was published in the January 28, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
==========================================
Lost amid the sound and fury of this year's primary season is the certainty, not the promise, of change. For the first time since 1952, there is no heir apparent to the administration in power.
The stakes have rarely been higher in a presidential election. The question is not if there will be change in American leadership, but what kind.
And the change that is being offered has a focus and intelligence that is kindred to the best American traditions. It is embodied by one candidate in the Democratic Party who is offering a reinvigorated America: Senator Barack Obama.
The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state's presidential primary on Feb. 5.
New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.
Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama's issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama's candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy.
Democracy is the greatest strength of this still-young nation. Its living enactment is our gift to the world. It is the product of our best instincts and most powerful ideals. But it has been polluted, sullied and compromised by an obstructive administration that seems to have to have no particular regard for its attributes.
It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.
And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world.
Because of who he is and what he stands for, a former constitutional law teacher with few ties to the Washington establishment yet a sophisticated respect for it, Mr. Obama stands the best chance of restoring the essential relationship between power and the American people. He is not flanked and blocked by an existing, entrenched power structure; his words are not muddied by layers of handlers; he still says what he means.
We believe that Mr. Obama's idealism and fresh ideas would ensure that the end of the Bush era would also mean an end to government by secrecy, Cheneyism, arrogance, oligarchy; an end to mindless armed unilateralism abroad; an end to the blustering, rank partisan disputes of the last quarter-century.
Mr. Obama has found his strength in the generation that succeeded the baby boomers, speaking for the frustrations of those who wish that their leaders would get over themselves, get over the 1960's, get on with resolving issues that threaten our global leadership. Mr. Obama is an inclusive figure at a time when our popular culture demands that we embrace a new America while still comprehending the lessons of hard-won history--from World War II through the fall of the Berlin Wall--that have brought us to a free world in 2008.
He is also determined to mend this nation. Mr. Obama, as Walt Whitman did, hears America singing, not snarling. Too many candidates have turned opponents into traitors, critics into jackals. Mr. Obama believes the nation yearns to see hope and inspiration and courage emerge victorious from the era's gauntlet of hypocrisy and lies and false bravado. Imagine, for a moment, any other candidate this year saying what Mr. Obama said at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:
"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
That is a song we have not heard for too long a time. It is the kind of song that can make citizens of spectators, Americans of couch potatoes, patriots of slackers.
Mr. Obama would also be the most formidable Democrat in the general election. He has demonstrated a capacity to energize young people and attract new voters, and is the only candidate in the Democratic Party who attracts independents, who are the fastest-growing part of the electorate. His refusal to demonize the Republican Party as a right-wing attack machine will appeal to those independents as well as moderate Republicans.
Mr. Obama, it is true, is hardly an experienced Washington hand, which surely explains the freshness of his vision and the power of his life experience. His opponents have hit this issue hard. But as far as experience goes, to those Americans who celebrated finding ourselves with our first M.B.A. president in 2000--we can only advise them to look at the $9 trillion national debt in 2008.
And when George W. Bush was driving a bleary, shocked nation into war with bait-and-switch deceptions in 2003, where was our experienced leadership? Meanwhile, in the west, an Illinois state senator--who has since served three years in the Senate, the same Congressional period that a fellow Midwesterner, Abraham Lincoln, had served when he sought the presidency--rose to exhibit courage and public judgment on that deceptive adventure, stating, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Now we have paid the price many times over, and there are no clear paths in Baghdad. But there may be one in Washington. Mr. Obama is the emblem of a new America. He has risen too quickly for his opponents' taste; that fact is nothing less than a recommendation.
His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America.
Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York's Democrats should embrace him.

Posted by: jpaultel | April 6, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Roy3,
You seem to be confused about what is good for America and what you think or believe must be done to make America better for its citizens. Why do you think that the interests of a "a 50 years old man" who believes "that Barack Obama is not to be trusted" and that all "50 years old Jewish" women ought to be "worried about Israel?" Explain to middle America and people losing their homes and people whose sons and daughters or brothers and sisters have died in Iraq why the interest of Israel trumps the interests of the American people.

Posted by: jpaultel | April 6, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Well JakeD,

Get used to it fella! By 2030, there will be almost no more white people - every one will be of mixed race...so don't fight it, GO with the flow and vote for O! It's only a matter of time and as the Bible asks "Why shouldst thou kick against the pricks?"

In other words, why hurt yourself fighting it?

Get real! It's gonna happen, baby!

Posted by: Digi | April 5, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and the spin about Obama having a previous commitment which prevented his attendance in Memphis?

Obama would have had to make that appointment when he was six years old since the Lorraine commemoration was literally 40 years in the making.

Posted by: dyend | April 5, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

From the looks of the blogging & flogging of Obama, the Black Messiah, I'm getting just an inkling of the barrage of racial attacks which will occur should Bar rack up the 270 votes for President.

This uncivil war has all the indications that an Obama Administration will make George W.'s term seem placid by comparison.

Tee,Hee...Bring It On...Divide Don't Unite...

Posted by: dyend | April 5, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Awb75 (10:38 AM) wrote: Personally, Barack Obama, is speaking in Fort Wayne, Indiana today, ....".

If Hillary Clinton had done the same she would have been accused for not paying enough attention to honour the memory of Martin Luther King! She couldn´t just run for primary in Indiana! Obama on the other hand was free to chose a strategy which made it possible for him to play the race card in Indiana were primaries is run on May 6th.

"awb75" also wrote: "As a white, jewish, over 50 woman voter who likes to get educated about who I am voting for; I have learned that Rev Wright gave up his student deferment and enlisted in the army during Viet Nam and was a Marine. If that type of personal sacrifice doesn't make a man a patriot - what does? Did Mr Juan Williams serve in the military?".

No, I don,t think that kind of sacrifice makes a man a patriot. Bill Clinton was only 14 years old when Rev. Wright enlisted the army. By that time there were international pressure not to escalate the war in Vietnam. Still USA joined a war which ended in a discaster. At the same tim Bill Clinton publicly opposed to the Vietnam war including organizing an October 1969 Moratorium event. That´s an other kind of patriotism.

With respect to the Democratic campaign you should consider 1) that "facist" nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Have you ever heard about a female dictator? I guess that you have not and the reason probably depends on differences in male and female mentalities and 2) elections in "fascist" nations are sham democracy. Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

No, being a 50 years old man I strongly believe that Barack Obama is not to be trusted and if you really are a 50 years old Jewish woman you should be worried about Israel.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama, is speaking in Fort Wayne, Indiana today, where Bobby Kennedy broke the news of Martin Luther King's assassination in April 1968 and arguably saved many lives by quelling the riots that were sure to begin that night --

Instead of going to Memphis like Hillary Clinton and John McCain to pander and make good on poor past choices -- Barack Obama was in Indiana.

Some of what he said:
"We have a poltics that is too small for the challenges we face"
"We have to stop feeding the forces of division and distraction and stop us from solving our problems"
"While we each have a different past - we all hope we have the same future.
We have common hopes:
modest dreams: and
a search for human diginty"

As MLK Jr said:
"The arc of the moral univesre is long but it bends toward justice"

Obama took that mantle today and continued:
"But it cannot bend on its own - we need to bend it:
to organize:
to mobilize:
to march:
to vote:
to be active
and
to care:
to do our part to bend that arc
toward justice,
toward opportunity,
toward prosperity

and do it together"

To keep faith with Dr King but make real the word of Amos - "let justice roll down like water,
and righteousnes as a mightly stream"
---
and so we come to today.
And Rev Wright and what is attempted to be a "lynching" by association of Sen Barack Obama.

As I have sadly watched Juan Williams, who has an article in the WSJ today, and many like him, go from someone who understood and appreciated Sen Obama's candidacy to an Obama basher - it begs the question why?

And that is not answered in the false conclusions drawn in that article, which Wiliiams asked "what would Jesus do?"
and Williams concludes, "Jesus would have walked out of the church".

As a student of history surely Juan Williams knows that MLK Jr made some very incendiary speeches in his day - even calling the United States the worst war profiteer in the world - and much more Had YouTube existed in 1968 and MLK Jr's worst words been played on an "endless loop" on a then non-exitent internet, we, as a nation, may not have been celebrating the pride and dignity of this great man.

People are flawed - no one agrees -out of context - to the inflammatory remarks we keep seeing from Rev Wright

Personally, as a white, jewish, over 50 woman voter who likes to get educated about who I am voting for; I have learned that Rev Wright gave up his student deferment and enlisted in the army during Viet Nam and was a Marine. If that type of personal sacrifice doesn't make a man a patriot - what does?

Did Mr Juan Williams serve in the military?

For the Juan Williams' of the world, who arguably owe at least some of their success to the legacy of Dr. King - to draw the argument "what would Jesus do" and come to the conclusion as stated here is laughable

Let me suggest: Mr Williams and others; stop watching Fox News, and look at other sermons Rev Wright gave in their entireity which are readily available on the web and then go back and reread Dr King's words especially in his early, brave opposition to the Viet Nam way -- Rev Wright - who I am not defending - clearly through non violence, in his own way, tried and by all accounts, Rev. Wright right succeeded, in getting young black men to strive for a better life, for black families to stay together and generally was devoted to improving the quality of like for his parishioners.

Maybe Juan Williams can use his connections at FOX and through the various newspapers to study and learn more about Rev Wright - get over his false "horror" at five or six stupid sentences - and do what Jesus would likely do

That would be to look at the total of the man and see clearly the good of the sum total of the life of the man far outweighing the bad -- and look beyond a few offensive sentences to the sum total of a life dedicated to helping others.

You can disagree with the method - but you cannot disagree with the results. And on the 40th anniversary of MLK Jr's death - a dark day for this nation -we should all be grateful that in the 1960's when the civil rights movement did and said what they had to to make progress , against much hatred and opposition in the country - that there was no Fox News, no You Tube and no Internet

Arguably - we may not be where we are today and celebrating the life of this great man - if there had been

Let's not lose our chance to move forward and develop a new and living history; which I strongly believe Sen Barack Obama will inspire and lead.

Posted by: awb75 | April 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

THE MEDIA LIKE AP-CNN AND MSNBC ARE SELLING OUT AMERICANS
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/04/05/ap-covers-obama-avoiding-churchs-pastors-essence
Associated Press: Playing defense for Obama: Karen Hawkins and Christopher Wills of the Associated Press quilty of Wright-wash! In their articles Hawkins and Wills avoid any mention of the main tenets of "Black Liberation Theology that form the foundation and belief system of the Trinity United Church of Christ. AP pair purposely avoided any mention of inflammatory items in weekly bulletin articles published by the Church.

Nowhere in the story's 1,200-plus words was there any mention of the Church's belief system, which was outlined by McClatchy's Margaret Tavel on March 20: Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines. Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation. Those are some of the doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Obama's church.

Wright said basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power. Cone wrote that the U.S. was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

In the July 22 bulletin, in the "Pastor's Page" section, the Rev. Wright gave two pages of space to a colunmn by "Hamas TERRORIST Mousa Abu Marzook. The column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which came under heavy criticism for running it. Among Marzook's many whoppers: A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. CAMERA.org wrote at the time that "that no Israeli parties in government advocate the 'expulsion' of Arabs; one calls for voluntary transfer."

A June 10 bulletin article, also in the "Pastor's Page" section, was written by terrorist sympathizer Ali Baghdadi. Among other things, Baghdadi wrote I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. The KKK, on its worst day, never accused the ethnic groups it hated of attempting to concoct a "white bomb. Rev. Wright not only allowed these hate-filled diatribes to appear in TUCC's bulletins but supports as does Obama.

**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed
March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html

Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would be praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq. Article by Citizen Wells 3/08,
Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. Obama is an anti-Israel, pro-pan-Arabian Islamic-socialist who has ties to Marxist Libyan President Muamar al Gadaffi, and a Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Rezko's "close friend" Nadhami Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money (and helped to buy his mansion): Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer (from funds stolen from Oil for Food Program0 for Saddam's - Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam Hussein in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim.

Also marxist Nicaragian President Daniel Ortega is on the front line supporting Obama for the revolution of changes and then there is hard core anti-Israel, pro-Palestine PLO Enforcer Rashid Khalid, (Obama was on Kalidi's Woods Fund. Obama was a memb er of the Woods Fund with communist domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol among other things and their organization raised money for anti-Israel programs, and also AAAN, for Arabs and then there is especially Kenya - where in August 2007, Obama went to Kenya to support his E. Germany communist educated cousin Raila Odinga for Kenyan Presidential election, who claims coincidentally to also be a Christian who signed NAMLEF and other pacts wutg radical muslims who set churches filled with Christians on fire, and macheted them in the streets, causing a political and religious mini-civil war over the MUO.

all of Obama's mentors, buddies, political affiliations, organizational memberships and all of his hard core militant muslim family members, like his brother Abongo (Roy" Odinga who hates America, and their communist grandfather who ran with Russia and hated America, not to mention his socialist connection to his profound childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, CPUSA, and Obama's endorsement by the Black Panthers. Obama titled his book "Audacity of Hope," after Pastor Wright's sermon about the need to destroy capitalism and the middle-class at the hands of the rich white people and the west.


Posted by: dyck21005 | April 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

PortlandOR, I have to confess that I am not an American citizen. Nevertheless I strongly believe that you should think more than twice when you elect your new president. In my eyes Barack Obama appeals to young people in a way that maybe not is as nice and harmless as it seems to be. As long as they agree to what he says or does it might be okey. The problem is that you don´t know anything about his true face. Personally I am a strong opponent to the war in Irak but on the other hand you don´t know anything about the situation in Irak and the Middle East if Saddam Hussein had continued to rule. Thus you don´t even know whether it was a wise decission to invade Irak or not.

Personally I don´t trust men to be able to handle severe international or national problemes if their power is based on some kind of personal "cult". The mentality of men eother black, half-black or white are all the same. If you really want some change than you should elect a woman as your new President. Barack Obama is tough, he speaks loud and skilful though I can´t find the slightest kind of humility in his way of being. He is literally looking down at people and he is too calculating to be believed in and I don´t think he is a good listener. There is an Obama hausse on the "market" - take it easy and think twice or three times or maybe more and think for yourself....

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

PortlandOR (01:36 AM) wrote: "Barack Obama is the best possible thing that has happened to the world in a very long time. He is a once in several generations leader." The same goes for all guys below in the eyes of their follwers. None of them are diplomats and neither is Barack Obama.

Moqtada al Sadr - in Irak
Khaled Meshal - Hamas in Palestine
Hassan Nasrallah - Hezbollah in Lebanon
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Iran
Osama bin Laden - Al-Qaeda

They are all prepared to erase Israel from the map! How do you think that Barack Obama would react when that happens.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 5, 2008 6:07 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes us older folks may be a bit out of touch with what is going on in the world today. After all, we grew up in a much different world than did you. My oldest daughter took me and her 3 daughters to a rally to see Barack Obama, and I have been entranced every since.

So even when we don't give you youngsters your props, sometimes you're still able to teach us a thing or two.

Barack Obama is the best possible thing that has happened to the world in a very long time. He is a once in several generations leader. We would be remiss were we to pass on this most exciting opportunity to have Barack Obama inaugurated on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: PortlandOR | April 5, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

andybui_cali:

Larry Sinclair failed the polygraph test so...He lied about one of the greatest leaders in my lifetime.

http://www.bloggernews.net/114055

Posted by: faird | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

andybui_cali:

Larry Sinclair failed the polygraph test so...He lied about one of the greatest leaders in my lifetime.

http://www.bloggernews.net/114055

Posted by: faird | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

andybui_cali:

Larry Sinclair failed the polygraph test so...He lied about one of the greatest leaders in my lifetime.

http://www.bloggernews.net/114055

Posted by: faird | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

andybui_cali:

Larry Sinclair failed the polygraph test so...He lied about one of the greatest leaders in my lifetime.

http://www.bloggernews.net/114055

Posted by: faird | April 5, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

-- At the moment of RFK's death, the delegate totals were:
Hubert Humphrey 561
Robert Kennedy 393
Eugene McCarthy 258 --

Kennedy is behind. He should Quit Now!
...why, he'll wreck the party, Katie!


;-)

-

Posted by: straightmedia | April 4, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

When Bob Casey endorsed Barack Obama he said that he had been persuaded by his "four beautiful and intelligent daugthers". For almost the same reason Jimmy Carter said that he would endorse Obama. Since when have former Presidents and Senators ended to make their own desicions. After all, are they not supposed to represent the American people and not their family, or..? To me this seems to be a sign of unhealthy mass-psychosis.....

Posted by: Roy3 | April 4, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Are any reporters investigating the allegations that Larry Sinclair is claiming? He claims he performed a homosexual act with Obama while using illegal drugs in 1999. He has filed a lawsuit against the DNC. So do not assume who will be the next president when the case is still unsolve.

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Are any reporters investigating the allegations that Larry Sinclair is claiming? He claims he performed a homosexual act with Obama while using illegal drugs in 1999. He has filed a lawsuit against the DNC. So do not assume who will be the next president when the case is still unsolve.

Posted by: andybui_cali | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

When Bob Casey endorsed Barack Obama that he had been persuaded by his "four beautiful and intelligent daugthers". For almost the same reason Jimmy Carter said that he would endorse Obama. Since when have former Presidents and Senators ended to make their own desicions. After all, are they not supposed to represent the American people and not their family, or..? To me this seems to be a sign of unhealthy mass-psychosis.....

Posted by: Roy3 | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "I don't mean to be irritating"

ROFL

Jake, I don't mean to be irritating when I describe you as the poster child for People Unclear on the Concept, either. I'm just sayin'....

Posted by: TomJx | April 4, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Political historians have debated to this day whether Kennedy could have won the Democratic nomination had he lived. Some historians, such as Theodore H. White and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy's broad appeal and famed "charisma" would have convinced the party bosses at the Democratic Convention to give him the nomination. However, other writers such as Tom Wicker, who covered the Kennedy campaign for The New York Times, believe that Humphrey's large lead in delegate votes from non-primary states, combined with Senator McCarthy's refusal to quit the race, would have prevented Kennedy from ever winning a majority at the Democratic Convention, and that Humphrey would have been the Democratic nominee even if Kennedy had lived. Journalist Richard Reeves has written that Humphrey was the likely nominee, and RFK's own campaign manager, future Democratic National Committee chairman Larry O'Brien, wrote in his memoirs that Kennedy's chances of winning the nomination had been slim, even after his win in California. I'm not so sure.

At the moment of RFK's death, the delegate totals were:

Hubert Humphrey 561
Robert Kennedy 393
Eugene McCarthy 258

Posted by: JakeD | April 4, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Think about it: assuming Robert F. Kennedy was never assassinated, a very good argument could be made that he came out of California as the Democratic nominee, no race riots, etc. and soundly defeated Nixon. Probably means the end of the Vietnam War quicker (although it's hard to say what would have happened with China and the Soviet Union -- we may still be fighting a Cold War -- alternative histories are fascinating). No Nixon almost certainly means no Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, or Clinton -- interesting to consider whether Dole, Reagan, or George H.W. Bush would have still run -- I can't even imagine which Democrat would have run after (two?) terms of Robert Kennedy's Presidency. Probably depends on whom RFK would have chosen as VP. One thing is certain, Barack HUSSEIN Obama would not even be running for President this time around.

Posted by: JakeD | April 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Roy3. Don't worry, though. He will not be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009.

P.S. back to the article, IF Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were standing right there in Fort Wayne, Indiana, I doubt they would be endorsing Barack HUSSEIN Obama either.

Posted by: JakeD | April 4, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

It´s remarkable that none are seriously worried about the Obama personality cult. He appeals to young people in a way that maybe not is as nice and harmless as it seems to be. Many politicians (sometimes dictators) have had unsuspecting youths as their base in order to achieve their own blurred goals and personal power. I don´t think that Barack Obama is going to be a good diplomat if elected President.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 4, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I think JakeD has got a problem and needs help.

Posted by: mapdren | April 4, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD posted: "So, why wasn't Barack Obama in Memphis commemorating the 40th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination again?"

The answer is clearly stated in the story, which you already knew. Perhaps he felt it more unnecessary to pander, as Clinton and McCain did today. The "Goldwater Girl" stretched credulity yet again with her "emotional" speech on meeting Dr. King and reacting upon news of his assassination.

And, the less said about McCain's "I was against the MLK national holiday before I was for it" the better.

I wonder, JakeD, after Obama wins the general in November if you'll be adult enough to admit you were wrong, or if you'll just gripe about having to move to another country?

Posted by: bbussey | April 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

With respect to the Democratic campaign these two points should be considered:

1) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid.

2) Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

That Sen. Obama thought to mark not only Dr. King's passing, but also the healing voice of Bobby Kennedy was brilliant, and moving, and yes brought me to tears (and no, I don't need any more kool aid over here). This is the reason I support this candidate -- moving, eloquent and purposeful all in one 10 minute prelude. Yes we can!

Posted by: Omyobama | April 4, 2008 03:40 PM

----------
(I got so mad I threw my bookbag across the dorm room)
-------------------------------
This sounds like the typical Obamacult childlike response one would expect. Crying and throwing things, is that how you'll react if he does not get the nomination?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets it right yet again. He talks to the people, with the people, not at the votes. Hence, he makes us pause to reflect on the day's meaning, not on how useful this speech is for purely political purposes

Posted by: nclwtk | April 4, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

From reality-checker Mediamatters.org;

On the March 27 edition of MSNBC Live, senior campaign correspondent and former host Tucker Carlson described statements on the "pastor's pages" section of Sen. Barack Obama's church's newsletter as "wild," "anti-Israeli statements" and asserted: "I think Obama will feel the need to address that directly fairly soon." Later in the hour, specifically citing a column by a Hamas leader republished in the newsletter, host Andrea Mitchell asked Chicago Sun-Times Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet: "Does he [Obama] have to do more explaining? Does he have to meet perhaps once again with Jewish leaders to try to reassure them that these are not his views as well?"

But no one mentioned that Obama has previously "condemned" his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "views on Israel" in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).

A portion of Obama's statement was published in a March 20 JTA article that quoted Obama as saying: "I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn't in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin."

--


Media Matters, has that much right. But it
leaves out very relevant chronology;

- Hamas terror-propaganda reprints
in TUCC newsletter by Wright, 7/07

- Aware or unaware of it, Obama "already
condemned my former pastor's views on Israel
in the strongest possible terms"

- Yet along with his "strongest" condemnation,
Obama LEAVES WRIGHT ON HIS CAMPAIGN
ADVISORY BOARD.

No problem / trusted advisor! Rock On, apparently...

Remember, Obama only dropped him from
his campaign after the firestorm over Wright's
hate-speech erupted 3/14/08. When pressured
& facing the implosion of his candidacy.


So is Obama really a Walk-The-Walk guy? Like MLK
no less?

Or, an operator who is willing to look the other way.

It also splashes back on Richardson, Hamilton, and
the others whom Obama has turned to as stop-bleed
validators.

They are looking the other way also.

-

Posted by: straightmedia | April 4, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Got one. thanks!!!

Posted by: rajjjj | April 4, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

And by the way -- just compare this approach to Mrs. Clinton's interjection of herself into the assasination story (I got so mad I threw my bookbag across the dorm room) and John McCain's trying to use the occasion to apologize for opposing the MLK Jr. Day holiday. Yeah, I'd much prefer the guy using the occasion to talk about US and its effect on our country and the continued relevance of Dr. King's calls to love and service regardless of our race or economic status.

Posted by: Omyobama | April 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what the evil trolls among the regular blog posters say (and you know who you are) I thought this a moving, thoughtful tribute to two of my fallen heroes. Because this day commemorates not just the assasination of a great man, but also one of the most divisive and anguished responses that turned our country into a war zone for much of that summer of '68. That Sen. Obama thought to mark not only Dr. King's passing, but also the healing voice of Bobby Kennedy was brilliant, and moving, and yes brought me to tears (and no, I don't need any more kool aid over here). This is the reason I support this candidate -- moving, eloquent and purposeful all in one 10 minute prelude. Yes we can!

Posted by: Omyobama | April 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

4-4-08
to: Rjjjj - GET A LIFE !
From: Irvine, CA

Posted by: cbonora | April 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

4-4-08
to: Rjjjj - GET A LIFE !
From: Irvine, CA

Posted by: cbonora | April 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

You know, everyone can't go to Memphis to celebrate Dr. King. Sen. Obama shared this day with people who wanted to gather to remember the death of Dr. King,and also to remember Robert Kennedy and his death, and Robert Kennedy's love and respect for Dr. King. All the people who are looking to nit-pick everything Obama does need to get a life.

Posted by: beccajo | April 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Today Jimmy Carter endorsed Barak Obama and explained why the rest of the Demacratic leaders who have made the same choice have not come out and said so.

It is considered bad form when there are still some primaries to go and the count of pledged delegates (the ones the Clintons have now declared are not pledged after all - can you imagine what they would say about their idea if they had the lead?) is pretty close.

But the story of the election is this:
Clintons blow huge lead to an unknown candidate who built the largest group of campaign contributors in American history.

Superdelegates who uses their vote to help salvage the Clinton effort will choose to ignore the will of more than 1.3 million $$ donors. So will the D party commit suicide and push the Clintons forward?
No, they won't.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

The use of Obama's middle name in your question appears intended to envoke something in the American people - hatred perharps or to suggest that Barack is moslem. Well JakeD, we know that Barack Obama is christian and has never been a moslem before. And something else you need to know is that the majority of us American people are going to overwhelmingly elect him president of the united States of America, come November this year. I just thought you needed to know.

Posted by: kensing | April 4, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

If I had to pick one mistake, HUBRIS would be a good start. Definitely brought down more than one politician (or party, or ideologue, for that matter).

Posted by: rajjjj | April 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"what mistakes?" take your pick.

KARL ROVE ON WHY HE BELIEVES THE REPUBLICANS WILL KEEP THE HOUSE AND SENATE DESPITE POLLS TO THE CONTRARY
October 24, 2006
http://www.npr.org/about/press/061024_rove.html

A 'Third Term' for Bush
Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove need new jobs.
by FRED BARNES
Monday, March 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008116

Posted by: rajjjj | April 4, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

From the NYT --

Editorial
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times's editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards's fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands. We certainly don't buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama's appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. "Firstness" is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America's global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America's role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered -- but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama's audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can't foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton's vote for the resolution on the use of force. That's not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course -- shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government's powers have been misused -- and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America's voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won't be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.


Posted by: svreader | April 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009.

rajjjj:

I don't mean to be irritating -- at least I use his REAL NAME rather than "McBush" or something like that -- I also read the second paragraph and that answered why he was in Indiana, not why he wasn't in Memphis. Both other major candidates thought it was more important to be in Memphis. What "mistake" are you referring to from 2006?

Posted by: JakeD | April 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

ugh...

don't ask him what his thoughts are.. i can only handly so much b.s.

Posted by: jkallen001 | April 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama will be the next President of the United States and by the time that happens, perhaps two million people will have contributed an average of about $100 to make that happen. This is an extraordinary point in history.

Imagine, a President whose ability to compete in a national election is not funded primarily by special interests?
With the exception of those susceptible to race baiting, Obama's constituents are from all walks of American life.

Some of Barak's friends are pretty ugly people, but the Clintons' and McCain's friends are far worse. Republican cynicism has been exposed. The Clintons' attempts to get as Republican as possible in order to win has lost their amazing lead. McCain as a person is no joke, but as a candidate he certainly is.

Lets all get together and help Obama lead this country back to peace and prosperity.

Posted by: shrink2 | April 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Is that supposed to be irritating when you put his middle name in all caps? Just wondering, especially since your question was answered in the second paragraph of the story.
It would be nice to hear and engage people's actual OPINION on issues, rather than hiding behind us/them innuendo and put-downs, implied or not...It was a mistake to rely on that in 2006, don't you think?

Posted by: rajjjj | April 4, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

He was in Indianapolis, the scene of a famous Robert Kennedy speech the day that MLK Jr. was shot. Was a great speech that some people believe helped "keep the peace" as there was no violence there on that day (which cannot be said for many other urban areas).

..that's why.

Posted by: jkallen001 | April 4, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

So, why wasn't Barack HUSSEIN Obama in Memphis commemorating the 40th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination again?

Posted by: JakeD | April 4, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company