Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 to a white American mother and a black African father. As this article on the National Review's website astutely points out white women who married black men circa 1960 were generally Jewess members of the Communist Party USA. His parents union for the time is highly suspicious and for all we know Gus Hall could have personally performed their marriage ceremony. Being the product of a Leftist mother and Islamic father it was natural for Obama to select a radical black communist to be his childhood mentor.
With his radical family background and Anti-American childhood upbringing it should be no surprise that only about a decade ago he was holding political meetings in the home of former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
But then Obama may have a higher tolerance for acts of terrorism. You see, his surname, Obama is East African equivalent of the name Osama; just as Jorge is the Spanish version of George. In fact, Obama has a very interesting name. To move into the realm of pure conjecture; it should be noted that in lower case three letters can be replaced with the number six: 6arack 6ussein o6ama
Perhaps his parents were subconsciously broadcasting their disgust for Western Christian Civilization when they named him.
There have been a few rumblings in the fringes of American politics about the possibility of Obama being a "sleeper agent" or "Manchurian Candidate" for either Fundamentalist Islam or Radical Communism. The mainstream media and political establishment have thus far dismissed these claims and ignored pertinent questions such as why he has the nickname Hussein X.
Taking his wife's graduate thesis it seems very plausible that if elected President; Obama could become the most effective vehicle for Black Rage that America has ever seen. We could see the pardon of Mumia Abu-Jamal in the next year and the appointment of members of the New Black Panther Party to Cabinet level positions in the White House. This is not an improbable conclusion considering that Obama belongs to a religious sect that is directly under the influence of Black Muslim Leader Louis Farrakhan.
I don't consider to hear any analysis of this in the mainstream media considering that after the picture of Obama in his native dress was published there was no discussion of how he was about to perform an African ceremony in which he sacrificed a live chicken to the pagan god Termagant.
Oh, and there are also these videos which conclusively prove that Obama regularly cruises high end drinking establishments solicit men to participate in crack fueled gay orgies.
In summation, these are the reasons why I support Barack Obama for President.
kiche [email] said at 9:23 AM 03-04-2008: if clinton wants me to get my vote, then she's gonna have to do better than get some movie villains to endorse her. she'll have to get -REAL- villains to endorse her.
and if obama endorses the creation of new aztlan i will volunteer for his campaign. i can't wait to have my own drug farm in aztlan with a giant pyramid on top of which i will perform human sacrafices to quetzalcoatl.
also, this is what it's gonna be like when you lose that bet to me:
rick [email] said at 4:04 PM 03-04-2008: Some of these criticisms are not wholly accurate.
He did criticize torture in a general way but then went ahead and voted for the Military Commission Act which was then more or less negated in a sense by Bush's signing statement. Moreover, he voted for Mukasey who is unsure as to whether or not waterboarding (which the Spanish Inquisition referred to as la tortura de agua) is torture.
He famously called Falwell and Robertson agents of intolerance but he later reconciled with Falwell and gave keynote addresses at Liberty University. Moreover, in 2000, he gladly accepted the endorsement of Gary Bauer who I do not believe I will ever find on Sam Harris' holiday greeting card list.
The difference is here, Obama will not have these positions held against him by most Democrats whereas most Republicans will hold them against McCain. And, while I have no way of knowing for sure, I would gladly bet that Obama will win more independent voters than McCain.
All Obama needs to beat McCain is a well-experienced running mate; I would suggest Bill Richardson.
kiche [email] said at 3:47 PM 03-04-2008: i must say anthony, that i would be truly impressed if john mccain were to pull off winning the 2008 democratic nomination for president.
rick [email] said at 3:57 PM 03-04-2008: I presume you are joking but I will go ahead and answer this:
No, because:
1)generally campaigns are won by the better campaigner; McCain is not a good campaigner. Certainly Obama and Clinton have had their slip-ups but at the end of the day, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, they will have had to have overcome worth opponents.
McCain has not had to do that; he got the nomination because a) the Republican field this time around was weak, and b)for a while in the Fall of last year, his campaign was gasping and left for dead. This allowed him to concentrate on New Hampshire while Huckabee and Romney tore into each other and Giuliani wasted tens of millions of dollars on a bizarre primary strategy that totally failed.
All his general election opponent has to do is review the countless appearances on C-Span and elsewhere in which McCain made some impolitic and/or foolish remark.
2) McCain is not popular among Republicans. The pundits who are spurning him get attention but much more interesting to me, is how many Republican senators, like Thad Cochran, persons who would know him best, endorsed Romney, a Johnny-come-lately to both politics and the conservative movement, over McCain.
The religious right, the biggest constituency in the Republican party, dislike him (Karl Rove himself believed that Election 2000 was as close as it was in part because many social conservatives were still skeptical of Bush and so withheld support).
If McCain could still count on winning independents this might not matter but it is no longer 2000 and it is uncertain if he can do this. The main association with McCain is the Iraq War, a fiasco that over three fifths of the US consistently say was a mistake. This albatross around his neck will be compounded by the fact that he goes around talking about further wars (which also goes back to my point about his being a bad campaigner). The fact he is a Republican will likely lose him some support as well (see election results of 2006).
3) The Democrats are enthusiastic and have been turning out in droves while the Republicans seem to be showing buyer's remorse and have had rather anemic turn-outs (I have seen more than one result which showed that Clinton coming in second still got more votes than McCain who came in first; moreover, both Obama and Clinton have raised over twice as much money (138.2 and 134.5 million respectively, per FEC) as McCain (53.7 million). Indeed, McCain pulled in just a bit more than Edwards (who suspended his campaign a while back ago). People donate money to candidates they believe will win and/or they care about (which explains Ron Paul's disproportionate 32.5 million raised).
4) While both Obama and Clinton have serious flaws, they can at least call upon some core constituencies to back them and are considered to be 'historic' candidates. McCain is not really associated with any group although he has been heavily endorsed by neoconservatives like Kristol and Brooks . Neoconservatism has never been very popular and now with the current administration coming to an ignominous end, it cannot be expected to do favors for anyone.
kiche [email] said at 4:52 PM 03-04-2008: i would like to offer a counterpoint to rick's point.
i think mccain is one of the best candidates that the republicans could run.
i think he has a real shot at winning this thing.
1) mccain will promise more war
there is a large minority in america who will vote for the "war candidate". i'd put it at about 20%. this gives him a solid base. these are those good folks that you run into out in "the heartland" that will tell you that a good war will fix america, economically, morally, culturally, etc. these people are not considered far out of the mainstream. and if you sit down and do some soul searching you will probably be able to name people that you personally know who feel this way.
2) many people hear whatever they want when john mccain opens his mouth
when john mccain says that he doesn't care if we stay in iraq for one thousand years many people hear him say that we'll be out of this thing in 6 months. rick can give you a link to the statistics showing you people who want us to immediately pull out of iraq who voted for mccain in the primaries. when john mccain goes to liberty university and kisses jerry falwell's ass, many people see him as rebuking the religious right. when john mccain says that lost jobs aren't coming back, many people hear him say that he's the only man who can repair the american economy.
3) the press loves him
point: john mccain gets caught red handed in an improper relationship with a lobbyiest. it is implied that there may have even been an improper sexual relationship. now the press, who generally loves a good political sex scandal (regardless of facts) decries this sliming of st. john mccain the last honest man! this is no different from tabloid journalism! please ignore that they did this to bill clinton for 8 years and made similarly tenuous allegations against giuliani a few months back. also, the lobbying scandal is dismissed because, well; because... ummm... he's john mccain and he doesn't like doing it.
4)mccain is not popular among republicans
and republicans are not popular in america right now. he can run against his own party. it doesn't matter that he will most likely enact their agenda; perhaps more successfully than anyone else. but that doesn't matter he can make himself look like he's an outside "maverick".
5) both obama and clinton are 'historic' candidates
you're from the south. you're aware of the predjudices that many americans hold. even if they don't talk about them.
in conclusion. i'm not saying mccain will win. i'm saying he has a good shot.
also, mccain will be a horrible president. most likely worse than bush.
rick [email] said at 9:43 PM 03-04-2008: there is a large minority in america who will vote for the 'war candidate'. i'd put it at about 20%. this gives him a solid base.
I doubt there are this many and in any case, 20% is not enough to win. That is about the percentage of social conservative vote in 2000 and Bush lost the popular vote. McCain has to win independents and this time around he will have an uphill fight for them; moreover, unlike Bush, he cannot draw upon any especial personal charisma or any skilled political advisors.
when john mccain says that he doesn't care if we stay in iraq for one thousand years many people hear him say that we'll be out of this thing in 6 months. rick can give you a link to the statistics showing you people who want us to immediately pull out of iraq who voted for mccain in the primaries. when john mccain goes to liberty university and kisses jerry falwell's ass, many people see him as rebuking the religious right. when john mccain says that lost jobs aren't coming back, many people hear him say that he's the only man who can repair the american economy.
True, but this is also true to some extent of Obama; this is not true of Clinton though.
the press loves him
This is true, but the Democrats do not really need the collaboration of the main-stream press to tear down McCain; they already have countless appearances of McCain on C-Span and talk shows to do that. And this is to say nothing of scandals both political (see Keating Five) and personal (left his first wife for a wealthy heiress who he later got a reduced penalty for when she got busted for stealing medications from a charity).
and republicans are not popular in america right now. he can run against his own party. it doesn't matter that he will most likely enact their agenda; perhaps more successfully than anyone else. but that doesn't matter he can make himself look like he's an outside 'maverick'
This would be true were it not for the fact that he has vigorously campaigned for Bush and he is so closely linked to Iraq (he was one of the major defenders of the surge). It will not be hard at all to remind voters of his connections.
you're from the south. you're aware of the predjudices that many americans hold. even if they don't talk about them.
As for Clinton, sure, there is misogyny involved but as I pointed out earlier, in more than one primary, over twice as many people voted for her as for McCain. But honestly, Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate for many reasons. Before anyone blames misogyny they ought to at least acknowledge these problems.
kiche [email] said at 10:48 PM 03-04-2008: my 20% statement is about having a solid base of support. and it's pretty damn solid. and this base maybe crazy-loco-nuts but they are seen as part of mainstream america and are influential. i wouldn't discount them. also, they are successfully able to portray themselves as bipartisan.
this is also true to some extent of Obama
no, it is not. obama gives bullshit flowery political speeches in which he doesn't really say anything. all politicians do this. obama is just really damn good at it. really really damn good at it.
mccain shows up places says things which are political suicide and people swear up and down that he said the exact opposite of what he said.
the thing that disturbs me more about mccain vs obama; is that when people get dazzled by obama they get this starry eyed look and are easy to dismiss. people dazzled by mccain, however, seem to think that they're hard eyed realists. stars can get shaken out of people's eyes pretty damn fast. delusional people who think they are hard eyed realists; well... they will do a lot of damage before they wake up. if they wake up.
he is so closely linked to Iraq...
you should check out that link shelly has posted above. it's highly critical of mccain; AND IT STILL DESCRIBES HIM AS A WAR CRITIC. and it says he was critical of rumsfeld! he was one of rumsfeld's greatest defenders!
Obama consistently outdid projections based on polls prior to primary votes
among democrats. the general populace will likely be another matter...
kiche [email] said at 4:13 PM 03-05-2008: yes but, mr. powell would most likely run as a republican; this would have neutralized a lot of the racist vote. also, he would have run in 2000 and a significant amount of the population would have voted for a noncrazy republican in order to "modernize" the republican party. this was the primary force that almost gave mccain the nomination back then.
art [email] said at 10:34 PM 03-04-2008: I think he will clearly win against Obama; much closer against Clinton. Obama is still in a honeymoon phase, due much to the media kissing his ass and not doing their job.
art [email] said at 8:13 PM 03-06-2008: Now means nothing (even if the pollsters had the ability to accurately gauge the electorate even a day in advance, let alone eight months). When a dem nominee is chosen and there is a clear one-on-one, polls will matter more.
but they still won't matter a .000000000001 of an actual election
rick [email] said at 2:34 PM 03-07-2008: It's true that some people have come from behind (supposedly, at one point, Dukakis polling 17 points ahead of Bush the Elder in 1988) but this election to my mind is the Democrats' to lose (of course, if any gang can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it is the Democrats).
So, I still feel confident that regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination (so as long as it is not Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry) will win the Election. If you like we can make it double or nothing or I can put you on the same bet as that churlish wag, Brandon, in which there is one pitcher (of not especially frou-frou beer) per House of Congress and Presidency (I bet they will all stay Democratic; I even believe the Democrats are going to pick seats in one or more houses and the presidential candidate will get no less than 52% of the vote but that is not part of the bet). But I should warn you: McCain is not a good campaigner and it will not be hard to tie him to Bushco (which less than a fifth of the US approves of).
chrisx [email] said at 4:51 PM 03-04-2008: We are so screwed. Seriously, lesser of two (3,4..) evils is the best we can hope for? No matter who wins, we lose.
Think I'm a doomy naysayer?
All sarcasm aside, if any of you actually support a candidate, not as a lesser evil but because you truly believe they will make a good Prez and actually help this country, tell me why.
I really do want to know. No attacks from me, I admit I am not very informed due to the feeling that my vote is useless and the results will be faked anyway.
CONVINCE ME TO CARE.
kiche [email] said at 10:51 PM 03-04-2008: if you read my post you will see that i support hussein x because he stands for terrorism, crack cocaine and gay orgies.
how can you not want to get behind terrorism, crack cocaine and gay orgies?
chrisx [email] said at 6:24 PM 03-05-2008: I am still seriously waiting to see someone post who they support and valid reasons why I may want to as well.
We can all list reasons against each candidate, but are there really no positive things that out weigh the negative?
kiche [email] said at 7:26 PM 03-05-2008: look, chris, the above is the closest thing you will ever get from me as an endorsement of a candidate.
i see your last question, though as a philosophical one though. my answer would be that it most people "vote against" instead of "for" because it is easier to hate some one than to love some one.
although from my (admittedly biased) perspective; most people decide to become politicians are inherently unlikeable people.
