Obama can win the race

57 comments from readers

Cybertiger
17 January 2008 at 13:57

“The only Democratic candidate who does not totally oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques" is Clinton. She has said there may be circumstances in which special methods of interrogation might be used on the authorisation of the president. Such a position is an assault on the absolute prohibition on torture.”

Hillary understands the need to torture. However, I wonder about Obama’s stance on the death penalty. Death is of great importance to the American people – and the abolitionist stands little chance of being elected to high office. Bill Clinton understood that.

Robert Westafer
17 January 2008 at 14:03

Choosing Our Next President

In his books Barack Obama has told the story of the family into which he was born, about a father from Kenya whom he barely knew and about his young American mother who along with his father were college students in Hawaii.

By age 6 young Barack was already living in Jakarta with his mother and his Indonesian step father before abruptly moving back to Hawaii at age 10 to be raised by his maternal grandparents when his mother and her second husband divorced.

Over the years Barack Obama had bonding experiences with white and black relatives and with Asian family members amidst an understandable struggle to find his own identity. Through it all he developed a keen ability to understand and to resonate with people of various ethnic backgrounds.

Barack Obama worked his way through the racial complexities into which he was born to graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and become president of the Harvard Law Review. He served in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years and in 2004 won a 70 % landslide election to become a United States Senator. Barack Obama has had 46 years of personal experience in understanding how perceptions of ethnicity and judgments about race can divide people and he is uniquely qualified to bring a sense of unity and common purpose to all Americans.

In 1963 (when Obama was just 2 years old) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech that included the phrase of "not being judged by the color of one's skin but by the content of one's character." That speech helped prompt passage of the 1964 US Civil rights Act and the next year, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If the people of America elect Barack Obama to be their 44th President in November of this year King's dream will have become much more than just a dream.

Is Barack Obama's war position inconsistent?

Barack Obama delivered a powerful speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago October 2, 2002 against the US beginning war in Iraq while later that same month Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization to begin US military action in Iraq. Once US troops were actually in Iraq and fighting a war, of course, it would be irresponsible for Obama to be against funding the troops. The key is that Barack Obama had the judgment to see the dumbness of the war in October 2002 and clearly said so. Hillary Clinton did not.

Bill and Hillary Clinton's tactic of trying to paint Obama's war position as "a fairy tale" or as "inconsistent" is merely "Clinton politics" and clearly demonstrates why America badly needs the enormous breath of fresh air Barack Obama provides. At one time Senator Kerry from Nebraska referred to the Clinton's as "clever liars" several years before President Bill Clinton told America: "I did not have sex with that woman!" Goodbye Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hello Barack Obama.

Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War

Senator Barack Obama (D-Il), then an Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army.

He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignoranceCorruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Walau
17 January 2008 at 14:24

Wow!

I didn't know that Obama was so right!

Please send to all of us who need to know about his position and the kind of fight he saw 7 years ego and that we haven't started yet.

davide
17 January 2008 at 14:43

Barack Obama will be successful because he has such enormous appeal to the hearts and minds of people in all categories. He will not win with the staunch conservative, the radical gays, the ultra left, or the religious fundamentalist , the old guard black politician, or the extreme feminists. His broad appeal will allow him to get enough votes from every group to win the election.

Barack Obama has sound policies, great intellect, and is a very deep thinker. He has been very honest with the American people, often telling us things that we don`t want to hear. He is not as astute at the political games and schemes as his chief rival but his campaign is very nimble and quick to to address certain innuendo that is manufactured in attempts to discredit.him. Barack Obama has nothing to hide. When a reporter asked him what he thought about some extreme sentences

for some black youth involved in a fight he said something very telling.

"Today I stand with those who stand for justice in Jena. The thousands of Americans from every race and region who have descended on this small Louisiana town carry forth the legacy of all those who sat at lunch counters and took freedom rides to strike a blow against injustice wherever it may exist. When a noose hangs from a schoolyard tree in the 21st century and young men are treated in a way that is not equal nor just, it is not just an offense to the people of Jena or to the African-American community, it is an offense to the ideals we hold as Americans. I renew my call for the District Attorney to drop the excessive charges filed in this case, and I will continue my decades-long fight against injustice and division as President."

This was not about race, it was about justice.

I believe Barack Obama can overcome the generalizations and labels that people try to attach to him. It will be a true victory for the American people and the world.

davide
17 January 2008 at 14:46

Barack Obama will be successful because he has such enormous appeal to the hearts and minds of people in all categories. He will not win with the staunch conservative, the white hate groups, the radical gays, the ultra left, or the religious fundamentalist , the old guard black politician, or the extreme feminists. His broad appeal will allow him to get enough votes from every group to win the election.

Barack Obama has sound policies, great intellect, and is a very deep thinker. He has been very honest with the American people, often telling us things that we don`t want to hear. He is not as astute at the political games and schemes as his chief rival but his campaign is very nimble and quick to to address certain innuendo that is manufactured in attempts to discredit.him. Barack Obama has nothing to hide. When a reporter asked him what he thought about some extreme sentences

for some black youth involved in a fight he said something very telling.

"Today I stand with those who stand for justice in Jena. The thousands of Americans from every race and region who have descended on this small Louisiana town carry forth the legacy of all those who sat at lunch counters and took freedom rides to strike a blow against injustice wherever it may exist. When a noose hangs from a schoolyard tree in the 21st century and young men are treated in a way that is not equal nor just, it is not just an offense to the people of Jena or to the African-American community, it is an offense to the ideals we hold as Americans. I renew my call for the District Attorney to drop the excessive charges filed in this case, and I will continue my decades-long fight against injustice and division as President."

This was not about race, it was about justice.

I believe Barack Obama can overcome the generalizations and labels that people try to attach to him. When he does it will be a true victory for the American people and the world.

Richard
17 January 2008 at 14:57

It is interested to note that NBC went to court to prevent Kucinich appearing on the debate in Nevada. One on the reason for this censorship is that they are afraid that Kucinich will talk about what happen in New Hampshire. The polls were actually correct; indeed there was a fraud benefiting the so-called surprised winner. Eventually the American people will know the truth. And when that happens the propensity will clearly go toward the leader with the sound judgment not the divider. Kucinich really believe that there was a fraud. He supports this belief with hard cash, by paying for the recounts that is now in order. Kucinich believes that Barrack Obama has won the New Hampshire primary; And Hillary Clinton came in second, if the machine were accurate. Technicians who support the Diebold machine were allowed to break the security seal and to change the memory card on the machine during the Election Day under the pretense that the diebold machine broke down. There seems to be evidence that the surprise winner got a bump of +4.5% and the second candidate’s count was subtracting by 2.5%

billyh
17 January 2008 at 15:24

"Obama's most significant contribution has been his legislative battles against the death penalty, and against in the criminal justice system. In Illinois, it's been a series of shocking exonerations of innocent people who are on death row. He was involved very intimately in drafting and passing legislation that requires the video taping of police interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. And he also was one of the co-sponsors of this very comprehensive reform or the death penalty system in Illinois, which many people say may trigger the retreat on the death penalty in many other states.

Source: Salim Muwakkil and Amy Goodman, Democracy Now Jul 15, 2004"

This was found in a search for "Obama Death Penalty"

http://tinyurl.com/2xl9c7

joanhh
17 January 2008 at 15:32

I truly believe Barack Obama as President of the United States, will benefit the whole world.

ajironworks4usa
17 January 2008 at 15:36

Why did the Clinton Administration in the 1990s , not insist on provisions in the WTO Trade agreements they signed America to for over 10 years of Tariff Free Imports by Multi-National Corporation that ended in 2005 , amendments that sure could have been realized by the time Bill Clinton renewed the Agreements in 1999-2000 , that would have insisted that the Importing Corporations would pay fees to SS and Medicare Funds to the Government programs , so that in order to continue to import duty free , the duty of sustaining the loss of revenue to the SS and Medicare systems were being met , to counter the los that Out Sourcing product manufacturing has caused in overall Jobs Incomes Ratios of the way BIG BOX Stores have reduced the way in which the cash flows of supplying goods and services through a larger frame work of interaction of society participating in the delivery of the goods and services helps to spread an equal amount of the wealth throughout the society , which is in turn a larger income and therefore able to provide higher wages and tax revenues throughout the great part of Society ??

This is why I say that if the Clintons have the Experience they claim then why didn't these issues of SS and Medicare be a part of the WTO Trade policies to counter the effect of this consolidating an loss of overall wealth redistribution and revenue reimbursement to the SS and Medicare funding programs , and why now is Hillary more qualified to lead what is essentially her Husbands miss judgment in the first place ???

There is no reason for this to have happened , because the Largest Generation of Wealth from goods and services production , coupled with the greatest advancements in science and technologies has happened over the past 20-25 years , and if there ever was a time in History to have had the resources to battle the loss of funding in any area of economic systems functions , it would have been during these last 20-25 years , so where does the buck stop here is my questions , and who can we trust to lead the country forward to take care of these issues ?????

Barack Obama , the candidate for Peace and Prosperity can get the job done with Dignity and class , to restore the hope for the future of all .

Thanks for your time and have a Great day in the USA . Tony in Wickenburg, AZ

James50
17 January 2008 at 15:46

Excellent article, Helena, and there have been some very good comments in response too. It is indeed hard to fathom the depth of the racial divide in America. Americans need to stop this sickening, vicious bickering and nastiness on both sides that is tearing asunder the fabric of their society and creating this appalling air of foreboding right across the nation. If Obama is prevented from being a force for good and racial harmony, the best chance for meaningful reform that America has now, then God help that country if it chooses another dud of a president just because she hasn't got a black ancestor.

Cybertiger
17 January 2008 at 15:55

@joanhh

“I truly believe Barack Obama as President of the United States, will benefit the whole world.”

Americans will do everything to benefit themselves. The guy’s a death penalty abolitionist. Americans will never vote to benefit the world.

bobc123
17 January 2008 at 16:05

As an American, with UK heritage, I believe we need a president (and American TV reporters, for that matter) who can properly pronounce "Glasgow."

: - )

As an Obama supporter, and a Baby Boomer, I believe that he brings back so much of the idealism of our youth that we feel was stolen from us and which, if applied properly, could have made for our nation and all nations a much better world.

Sincerely,

Robert Roy Campbell

newyorknewyork
17 January 2008 at 16:29

The question above asks about Obama's stance on the death penalty. He was the one who reformed it in his state of Illinois and put a moritorium on it.

He is one America who does not 'love' death- one of the reasons I support him. He also wants to close gitmo (guatanamo bay) immediately.

Cybertiger
17 January 2008 at 16:42

"The question above asks about Obama's stance on the death penalty. He was the one who reformed it in his state of Illinois and put a moritorium on it."

I think you've been misled Mr NYNY. It was Gov George Ryan who place a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois in January 2000.

For your information: Americans will never vote for an abolitionist. Obama has no hope of becoming the next POTUS - unless he flip flops on death. I reckon Obama will become a flip flopper but will flip flop too late.

daza
17 January 2008 at 17:27

Let me first get this out of the way, Obama's death penalty stance really has no bearing on the Election. Death penalty laws are State Laws and Not Federal Laws and he is eloquent enough to give a solid answer if pressed... the point being is that it is not even on the radar as far as concerns that american people have, which makes me think that it personal to those who bring it up. Abortion however is a huge debate, but that, just like the death penalty, splits the country in half and those who are pro-life would like to see a federal law enacted. Its a bit odd though because the same people in this country (USA) who are against abortion are often the exact same people who are as equally passionate about supporting the execution of prisoners and the ability to carry a personal fire arm. The irony.

idunno
17 January 2008 at 17:29

Cybertiger: "Americans will never vote for an abolitionist".

Why not? Not even if he has excellent policies on every other issue? Is state-sanctioned execution of such primary importance to every American that you would rather see your sons die in foreign wars for oil, your poor and needy condemned to lifelong misery, your jobs exported overseas while corporations cream off ever greater profits to buy off politicians, your sick denied healthcare for want of affordable health insurance, than abolish this atavistic obsession with execution? Is execution really the sine qua non of American politics that you suggest?

bobc123: "I believe we need a president who can properly pronounce "Glasgow."

Cheer up, Bob. There are plenty of UK reporters who can't pronounce "Glasgow" either, and at least Obama might have a fighting chance of being able to find it on a map, unlike the current incumbent!

idunno
17 January 2008 at 17:32

daza: "Its a bit odd though because the same people in this country (USA) who are against abortion are often the exact same people who are as equally passionate about supporting the execution of prisoners and the ability to carry a personal fire arm. The irony."

And who said Americans can't do irony, eh? Given the unusual religiosity of the USA compared to most industrial nations, it seems your fellow citizens fervently believe in the right to life before birth and in life after death. It's just the bit in between that they seem to take such violent exception to.

daza
17 January 2008 at 17:48

idunno: a point well made!

daza
17 January 2008 at 18:27

To tie this argument back into the original article, race has to be seen as part of this equation. While African-Americans make up 12% of the general population, they make up nearly 50% of the prison population. Which can be directly related to the fact that the state of California (the state in which I reside) spends more money on the prison system than it does on education.

To dig deeper into a race as it related to this campaign. Americans, and more importantly Obama, do not want race injected into this election. The press however, loves it. Although I find it disturbing that Clinton would try to bate Obama into an argument over race, it is a brilliant political move on her behalf. She understands that any talk of race could only benefit her. It turns off white voters who like to think that we, as a country, are beyond racial divides. ANY talk of race could only hurt Obama, Thus his message is that of unity, hope, and change. To be clear, there is very little policy difference between the democratic candidates, so it comes down to who do really believe stands for change? Not about policy, but about the way we think about ourselves as a nation. Obama is winning that argument. I don't believe anyone really thinks that Clinton stands for substantial change at any level. Of course she will be much different and better than Bush (anyone in the race on both sides can say that), but she is still viewed as part of the Washington "machine" and is directly tied to special interest groups who, in the end, drive and create policy.

Celt
17 January 2008 at 20:43

Americans are not the brightest nor the most progressive bulbs in the chandelier. We are so far behind Europe, for instance, in how and why we select a leader of the country. Are we ready for a woman or a black man? No. Should we be? Yes. Will we get either one? Let's hope so....but if it happens it will be by default and not because we're an intelligent electorate.

daza
17 January 2008 at 22:06

Celt: "Americans are not the brightest nor the most progressive bulbs in the chandelier. We are so far behind Europe, for instance, in how and why we select a leader of the country. Are we ready for a woman or a black man? No. Should we be? Yes. Will we get either one? Let's hope so....but if it happens it will be by default and not because we're an intelligent electorate."

I agree that the American electorate is not comprised of the brightest bulbs. And I do believe that European nations are much more progressive in terms of social programs and international affairs however, I feel that there are racial tensions and inequality anywhere there are a fair amount of immigrants, foreign faces, and people who have been historically looked down upon, and furthermore I can't think of one European nation that is anywhere close to electing black person to lead their country. I may be wrong so please correct me if I am. A white woman (vs. a Black man) is a much easier choice to make for ANY country that is predominantly white. This will be a larger obstacle for Obama than Clinton, but he if anyone might be able to pull it off. As far as a Woman or Black President in America is concerned, we have no choice but to be ready, i think its pretty clear that both candidates are far stronger than the opposition. The republicans themselves don't even care for the choices they have. I think Americans more than anything want to get out of Bush's god-forsaken war, and republicans are not offering that as a choice.

Zrarieh
17 January 2008 at 22:24

This piece is a breadth of fresh air, coming at a time when I had planned to boycott NewStatesman. Ms. Kennedy rocks!

It's one thing to critique a candidate for President, and another to smear them. Andrew Stephen's piece was ALL SMEAR and that's a dangerous position for a reputable publication to take on a guy who handily won Iowa and came a close second in NH. Fortunately, Helena corrects some of the inaccuracies in Andrew's piece.

Kudos to real journalism. Down with Enquirer-style reporting. If I may add, there's actually meat in Obama's rhetoric. It's just that the media seems to be reporting something else. He has a universal health plan that's more realistic and more likely to pass congress, he proposed the best plan yet to wind down the war in Iraq, he proposed a $120 billion economic stimulus plan and a formidable Education plan, a comprehensive energy plan, etc, etc..

banky
17 January 2008 at 23:42

The world is fired UP! and ready to GO!

I am a 70 year old living in the hills of spokane washington, and I have never been this excited since the day Viagra was passed by the FDA. America needs a change! The world needs a change. The last generation ( Bush, Clinton etc) have been a bunch of bungling and moronic buffoons! I personally think Obama is going to be the next president of USA!

Like I said: The world is fired UP! and ready to GO!

Europhobe
18 January 2008 at 12:17

While Andrew Stephens piece had elements of being a hit piece in it, this in contrast is what we would define a "fluff piece" - come on, sure someone is able to produce some sort of middle ground nuance here? I thought that's what Obama was really all about.

PlanetStarbucks
18 January 2008 at 15:18

@Cybertiger,

"Hillary understands the need to torture".

Just to clarify, are you condoning torture or merely stipulating that Hillary believes she needs to condone torture to get into the White House?

Cybertiger
18 January 2008 at 16:27

@PSB

I don't condone torture ... period.

But Hillary ... "has said there may be circumstances in which special methods of interrogation might be used on the authorisation of the president."

Hillary understands that a president may need to resort to torture ... to protect herself and the people over whom she rules. The American people want to feel safe and protected: the president wants to protect and keep her subjects safe and cozy.

PS. I consider the execution of prisoners ... ten, twenty, thirty years after conviction ... to be torture, pure and simple. Such practice is disgusting and degenerate ... but Hillary will condone such methods as will allow her to protect her flock once she gets into the White House.

PPS. 'Closure' is that warm, cozy feeling that comes over Americans when, at last, a human being is executed in very cold blood.

Cybertiger
18 January 2008 at 18:12

@idunno

"Is execution really the sine qua non of American politics that you suggest?"

Of course, killing is fundamental. Americans are motivated purely by money .... and killing in revenge. However sweet the revenge ... it comes expensive. It has been calculated that in California the total cost of executing 13 felons since 1976 ... is a staggering $250 million per felon.

Scroll on down to California

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

And then there is Iraq ...

Cybertiger
18 January 2008 at 18:15

@daza

"Let me first get this out of the way, Obama's death penalty stance really has no bearing on the Election. Death penalty laws are State Laws and Not Federal Laws"

Buddy, you're right!

The Supreme Court of the US would seem to have the power to abolish the death penalty throughout the states. However, the SCOTUS has been steadily stuffed with right wing 'pro-life' Catholics - so abolition is a hopeless non-starter ...

But I am convinced that Americans will only ever vote for a death penalty fundamentalist.

PS. The DP would be the Achilles heel ... if Americans had not already shot off both feet in a friendly fire incident a few years back..

Harry
19 January 2008 at 09:16

"I don't condone torture ... period."

Erm, one second Cybertiger, you seem to have "flip-flopped" as you put it... Take a look at this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711120004

As you can see, I asked the question:

"Cybertiger, are you suggesting that we re-introduce capital punishment?"

And you answered:

"It is my humble opinion, that we render all hard working, fat, capitalist, tax avoiding felines, to the communist regime in China - for a bullet in the back of the head."

As I always say to you Cybertiger- you dont really have any opinions, do you? That's why you change your mind so much. Youre not too bad at stealing opinions off other people, but you seem to get into terrible intellectual knots when you try to debate, due to the fact that your opinions all come from different sources and sometimes contradict each other.

Cybertiger
19 January 2008 at 09:57

"I don't condone torture ... period."

There is a presidential exception to every rule .... and Harry, you're the precedent ....

Harry
19 January 2008 at 10:01

Just to clarify it for you Cybertiger, in case you forgot what you said before:

"I consider the execution of prisoners ... ten, twenty, thirty years after conviction ... to be torture, pure and simple. Such practice is disgusting and degenerate"

You see?

To recap, you said:

Execution=good. Torture=bad. Execution=torture. See how badly your logic falters?

I enjoy this too:

" 'Closure' is that warm, cozy feeling that comes over Americans when, at last, a human being is executed in very cold blood."

Maybe you should replace "Americans" with "me"?

idunno
19 January 2008 at 11:19

Wow, Cybertiger. I have a lot of "issues" with America - its cretinous, murderous foreign policy, its blind support for Israeli excesses, its zealous efforts to impose market-fundamentalism on the rest of the world while ensuring massive state support for its own industries through the likes of Halliburton, its tendency towards religious fundamentalism, and so on. But even I don't believe all Americans are as obsessed with violence and money as you suggest.

But you're right about the insane cost of having the death penalty in the USA (not in China where even the bullet is charged to the victim's family), so if you're also right about American greed, then that provides the ideal answer to the execution lobby: Commute all death sentences to life without parole, and save money!

Cybertiger
19 January 2008 at 11:31

"But even I don't believe all Americans are as obsessed with violence and money as you suggest."

And even I only believe that they're democratic majority obsessions in the greatest democracy that money can buy.

Cybertiger
19 January 2008 at 19:25

"Is it embarrassing being this thick?"

Americans don't do embarrassment - and neither does Harry.

PS. I would qualify that statement by saying that Americans are thick ... in the democratic majority.

frenchie
20 January 2008 at 03:51

dont understand why you let all these nutcases post stuff like this. point is that kennedy couldn't point out one single error on andrew stephens excellent article on obama. she's swooning over obama just like she once did over blair and look where that got us.

Harry
20 January 2008 at 04:18

"I would qualify that statement by saying that Americans are thick ... in the democratic majority."

Hehe ooh my word you are thick! Again, youre saying things that should be clever but arent... It doesnt quite make sense, does it Cybertiger? What do you mean by "in the democratic majority?"

To clarify Cybertiger, would you say that ALL Americans are thick? Thicker even than you?

Ahh poor old Cybertiger. An example of the failed capitalist education system. I can understand why you became a communist.

Cybertiger
20 January 2008 at 11:11

Helena Kennedy’s book ‘JustLaw’, stares down from my bookshelf. Perhaps she is aware of Ken Richey, recently returned to Scotland from a 20-year stint on death row Ohio. American justice stinks. Americans do torture - this was a case of torture, pure and American simple.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7169731.stm

http://www.sallyclark.org.uk/

In the UK, the case of Sally Clark was justice gone stark staring bonkers. UK justice is a complete disgrace. The UK and US are torturing buddies – and the very special relationship will go on, business as usual, when President Obama comes to power.

Harry
20 January 2008 at 11:29

Yes but one second-arent you pro-capital punishment in some cases? And as you said before that capital punishment is the same as torture, isnt torture ok too? Why dont you spell it out- when is capital punishment (assuming it could be made cheaper) ok, and when is it not? What offenses should result in capital punishment? Or do you not have an opinion on this yet?

And do try to keep the gibberish to a minimum Cybertiger- youre not fooling anyone. Im pleased to hear that you can read-its just a shame that you havent learnt how to form your own opinions yet.

Cybertiger
20 January 2008 at 17:32

@Harry

"Yes but one second-arent you pro-capital punishment in some cases? "

I am an abolitionist - but would make you an exception to the abolition rule.

Cybertiger
20 January 2008 at 21:54

@Harry

“Why dont you spell it out- when is capital punishment (assuming it could be made cheaper) ok, and when is it not?”

Only very stupid Americans (the majority) think that the death penalty can be fixed. Only very gullible Americans (the rest) imagine that capital punishment will be ever abolished.

Mr Fnortner
21 January 2008 at 03:50

Cybertiger the troll needs to be left alone. As George Bernard Shaw once observed, and I need to repeat this as a word to the wise, never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig loves it.

Harry
21 January 2008 at 05:03

"Cybertiger the troll needs to be left alone."

Youre right My Fnortner. Unfortuately, he's like a scab that I cant stop picking...

Cybertiger, lets look at this sentence, as I enjoy it.

"Only very stupid Americans (the majority) think that the death penalty can be fixed. Only very gullible Americans (the rest) imagine that capital punishment will be ever abolished."

Id like you to clarify something for me. You say that all americans are either very stupid, or very gullible. Please tell me which of the following are/were very stupid, and which are/were very gullible:

Samuel King Allison

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

JFK

Martin Luther King

Bill Gates

Matt Groening

Philip Warren Anderson

Go ahead- put them into categories.

Cybertiger
21 January 2008 at 10:18

“Youre right My Fnortner. Unfortuately, he's like a scab that I cant stop picking... “

Harry, with all this talk of picking scabs and such, you’re putting off the punters – except the stupid and gullible American, that is. Of course, Mr. Fnortner, the proud American, is the pretentious pustule who can’t stop festering – trol la, trol la …

Cybertiger
21 January 2008 at 13:09

"You say that all americans are either very stupid, or very gullible. Please tell me which of the following are/were very stupid, and which are/were very gullible:

Samuel King Allison, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, JFK, Martin Luther King, Bill Gates, Matt Groening, Philip Warren Anderson"

They’re called double standards and hypocrisies – exceptions to the rule of American justice. Have you never heard of American exceptionalism? Americans are the true kings (and queens) of exception. However, I suspect a number of these fellows suffer/suffered from severe superiority complexities and should rightly have been hung/be hanged for their exceptionally treasonable gullibilities.

PS. I’d never even heard of three of the above exceptionables.

PPS. With some justification and in my humble opinion, there is another exception to the American rule on stupidity – and that is Johnny Depp. Have you heard of him? Did you see him as JM Barrie in ‘Finding Neverland’? Brilliant! Oddly, his surname means ‘idiot’ in German.

Harry
22 January 2008 at 03:38

Let me just clarify two things Cybertiger... You think that Martin Luther King should have been hung? Please explain why.

And explain why Bill Gates should be hung while youre at it...

Oh and Matt Groening.

Another thing I want you to clarify: You say "...exceptionally treasonable gullibilities."

Please explain what this means, as it doesnt actually make sense. Youre again trying to use longer than necessary words to cover up your lack of intelligence.

Cybertiger
22 January 2008 at 07:46

“With some justification and in my humble opinion, there is another exception to the American rule on stupidity – and that is Johnny Depp. …. Oddly, his surname means ‘idiot’ in German.”

He may be a son of the idiot nation but Johnny Depp is not stupid. In 2003, while criticising the war on Iraq, Depp dismissed America as “a dumb puppy that has big teeth.”

And while there is talk of these puppy dogs of war – just hear the silence from Mr Fnortner, a proud patriot of that idiot nation. Mr Fnortner does not feed the troll or other wild critters with big teeth – lest they bite the hand that feeds them … creating a nasty mess with lots of blood.

Cybertiger
22 January 2008 at 07:50

@Harry

"Another thing I want you to clarify: You say "...exceptionally treasonable gullibilities." Please explain what this means, as it doesnt actually make sense."

Not being vaguely stupid or gullible is very un-American - and therefore treasonable. The penalty for treason is being hung ... out to dry. Comprenez, Harry?

Harry
22 January 2008 at 08:58

Oh yes I understand perfectly. But with all the gibberish about johnny depp, you seem to have glossed over one important point: that, putting the gibberish together, you believe that Martin Luther King should be hung for "not being gullable enough", because, bizarrely, American's are gullible, so he isnt being American enough. Am I correct about this?!

A simple yes or no would be enough.

Cybertiger
22 January 2008 at 10:24

"... putting the gibberish together, you believe that Martin Luther King should be hung for "not being gullable enough", because, bizarrely, American's are gullible, so he isnt being American enough."

I accept that Martin Luther King is an exception to the American rules on stupidity and gullibility ... for thus being so treasonable ... was probably the reason for his ultimately being assassinated.

Harry
22 January 2008 at 12:33

Oh I see! What a surprise! Cybertiger making an idiot of himself and changing his mind again. How unexpected! Again, an opinion that you had which... Erm... On closer inspection turned out to be wrong. So first, you decided that instead of believing that "all Americans are bad", in fact what you think is that "sometimes Americans are bad". And instead of thinking "Im against capital punishment PERIOD", what you now think is, "Like all other people who are pro capital punishment, I agree with capital punishment for people who I personally disagree with". In fact, all in all, you havent really said anything here which you havent decided very soon after is totally wrong. You see how easy it is for me to humiliate you, Cybertiger? I can make you talk yourself into a corner with such ease, and I can make you change your simple mind about anything with just a few posts. Youre no more than a brainless tool who simply follows what others say, are you?

Give up! Dont bother trying anymore. Youre a real idiot and everyone can see it. When people read your posts, they laugh and think what an idiot you are. Give up and do something else, like yahoo chat, you unemployably stupid moron. No wonder youre so against the system- youre completely useless to it. Why would anyone employ you except to do what no one else would be stupid enough to do, like what youre doing now? You worthless idiot.

And with that, Cybertiger, Ill leave you. Ive cut you up enough for one day, and wont check back for your moronic reply. But I will come and make fun of you again next time you post- and again, Ill show that your opinions will change with just a few humiliating questions. If you want to avoid that, moron, dont post here anymore- youre not intelligent enough. Until I reduce you next time.

Cybertiger
22 January 2008 at 13:11

Beethoven wrote too many notes just as Harry writes too many words. Sleep well Harry - in the far away land of the setting sun.

frenchie
23 January 2008 at 03:26

if helena kennedy really is a lawyer as somebody said she is she should be disqualified immediately because just about every single one of her facts her wrong. she is as sloppy and ignorant as they come anc clearly hasn't a clue about obama and his friends or america. why oh why you should print such sloppy garbage i dont know.

Jane Greene
23 January 2008 at 09:59

Frenchie, asserting someone is sloppy and ignorant does not make them so. Can you demonstrate that Kennedy's facts are wrong or are you simply another American propagandist this time for the Clinton camp? In our liberal democracy, disagreeing with someone's perspective is not enough to deny them the right to practise their chosen profession.

Cybertiger
23 January 2008 at 12:39

@Frenchie

"if helena kennedy really is a lawyer as somebody said she is she should be disqualified immediately because just about every single one of her facts her wrong."

The Baroness is an interesting lady - both a Catholic and one time Communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Kennedy,_Baroness_Kenned...

I've always wondered what the Baroness thinks of those Catholic clowns who breathe in the rarified air at the top of the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) ... and their vile death penalty predilections.

"... sloppy and ignorant ... garbage ..."

Are you perchance an Amerikan lawyer?

Ganpat Ram
31 January 2008 at 13:34

I very much hope the American people will use their heads and not be stampeded by all the unthinking, hysterical voices at home and abroad who are braying at them to vote for this slick, empty demagogue, Obama.

The Republican Right are not irrational in their hatred of the Clintons - they know that the Clintons are the mose dangerous enemies the Republicans have faced since Franklin Roosevelt.

It was OBAMA, not Hillary, who brought race into the South Carolina primary election: Obama DELIBERATELY twisted Clinton's brief and unexceptionable recognition that President Johnson had contributed much by legislating against racism to imply that Hillary was denigrating Martin Luther King's contribution....!! Absurd, and nauseatingly hypocritical.

Obama is as sullen about criticism as an African dictator.

Bill Clinton presided over the best economy the US enjoyed for a long time, and I devoutly hope the American electorate will remember this and vote for Hillary.

Braying "CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE" without telling us all the time WHAT the changes are is an act of arrant demagoguery that can trap only fools.

HILLARY FOR 2008 !!!!!!

Carl Jones
05 March 2008 at 20:37

Print this out and eat it.

Riaz Ahmad
16 April 2008 at 23:03

Hillary Clinton believes torture has a place in certian special circumstances, then others by the very same reasoning can claim that terror has its place in exceptional cercumstances, nuclear poliferation likewise has a place in exceptional cercumstances. If we are to believe in such rediculous and bogus arguments, we will be opening several nasty cans of worms, we will be making this already dangerous world far more dangerous. Politicians who foresake universally recognised principles for the sake of politics and vested national interest ought to be exposed as hipocrites and an insult to democracy.