Well, didn't we all expect the democrats to start fussing amongst themselves? I mean the campaign just started way to soon to stay positive. Besides, campaign promises have to be vague enough to not actually be a breech of promise if elected. There isn't an American politician that is really going to make a straight out policy statement or regimented plan for the office in which they are campaigning. So why did they start so soon, when they had no plans to keep discussing? All of the democrats are telling us part of a health care plan, but certainly not enough about one, to truly be sure what to expect. Of course, there is the Iraq war to discuss, but we all know, truly nobody, right or left, red or blue, has a solution without potentially negative ramifications. Now that I mention red and blue, let's talk black and white. Oprah is going to stump for Obama. Oprah is a middle aged successful woman, that spends a great deal of time espousing the concept that girls can be successful in what has been a traditionally man's world, so why aren't the "girl-friends" sticking together? Why isn't Oprah stumping for Hillary? Did Oprah have the most difficult choice to make in regard to all of her statements? Whom to support, the first woman president or the first black president? I guess we can all see what Oprah has decided. America can wait a bit longer for a female president, no matter how much Bill is loved by African-Americans. Bottom line is Hillary is not Bill and she's not black.
Jesse Jackson really put his foot in his mouth today. I was reading a political ticker and he has also come out in great support of Obama, but is disappointed that the democrats are not addressing a major issue among blacks, which is poverty. Then Jesse went on to mention the fact that John Edwards is addressing poverty and has made it a key plank in his platform. So Jesse Jackson, why are you not supporting John Edwards? If he's the candidate that is addressing the issue that is near and dear to your heart, why would you not support him? Is it simply because he is wealthy and white? Surely not . . .
When something or someone is promoted due to race, even when the color issue is reversed, isn't it still racism?
Are ye not then partial in yourselves . . . New Testament
This site considers topics in the news, from an independent, a-political view.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(209)
-
▼
November
(18)
- No NAIS
- Petersons in the News
- Condi's Tea Party . . . a.k.a.
- Isn't It Still Racism?
- Politicizing Someone's Pain
- What If . . .
- The Shades of Perspective
- Things I Just Don't Understand in America . . .
- More Math . . .
- What Is It They Say About Learning from History?
- Contributing Factors of Road Rage
- Harrying Headlines
- The Justification of Martial Law
- "They" Say the Economy Will be Slowing . . .
- Statistically Speaking, a Group of 50 Men and 50 W...
- Let's Talk About Torture
- The Powers Behind The Powers That Be
- It's Time to Wake Up!
-
▼
November
(18)
No comments:
Post a Comment