Jack & Jill Politics

Here’s something new:

One of Obama’s Earmarks Went to Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama

In the list of earmarks Obama requested, $1 Million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She’s vice president of community affairs.

“In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.”

Looks like that raise was worth it.

When a candidate is discovered to belong to a club or organization that discriminates against women or minorities, he has to leave the club or the campaign. He doesn’t get to say that he disagrees with this policy or that rule and stay in the membership. Senator Obama’s church leadership has expressed very controversial positions, and he stayed a member through all those sermons on politics. Isn’t that like remaining a member of a whites-only golf club?

I have no idea what Pastor Wright’s theology is, but his politics are very radical, and they are legitimately an issue for the Obama campaign.

Wright’s sermons are full of political positions that, if held by Senator Obama, will have an impact on the policies that President Obama.

I hate to admit it, but Obama is done. He’s being gang raped by every major politician in Pennsylvania in order that they can deliver the state to Hillary by a 25 point landslide.

And it’s going to work.

White voters will turn against Obama because all this discussion of race makes them queasy. Obama kept race out of this campaign because he knew better.

But Ferraro and Clinton have injected it because they also know better.

And it’s working.

The media is working hard to exalt Hillary.

It’s working.

Hillary’s poll numbers are increasing across the board.

I always knew Obama would be lynched before this was all said and done, but I had no idea who would be leading the lynching party.

Turns out Hillary Nixon had the rope in her handbag the entire time.

You are right, Craig. Obama is not trying to make anyone afraid to vote for a White person! That would be ludicrous! And he isn’t trying to make anyone afraid to vote for a woman. For God’s sake, his wife is a strong woman! The one and ONLY problem here is RACE!

craig hickman,

Respectfully, I gotta disagree with ya on this one. Hillary needs more than a blowout in PA to catch up.

A big win in PA ain’t gonna do it for Clinton.

She’s down by over 700,000 popular votes and counting. Rumor has it that this number could get even higher when they tally the popular votes from the caucus states.

Plus Obama still looks strong in places like NC and OR.

She’s got an insurmountable deficit in pledged delegates.

She’s already lost the race for states.

The only way she gets this is through media spin, the super delegates, and deafening silence from us, the people.

Now, I know that this is possible. The Democrats could reverse the will of the people. But that would be political suicide.

Seriously, say goodbye to an entire generation of voters ages 18-30. Say goodbye to the black vote. Give liberal, “latte-sipping” voters an excuse to vote for Nader.

How does she win Ohio without the black vote in Cleveland and Cincinnati? How does she win PA without the black vote in Philadelphia? The list goes on and on.

Plus, the only real reason to choose Hillary over Barack would be out of some sense of loyalty to the Clinton name. Her big state myth has been debunked by numerous sources. Obama does better than her in head-to-head contests with McCain. Obama’s expanding the party while Hillary’s negatives are just as high (if not higher) than her positives. Forget a glass ceiling . . . Hillary’s got a cement ceiling and it’s due, in large part, to her divisive tactics.

She can spin all she wants. But a logical, sober look at the math says she’s a weaker candidate than Obama.

So, should the super delegates give her the nomination because she’s a “Clinton?” Tell that to those Democrats on the down ticket in red states. They ain’t voting for her. Like Bill did in ’94, she risks losing Congress to the Republicans by 2010. Try passing universal health care when that happens.

Obama is far from done. In fact, I think he’s in a very strong position. And when we get out of the spin zone, he’s as strong as he’s ever been.

Plus, do-overs in Florida look like a dead issue because the state Dems just shot down the idea of a mail-in vote.

Bottom line. Hillary needs more than PA and she doesn’t have enough states left to get the job done.

Tweety called Obama

” Ellis Island Black” today.

Sometimes, he just cracks me up.

I’ll continue my Twilight Zone moments…

WTF

do I have to listen to BLACK REPUBLICAN WOMEN-
Amy Holmes
Michelle Bernard

DEFEND BARACK OBAMA?

Please Explain this to me.

WHY
WHY
WHY

This just gets more bizarre by the moment. They disagree with Obama on the ISSUES, and state such, but DEFENDING Obama’s candidacy and what it means, and just poking holes in Billary with a brutality that could be written here at JJP.

All the while I’m subjected to the likes of Tubbs-Jones, shinning and grinning for Hillpatine.

Thank you, Terrence, for not embarrassing yourself further by continuing to lie about Senator Obama, Michelle, or the campaign supposedly calling anyone racist or acting in any way other than promoting unity/tolerance. At least you know when you are caught to change your refrain.

As far as excuses, you seem to have many but no proof of your original aspersions against the Obama campaign. Voters are free to do and say as they please but don’t try to convolute voters as equivalent to Senator Obama or his campaign.

I thought your first post was an ignorant and cheap move but I won’t falsely attribute your actions and errors to the Clintons (or the McCains if that’s your preference) nor their campaign because to do so would be the height of disingenuousness and flaming stupidity.

OOO

I think b-serious and Christian Liberal both have some great points. I’m for Obama inviting Hannity into his church. My concern is that it doesn’t really matter what Obama does for conservatives–they want to take him down. Hannity will visit the church and spin the story to further support his argument about Rev. Wright, and by de facto, Obama.

It shouldn’t be this week, but soon, I think Rev. Wright should resign from Obama’s campaign. I think it’s wrong and sad that he must resign, but we have all acknowledged that the same rules do apply to Obama. If Clinton has leftist, radical black clergy in the tank, it will actually give her street cred (“look at her hanging out with Rev. X. She can’t be racist”). McCain can have people like Hagee and Parsley endorse him and that only shores up his base. Obama gains nothing by keeping Rev. Wright on his campaign—but he has everything to lose.

Now I’m not saying Obama should leave his church, particularly since Rev. Wright is retiring. I’m saying he needs to remove some of the ammo that the Repugs and the Clintons are using against him. Clinton will come out in a few weeks and say she’s let go of all the people who were divisive in her campaign and Obama needs to do the same. He can’t respond in kind by bringing up her radical clergy supporters because people will say he’s petty like Clinton, or that he claimed he would rise above politics as usual, and noew he’s engaging in the same behavior. Do we really need this leading up to Pennsylvania?

Obama is so close to the White House, do we want to see him lose this thing because Fixed News painted him as a black radical Muslo-christian or Clinton accuse him of not practicing what he preaches (I don’t think many of you understand how big this Ferraro thing is. There are a lot of white folks who feel that a feminist icon has been wronged. They have pinned this on Obama even though it was Ferraro’s big mouth that got her in this situation)?

Terrance:

Unlike many on this page, I am not educated; however, I am not so ignorant or void of self pride that I could actually support Hillary Clinton. I also don’t understand how you or any human being with character could either. My lack of support for her and support for Mr. Obama has nothing to do with race and everything to do with choosing a leader with leadership qualities. It seems to me that Clinton only desires to lead angry, middle-aged white women;low-income, uneducated white men; and, Latinos. She figured she could spare a group as small as AAs especially when she could use them to bring so many others on board. She has continually sought certain groups out as a base and tends to play on their emotions. Playing the gender card for her is laughable. Especially when she plays mind games and appeals to weak emotions in the way that a conniving man would to conquer a woman. Poor Hillary. She’s sumpin like a p-i-m-p.

There is a very clear and apparent initiative to gain as many white votes as she can leading up to the Pennsylvania primary at any cost and to the detriment of many educated, intelligent, and capable African Americans. Her campaign has single-handedly started a national conversation about whether successful AAs are deserving of their status.

I won’t bother debating the obvious problems with the crack cocaine/powder cocaine sentencing differences, I’ll just ask you why he’s apologizing. for it now.

I will tell you though that he was banking on folks with mindsets such as yours who wouldn’t question the disparity. Afterall, who in their right mind would argue in defense of a criminal.

Let me preface this by saying that I haven’t seen any of Rev. Wright’s sermons in their ENTIRETY. Please note the word ENTIRETY. And I would presume this is the case for those who are criticizing this man.

With that said, I caught Morning Joe this morning and they showed excerpts from two of Rev. Wright’s speeches, and quite frankly I think the MSM is making a big deal out of nothing.

Do you know how many people of all races, creeds and religions have said that our foreign policy is the catalyst behind terrorism? PLENTY.

Also, what is wrong with him saying that Hillary was never called the N word and that she’s accepted because she comes from a white, priviledged background?

Of course, you can imagine what Joe and the other Howdy Doody looking white dude said about Rev. Wright. They made it look like he was Hitler, even going as far as warning parents to have their children leave the room because the clip of Wright they were about to play was soooo hateful.

But here’s what was really interesting: Mica said that she questioned why this has been brought up when Obama addressed Wright’s controversial sermons over a year ago. Joe’s response: “Well, a lot of people, like myself, didn’t think he had a chance of getting this far”.

Talk about exposing yourself, huh?

WOW!! He NAILED this!! I couldn’t have voiced this any better myself. He should’ve included the Bob Johnson incident as well (one of the first nails in the coffin). But nonetheless, it was on the money. WOW!

Terrence, you forgot to mention why the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor. They were strategically attacked by Americans cutting off food and supplies, you’re damn straight they were going to attack and it wasn’t a “sneak attack”, the attack was used to justify the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Nothing in the world is enough to convince me that killing over 20,000 people (not to mention the aftereffects of having cancer, birth defects, and psychological damage) and raping women, children and men is justified because they killed 2,112 US service men. Those people’s lives weren’t more valuable than the people of Japan. I refuse this argument because it’s operating from a framework that does not contextualize exactly what was happening at that time in history.

So you’re right they fought, but it wasn’t just some attack out of no where. And if that same attack happened on American soil, and American people were killed by bombs, their cities destroyed, their bodies poisoned I doubt you’d be in such a position to say it was justified.

War is hell, but look at who that hell has been enacted against time and time again when the US is at the helm. Japan joining with the Germans was a strategic maneuver.. one that given the circumstances they felt they had to make, they were wrong to make. But what we did in Japan and have done in other countries is just as wrong and there’s nothing that has remotely happened on American soil that could justify that… if that’s the case then let’s keep those wars going and never let them die and have everyone we’ve reeked military havoc on come back and reek it on us and see how you like that argument.

We should not agree with the oppression of others, just because it benefits us. (Though Japan did bounce back fairly well.. and they are certainly not victims.. but what America did was an aggressive attack against them that the aftermath of the attack doesn’t at all support.)

LOL! Whatever.

I find it very interesting and appalling, quite frankly, that you apparently think that it was okay for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor killing thousands under the circumstance they did, but America was wrong to retaliate. Who are you, Michelle Obama? A deacon at Obama’s church? Come on now.

Yes, the loss of innocent lives and the lasting effects of wars are unfortunate, but it is preposterous, I think, to condone Japanese actions, but condemn the ultimate American response to Japanese aggression. It is not logical.

Furthermore, initially I never actually “justified” the action taken by the U.S., I simply offered that there was a cause and effect as to why America “Enola Gayed” the Japanese, which Rev. Wright omitted.

While aggression can be unpleasant, sometimes it is necessary. Nonetheless as I’ve said, war is hell.