Obama figured O.J. did it

In his much-publicized and hashed-over speech on race relations last week, Barack Obama made a brief reference to the notorious O.J. Simpson murder trial, citing it as an example of the predilection to “tackle race only as spectacle.”

Less noticed was the elaboration he provided in an interview later on ABC’s “Nightline” on the question that once so divided many whites and blacks: Did Simpson butcher his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her wrong-place-wrong-time friend Ron Goldman?

“You remember when, during the O.J. trial, . . . black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it? I’m somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty,” Obama said.

FROM THE NYTimes 23 April 2008

So, do all you J&J Obama supporters also agree like the majority of whites along w/Obama that O. J. was guilty?

Not the Clintons, that’s for sure.

Everything he does, there is such a clear and bright difference in how he handles it. Including the Wright story. I am still very nervous about just how much damage the Reverend will cause Obama, due to the fact that many voters are still getting to know Obama and who he is and what he stands for. I know, sounds crazy to you guys who have been immersed in this for months and months now but trust me, here in pokey old PA he is still only what we hear in soundbites and the papers.

Most people have to work their every more tenuous jobs, raise their families, make time for all that and then perhaps get to plop down for a little bit of evening news at night.

So, for that voter, to turn on the news and hear a soundbite of “god DAMN america” ….. I’m nervous.

I want and pray for all the rest to get as much play as the Wright story and I don’t see it yet.

By way of the Chris Mathews Morning Show, rumor has it that John Edwards has decided to endorse . . . wait for it . . . Hillary Clinton!?!?!?!?

He’s supposed to do it in the coming weeks. Now, this is only a rumor (Mark Halperin is behind the story). But this just does not make sense.

Didn’t he warn us during the debates something to the effect of “When the forces of change mobilize the status quo (points to Hillary) always try to stop it.” And that was one of his nicer comments about the Clintons.

Plus, why endorse a candidate so late in the process? Especially a candidate who can’t win without using the super delegates to reverse the primary elections – that’s about as “status quo” as you can get.

Seems to me like Hillary’s engaged in just about every tactic the status quo uses to hold on to power. Isn’t that what John was supposed to be against??? Or do the means justify the ends?

I didn’t hear that. Unless what we’re really getting at is subconciously equating “white” with “american.”

Like I said in the other post. If you got beef, argue it on its proper terms. Wright’s statements were a controversy of “patriotism,” not race.

These accusations of racism are based on the fact that the IMAGE of an angry black preacher; draped in foreign african patterns; influencing an equally agitated black crowd . . . SCARES WHITE PEOPLE! Thus, people consumed in their discomfort with black aggression assume racism when it’s not there.

Like I said before, I’m not going to argue whether or not people should take offense to Wright’s comments (I see it as not being that much of a big deal, but such is life … people can agree to disagree).

However, people who are upset should at least argue on the right grounds. This is an issue of “patriotism,” (for what it’s worth) not racism.

The Democrats
Obama Wins More Delegates in Iowa, Calif.
Updated 11:33 p.m. March 15, 2008
By Peter Slevin from The Trail

CHICAGO – Sen. Barack Obama picked up nine more pledged delegates in Iowa, state Democratic officials said late Saturday night, as thousands took part in county conventions.

All but one of the delegates had been among the 14 won Jan. 3 by former senator John Edwards, who has since dropped out of the Democratic presidential race. Election-night projections showed Obama getting 16 delegates and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 15.

With the other six standing firm for Edwards at the county conventions, Obama’s camp claimed 25 delegates from Iowa to 14 for Clinton.

“This is a very significant improvement for us,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters of the Iowa result. “We both fought as hard as we could here.”

Plouffe said Obama’s gains included blue-collar counties where he had finished third in the January caucuses.

If the Iowa numbers hold at the June 14 state convention, which sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention in August, Obama will have gained more than half of the state’s delegates. On Jan. 3, he was backed by 39 percent of caucusgoers, compared with 30 percent for Edwards and 29 percent for Clinton.

The Associated Press reported late Saturday that, in final counts from California’s Feb. 5 primary, Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, and Obama added five. According to AP’s count, the Iowa and California results give Obama a national lead of 119 delegates, both pledged and superdelegates, over Clinton.

Plouffe said the Obama campaign’s numbers show that Clinton must win 65 percent of pledged delegates available in the 10 remaining contests (not counting Michigan or Florida) to overtake the Illinois senator.

“We are running out of real estate here in the contest,” Plouffe said.

He noted that the Iowa gain equaled Clinton’s nine-delegate win in Ohio — a detail designed to emphasize a campaign strategy of winning delegates everywhere it can in hopes of outpolling and outmaneuvering the Clinton troops.

Clinton suggested in New Hampshire, where she won five days after the Iowa caucuses, that the Midwestern state counted less because it chose delegates through caucuses. But the Clinton campaign, aware of the stakes as the primary season rumbles toward an end, deployed experienced field staffers to Iowa well in advance of the Saturday gatherings.

Wipe that drool off—That’s nasty!Too bad that you can’t make any more out of it! Boo Hoo! The Rezko deal is done, over with!

Throw in the “God Damn America – God Damn Whitey” remarks made by Obama’s long-time friend and his campaign’s spiritual adviser, along with Michelle Obama’s near-continuous stream of inane and insulting comments, and the Obama “change/hope/unity” bs machine is quickly coming unglued.

Okay, it wasn’t Tina Fey that responded, it was the blonde. I think her name is Amy. Maybe they didn’t collaborate.

I assumed from her response that it was part of the skit. Maybe not. It was hillarious though.

I hope it gets some airplay from MSM.

If they weren’t working together Hillary might demand an apology.

Turn about is fair play.

@ ms. martin,

I didn’t know that he and tina collaborated on that. Where did you hear that from?

I saw someone joke that they’re waiting for the Hillary camp to demand that Obama denounce and reject Tracey Morgan and have him step down from some imaginary position in the Obama campaign. Maybe Sean Hannity will do an investigative report.

The sad part . . . I wouldn’t put it past them.

I realize it was a skit they worked on together. Calling her out was part of the skit.

It was funny.

HaHa…thank you.

No one really cares about the details of the Rezko case. It’s main value is that the name “Rezko” just sounds dirty. It’s like invoking the name “Hussein” over and over – it just does not sound right.

- KXB

He called Tina Fey out. He said bitch might be the new black, but black is the new president. Bitch!

Lol!!!!!!