I disagree with Manish’s assessment; I actually thought Obama gave a very good speech on Tuesday. I do see the limitations: the tone and delivery was much more restrained than Obama’s earlier big speeches, so it’s not likely to bring him a new wave of supporters where he could use them most (i.e., here in Pennsylvania). But a soft and dispassionate tone was probably essential, as his primary goal was to distance himself from the unrestrained, over-the-top anger of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
In contrast to Manish, I do feel that Obama did address the segments of American society who are not black or white, when he mentioned immigrants:
That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.
Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. (link)
The rhetorical move here is intriguing — he starts by acknowledging the resentment of working- and middle-class whites (which is itself significant; it’s perhaps the first time I’ve seen a Democrat say anything like this). But in the final paragraph, he moves to include immigrants, and in some sense suggests that the resentment of whites might also overlap with the resentment of immigrants about things like affirmative action. (Certainly, I know many South Asians — and Asians, more generally — who are deeply opposed to Affirmative Action, so this rings true.)
A second reference to immigrants comes later in the speech:
But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.
But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
This time, the reference is more purely sentimental: he’s talking about our shared experience of striving and struggle. But his choice of examples here is really telling as it reveals who he’s trying to reach: middle-class whites and immigrants.
In short, while this is primarily a speech about relations between blacks and whites, Obama does inject a “third” position into the mix, which might refer to Latinos, Asians, or other immigrants.
Thanks Sona. It’s definitely fascinating to watch this presidential campaign from here. I don’t think any British politician would be elected Prime Minister at John McCain’s age. Almost 72 years old is incredibly old.
His speech was good, but white people in small towns won’t accept this. Obama has too much baggage coming in with him. His minister may not be aiding him in the white house (if he wins the election, which I doubt), but his wife will be at his side. His wife will be the major problem come in October. Remember this lady is a very privileged lady who grew up on the south side of Chicago, and going to Princeton & Harvard Law School. And what has she said lately? She NOW feels proud to be an American after Obama has been winning elections. Oh yea, I forgot, she’s been telling people in the inner city that they should stay in their hoodlums. They shouldn’t be going to college, and rising up in society (she said this during the Ohio and Texas Primaries). I can’t see how middle class people in this country is asking for when they will vote for Obama. He can speak well, but he has too many skeletons in his closet. Plus, who really wants to see Michelle representing the U.S. I’d rather see Clinton.
And after that ‘wonderfully nuanced’ speech, he says the ‘typical white person’ is racist.
Oh well, it’s nice to have him self-destruct, but I wish he’d done this earlier so the more competent person would’ve won in time and we could all turn off the political news and go home.
His minister may not be aiding him in the white house (if he wins the election, which I doubt), but his wife will be at his side. His wife will be the major problem come in October. Remember this lady is a very privileged lady who grew up on the south side of Chicago, and going to Princeton & Harvard Law School. And what has she said lately? She NOW feels proud to be an American after Obama has been winning elections.
I think if ‘problematic spouses’ is amongt the criteria for selection, Hillary gets eliminated without a doubt. Michelle Obama might be ‘privileged’ but she’s still a black woman who’s faced discrimination. I dont understand why white people shriek in horror at any kind of insinuation that other races might experience different realities than their own, and make more nuanced statements than “I love America, YAHOO!”
As for the reverend wright comments. The gist of nearly everything he says is completely true. Even MLK has said “America is the greatest purveyor of violence” again, this doesn’t make the 3rd grade understanding of him that most white (and even non-white) adults in this country have. There’s no disputing that, the question is the delivery. I think Obama repudiates him or condemns the absolutist nature of what he says, but makes an effort to let people understand where such fiery delivery and incendiary speech comes from. Wright isn’t running for president, or any kind of political office. He has no need to balance, and choose positions and words careful so as to not offend certain sections of the demographics.
Honestly, id rather have Obama as the nominee, and if he wins, great, the country is better off, if he gets blown out by McCain, just reaffirms the role of white supremacy/privilege in this country.
54 · HMF said
Questioning or even discussing the subjectivity of white people (something that the media and white people do on a daily basis to others) does cause them great distress. Generalizations about minority communities are made on a daily basis by the news and others, but questions about a “white community” are almost always met with offense and claims of racism.
It appears my arguments have fallen on deaf ears… Wright’s comments were inspired by the arguments of a white man, former ambassador Edward Peck.
It amazes me how people can just be so ignorant about the difference experiences an African American goes through compared to almost every other group in America.
Michelle Obama’s statement. “What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I’ve seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it’s made me proud.” http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html
Then people talk about, she went to an Ivy League school, etc etc. Like that makes life completley smooth for an African American.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123024
Then there’s the anger over Wright’s statements. Nevermind that the full context has now surfaced on youtube. But even within those snippets, what was so completely incorrect about the clips played? “The gov’t invented HIV” is probably the only one. Yet the media pundits act like they don’t understand why an eighty year old man could possibly say something like that. After Tuskegee and Reagan’s attitude about Aids. It’s wrong but, please understand somewhat. For that I give Huckabee credit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ
Also. Unless I heard Obama’s statements wrong. Or he said something different on Fox and CNN. Obama didn’t say last Friday that he NEVER heard ANY controversial comments from Wright. He said he hadn’t heard THOSE particular speeches/comments that are aired non stop on a loop–at the time they were given.
Because my URLs weren’t hyperlinked.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123024
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ
Well, you don’t have to reject or denounce after watching this new youtube video
i think it was a wonderful speech. it is not obligatory that every speech include the sprinkling of laotians, dominicans, innuits and others. the overall message was black/white tensions, and i think he nailed it there.
why? if you are a dbd, substitute caste for race and how i wish some indian politician said what he did! the same themes occur in india—on the one hand is a group that has been genuinely victimized, and on the other there is a group which legitimately believes that they are paying for something they never did in the first place. of course, throw in the usual dose of real racists and real casteists on the two sides and you have a pretty accurate picture of the whole story. And if someone wants to treat this malaise inclusively rather than pander to one side or another, that someone is a step ahead of everyone else.
Successful Repub candidates have been known to talk about “state’s rights” and we all know what that’s about. Wright’s views may be off, but I can understand how his life experiences would lead him to think that way. What traumas did Pat Robertson & Falwell suffer that lead them to blame 9/11 on secularists & libertines ? This is a view that is shared by a large number of white evangelical conservatives, I’m not sure how controversial Obama’s association with Wright should be given this metric. I say this as an occassional Republican voter
So, what would damn a Republican candidate from political life?
Soliciting gay sex while voting against gay rights? Cheating on your wife with hookers while advocating abstinence-only education and sanctity of marriage? Pandering to anti-semite/anti-catholic/anti-homosexual/anti-liberal evangelicals? Violating all manner of laws while funding an illegal war while peddling crack cocaine in the US, and then claiming amnesia to defend oneself? Lying to the country and leading it into a disastrous war? (take your picks here)
Surprisingly, bribery scandals seem to have worked in the most recent past, but I am more in the market for slander and generally drumming people out using the kangaroo court of public perception.
I am genuinely interested, so your helpful suggestions are very welcome.
Not really. He is as curmudgeonly and confused (yes, the foreign policy expert!) as somebody thrice his age and he managed to secure the nom, so he can’t go much further downhill from here.
If he does get elected president, I look forward to JohnnyMac yelling at foreign dignitaries visiting the White House to get orffa his lawn.
A pair of feminists weigh in on why Hillary Clinton cannot give the same speech on gender as Sen Obama was able to about race.
Also, a Republican southern governor and presidential candidate makes far more nuanced sense of Obama and Reverend Wright than we in our comfortable immigrant experience ever will. Mind you, this is not coming from a wishy washy feel goody, liberal.
How many here have talked to their African American friends and colleagues about what goes on in their churches on Sunday and how they view Wright’s sermons and Obama’s speech? It may be worth trying to have that conversation rather than automatically buying into the sound bites about sedition and treachery.
as you might gather from my name, I don’t think much of what’s running for the greatest office in the world, so now for something entirely different–I really shouldn’t but I just can’t help it….. Hillary’s gay and Obama’s gay–well, bi. McCain is straight but hey, he’s 72 so who cares. The press is giving it all a pass for now, till we see who THEY decide should win: ex-pres Clinton’s better half (gasp); the empty-suit (come on, imagine him non-black) with the whiny Ivy Leaguer wife with the 6 digit income talkin’ about her discrimination woes; or the psycho reptilian from Tucson. I think it’s been decided. Michelle Obama is wearing her hair like Jackie and Obama has been endowed with a JFK aura that hardly goes skin deep, so to speak. I just wish he could crack jokes like Jack, lighten up a bit. He may be dreamin’ of dad, but he also comes from a long line of white loonies stretching back to colonial Massachusetts; but maybe this drama queen knows what he’s doing–I think this whole campaign is a sitcom nightmare. While this creepy quartet whine and dine and pick their noxious scabs, thousands of americans and Iraquis and god knows who else are being torn to smithereens by wars none of us really voted for.
State’s right is a completely different argument than having enclaves of black or White nation state. To give moral equivalence to the two argument is laughable. I also notice a tired theme of justifying one wrong by pointing out another wrong, and in this case its not even analogous as what Wright did on pulpit was three days after the tragedy. That’s not the extent of his ‘loonines.’ He also blames the US government of AID virus, and distributing drugs to blacks in black neighborhoods.
Obama built his platform on being a unifier of races and that platform sounds hollow with the utterings of those closest to him.. His time as a state senator and US senate have been essentially accomplishment free. As far as analyzing his speech, this Op-Ed piece in Washington times does it better than I could.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html?nav=hcmodule
41 · NYC Akshay said
Here is an interesting profile of Wright’s controversial Trinity church in a recent Newsweek article – Trying Times for Trinity
65 · Vic said
Black and white enclaves? Oh, man…
That article was completely devoid of substance, and based on the same misinterpretations that most frightened conservatives attach to his speech. For example, the author suggests that “Wright claim[s] that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 — “chickens coming home to roost”, when if you actually watch the entire video clip, he never states that America was “morally responsible” for 9/11.
What Wright did was suggest that 9/11 was not a random attack, but was connected to past foreign policy and operations (of an unjustified variety), which, shockingly enough, isn’t at all illogical. Hence, Wright is angry with the government (not the America as a nation, as the author spins it).
The author also claims that “This contextual analysis of Wright’s venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is” an attempt to instill white guilt. Obviously, there is no evidence whatsoever for this aside from the author’s opinion, since Obama also addressed the fears and anger of white communities in his speech. Additionally, the author pretends it has nothing to do with actual history! A black man who grew up in a racist, legally segregated, pre-civil rights America cannot trace his perceived anger over race issues to that background? Yet the author lets Harry Truman off the hook for expressing prejudices “of his time”, “in private”….The author essentially says that racism is less immoral if you keep it private, which, to be blunt, is moronic.
The author was someone who obviously did not view the longer video clips, but relied on the soundbytes like most easily-satisfied individuals who found exactly what they were looking for in those 15 seconds, rather than doing some real investigation. Ultimately, he’s another white person incapable of understanding the vast rift between his experience and that of an elderly black man, not to mention the nuances of racial dynamics in modern America.
“His time as a state senator and US senate have been essentially accomplishment free.” — Have you bothered looking at legislation he sponsored in Illinois and in the Senate? Off the top of my head, they include ethics reform, and health care initatives in Illinois, the Coburn-Obama transparency act in the Senate, and the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Act (an eminently sensible, and important thing for the US to be working on as far as threat reduction goes) on the foreign-policy front.
Obama’s platform was and is, far more than unifying on race, it’s about unifying across the various fractures in contemporary society towards the common good. Well, that’s the feel-good part of it. On a more down-to-earth level it’s about more transparency in government (see his career and related acts in this regard), a less monarchical view of the presidency (he taught constitutional law, and has delivered remarks on this), a more sensible foreign policy and then the standard bread and butter democrat issues.
It was, I must say, fascinating to watch the reaction of many conservatives right after the speech — it was positive! Even Gingrich and Buchanan! And then, suddenly, within a few hours and days they realized they’d strayed from the party line, and are now not acknowledging it for what it is: pretty honest. He’s a politician, but he said things in that speech that were incredibly risky politically, but speak to at least a significant part of the contemporary experience of race in America; he ain’t no saint, but he’s decent, and seems, (perhaps foolishly? I hope not), to think he can be fortright and still win. That’s not something to denigrate.
It’s not illogical, but hopelessly reductionist. What about all the Islamic terrorist attacks that happen outside of the united states? What about all the other motivating factors? What about their underlying philosophy? I suppose after Waco and Ruby Ridge we could say that the chickens came home to roost in Oklahoma City. But what would be missing from that argument?
I’m sure Amit Varma is more than aware of how racism intersects with protectionism, anti-globalization, an anti-capitalism. But we know Barack and Hillary don’t really mean it, its just their version of a visit to Bob Jones University.
Rahul, this one is for you. I hope it grates. Service, ace in my book. I await your let, which is an apt metaphor for Hillary.
I would say vote for Huckabee ! It doesn’t get loonier than that !
Discussions on politics, whether it is amongst family or a forum have a same ending… People shouting at each other. Minds are made up. The majority of undecided are uninvolved to the extent that they do not visit political forums. Pat Buchanan’s blog has an interesting view.
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=969
It’s not illogical, but hopelessly reductionist. What about all the Islamic terrorist attacks that happen outside of the united states?
No one is saying it’s exclusive. however the US doesn’t have to make it so stinkin’ easy for radical islamists to convert moderates in their own country.
It is interesting that Vic #65 provided the link to neo-con Charles Krauthammer’s article in which he hammers Obama and his hateful, angry pastor.
MJ Rosenberg of the Israeli Policy Forum, writing in the TPM Cafe sheds some light on the nature of Krauthammer’s own conservative Jewish congregation. There is plenty of hate flying around there too – occasionally from Krauthammer himself. But that “hate” is in lock step with our own foreign policy, hence not an eyebrow is raised.
So, it is not hate speech itself by religious figures which is the problem (happens all the time) but rather, whether they are spewing “state sanctioned” hate.
69 · Manju said
I am not defending the depth of the political analysis, merely arguing against the misinterpretation that has been imposed on that soundbyte; the ones that see Reverend Wright as claiming 9/11 was justified, or that America was completely “morally responsible” for it.
That being said, did you watch the longer videos? He did mention that it was a footnote to his sermon, and that he was paraphrasing that former ambassador the whole time. While he did not address the specifics of the politics behind 9/11 (you mention terror attacks abroad, but I think that’s not necessary to the scope of his discussion and main point), I think his point was clearly that violence begets more violence. I do not believe, as has been suggested, that he was arguing that Hiroshima or Nagasaki have anything to do with 9/11, as his speech did not indicate that, despite its other problems, and I have seen Wright speak in other contexts (in no way is he so simplistic and ignorant a thinker.)
76 · NYC Akshay said
You do realize that anything that’s said will be taken out of context. This guy said that the government invented AIDS to plague the black community, praised Farrakhan, and visited Muammar el-Qaddafi (the radical leader from Libya). The fact that this priest has said wacked up things, and supported radical ideology, Obama is screwed. Yes, some of the things I agree are taken out of context, but a lot of white people won’t accept that. A man of great intellect should have known to leave that congregation (especially a guy who was running for politics). He should have known better.
77 · Rahul S said
I’m not particularly interested in Obama’s relation to this Reverend. Still, it will be interesting to see just how this continues to affect him.
I agree that Wright has espoused some less backed opinions, such as those on the origin of HIV. Most everything else, however, is gross misinterpretation. For example, you mention him “praising Farrakhan” and meeting with Gaddafi. He travelled to Libya and Syria with Farrakhan as part of a peace mission, and in doing so, helped free an American prisoner. His church did give an award to Farrakhan, but his own involvement in that is questionable. Regardless, the Rev. has also made it clear in the past that he does not endorse Farrakhan’s more extreme and militant views, and that he does not endorse Gaddafi.
Ultimately, the HIV comment is the only truly unreasonable thing that can be attached to him, which is why I am so adamantly defending him here. It’s a real shame to see the predatory media and politicians defame him in such a manner, especially when many of those politicians hold far more objectionable views themselves. It is also somewhat saddening (though obviously predictable) to see Obama condemn some of those misinterpreted comments, thus making them seem all the more real.
Rahul S #52 is the same Rahul S #77?
79 · dilettante said
Yes.
79 · dilettante said
Yes.
79 · dilettante said
Actually the last paragraph is mine. I didn’t know how to use the quote function then.
78 · NYC Akshay said
Okay. But let’s look at it realistically. Conservative democrats and ignorant white people watch FOX news and read conservative blogs. The media is going to continue to eat up Obama, just as it had done this week. Plus, the media is going to eat up Michelle Obama who told black people a few weeks back (during the Texas & Ohio primaries) to stay in the ghetto and not go to college. I mean, do we want a first lady to tell black people this kind of garbage? Plus, look at Obama’s foreign policy resume. Absolutely nothing. Clinton has Bill at her side, while McCain has been around forever. Do we need Obama? Yes, but right now isn’t the time. He should come back to Chi town, fix my state up, and then run in 2012 or 2016 against our brown buddy Jindal.
Rahul S= Rahul #30 and #34?
.
Got a link?
Ok I found this at #71’s favorite site link
from your friend at
83
I feel a bit let down if this is what you are referring to as garbage. All is fair… laters
85 · dilettante said
Wait, wait. Telling blacks that corporate America is wrong to go into? What about the aspiring black entrepreneur who wants to bring jobs to the black community? The salaries respond by going into the public sector? Last time I checked, salaries in the public sector are quite low (only 5-10% make money like the Obamas).
Vic, That was a good piece by Buchanan, that says it well about black America. I doubt that anyone else here will read it since Buchanan is hated on this blog.
He did say, understanding the roots of anger is important. Or else we have the widening of the chasm of misunderstanding between races. He could have said a widening of the chasm of misunderstanding between “blacks and whites.” It’s left to an individual’s interpretation as to whether “races” included only blacks and whites, or also Hispanics, Asians, etc. Anyway, this speech was to distance himself from his pastor’s ideology and not to include or exclude a particular race. Laju K. http://lajuk.blogspot.com
The Ludwig von Mises Insitute, in the link gives some of the background demo’s of the group she was speaking to.[Ohio] “There’s not a lot of money in Zanesville. Nearly a quarter of the Ohio town’s population, 22.4 percent, is living below the poverty line, including 32.3 percent of those under 18 years of age….That’s nearly double the national poverty rate, officially reported by the Census Bureau last August as 12.3 percent overall, nationwide, and 17.4 percent for those under 18”
You know Rahul, as I like to point out at times, race does equate to class in America. However black people are able to see the differences amongst ourselves and others. Maybe she would have said the same thing to a chapter of “jack and jill“, maybe she would have adjusted her message to their different reality. Maybe she, was patronizing the Ohio audience and should have told them all to aim for Ivy leagues schools and jobs with Goldman Sachs, just not on a structured products desk at the moment. I don’t know.
What I do know is that telling someone to work for their community, is not the equivalent of your words; they should stay in their hoodlums.
Prehaps something about their Church’s ‘self help’ ideology was evident in her words; black flight,running away from “our hoodlums” in imitation of white flight has compounded the problem in the inner city.
The “aspiring black entrepreneur” is probably able to decide what is applicable to him/her and what isn’t- no matter if a black person is advising them or not.
von Mises, the hard core Libertarian site,comes out in supportof Clinton,on this piece, Interesting times.
At any rate she’s not running for office,I just don’t see her comments on this as “garbage”- that’s me being rational. You ought to try it 😉
Rajesh, Vic and Mr. Wright “should get on your knees and thank God that you are an American!”
87 · Rajesh Harricharan said
I read it, and it was a complete waste of time; as usual, Buchanan spews hatred and ignorance, giving a horrible name to the Republican party. Do you truly accept that the article “says it well about black america”?
Do you seriously believe that white Americans are the “Silent Majority”? Or that black-on-white crime rates are much higher than white-on-black because blacks are more racist, and not because of the actual population numbers/dynamics and poverty rates? Or that “no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans”? Do you seriously believe that Affirmative Action is defined by black people taking positions over qualified whites, even though it is statistically proven that women are the group to have benefited most from it? Or believe that black people “owe gratitude” to white people?
Buchanan is a racist, and if you share all of the views above with him, then I think you’ve some serious learning to do when it comes to “black America”.
I forgot to add Buchanan’s best quote from that article:
“First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.”
Black people should be glad they were enslaved, because look where it got them!
92 · NYC Akshay said
only he didn’t say they should be glad to be enslaved, but it feels like he did. the words can be parsed and contextualized to make the quote ok, but the music is still off-key. and you know i’m not just talking about buchanan.
Rahul:
Dishonest and contemptuous. She has been telling people in inner cities to choose the service sector (teachers, nurses, social workers etc) over the money-making corporate sector. Which in her judgement is what that community needs more of. Obama walked that walk. Here is a man who had the very best education that America has to offer and instead of embracing greed and chasing the dollar he chose to dedicate himself to service to a backward community in America which he wholeheartedly adopted as his own. That makes him a far nobler man than your kind who think that money is the be all and end all of life.
BTW, its interesting in a pitiful way to watch desi immigrants expressing contempt for the ghettos in America. You know full well that the worst ghettos in America look like paradise compared to the neighborhoods that almost all indian immigrants to America grew up in. They have running water, reliable electricity, stocked refrigerators, indoor flush toilets, reliable transportation and so on. The denizens look well fed, even too well fed. They are well clothed. Have far better healthcare etc etc.
Again the dishonesty. She was recommending the service sector. Nursing for example isnt considered the public sector. And it pays a solid middle-class wage and is a more stable occupation than working the cubicles in a corporation. Granted, for some people selfish greed will always trump service and community.
So, I’ve been swamped with work and haven’t had a chance to read this thread but I just visited and saw a recent spate of comments as “Rahul”. That is not me. I made some comments up to comment #34 yesterday, and then made comments 61 and 62 last night. None of the other comments was made by me.
The comments by this commenter express a profoundly distorted view of my actual opinions. However, I can no more disown him than I can disown the wide community of Rahuls. I can no more disown him than I can disown my own father – a man who helped raised me, a man who sacrificed again and again for me, a man who loves me as much as he loves anything in this world, but a man who once confessed how mad the sight of me sometimes makes him, and who on more than one occasion has has uttered opinions about my general worth that have made me cringe.
Anyhoo, “Rahul S” (who seems to be the same person who is using the moniker “Rahul” too), I am no Madonna, so I only request that you pick a different handle since I have been using the handle for the past many months. Sorry if I am being divisive.
SM Intern, could you change the handle especially on comments 80, 83, and 86 since I didn’t make them (which you can possibly verify with your IP records).
I know we have had our differences but I was quite sure that Rahul in #80,#83 and #86 was not you and I was going to post something to that effect but you beat me to it. These posts have none of your characteristic if somewhat snarky sense of humor. Looks like you have become quite the sensation and an inspiration to the Obama non-supporters, they may use your name but cannot emulate your style.
I am so glad you stood up to the community of Rahuls, it must have been difficult and gut wrenching.
94 · Vyasa said
Tru Dat. But maybe that’s why we cringe when we here yet another “liberation” theology.
Well I did have my doubts- Yogi’s right; that other Rahul had your bad taste, but not your style. cheers!
But Rahul’s anti-obama rhetoric has enabled more divisive anti-obama Rahuls. The chickens have come home to roost.
Stick to your “bootstrap theology treatise” Manju
Happy Easter eggs to all!