News

I hope this all comes to light in time - Obama isn't flawless and the Republicans will magnify every one of his many weaknesses.

Comment by RancherMD — February 27, 2008 @ 06:07PM

I feel pressure to vote with the raging activists who are so fired up about Obama (and every other new cause they can champion)- but I also WANT to believe he is the real deal. I can't get beyond feeling that he is trying to dupe me...that I am a rung in his political ladder. I asked a group of very liberal men and women about this at lunch - 4 of 5 said they were switching from Obama to Clinton for similar reasons. I think people are starting to get it, but this article is a great confirmation. Thank you.

Comment by James — February 27, 2008 @ 06:48PM

As a former supporter, I trusted him when he said he was different -- just words??

Comment by Marilyn — February 27, 2008 @ 07:01PM

I'm not going to say I outright doubt the validity of this story. A wise person once said there are 3 sides to every story and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But what I am most skeptical about is the timing of this story. You have had almost a year to come forward w/this information. Why would you wait until a week before he could get the nomination to share it?

If the true aim of journalism is "to shine the light and let the people find their way," why would you allow the American people to be bamboozled for so long, journalist? If I had a story that would blow his campaign wide open, I'd have released long before now. If this had been released back when he was faltering in his debates or barely showing up in the polls, he'd be a dead duck.

But considering that you didn't record any of your interviews with him, it probably took you a while to remember exactly what he said, right? I understand. Right in time for the Texas primary. Makes perfect sense to me.

Comment by Call me a skeptic — February 27, 2008 @ 08:33PM

I also agree with the above post regarding the timing of this piece. If we are to take your article as the gospel according to you, it would appear that the opportunist you seek to reveal is yourself.

It read to me as a kind of one-sided type of journalism - and, it seems, a personal anecdote. I thought "journalism" was a field in which the reporter is not really supposed to let his or her voice through - but after reading this, I couldn't help but get the feeling that you were a little bitter that you never got further than, well, The Dallas Observer.

I will say this: You do not give enough credit by half to Senator Obama. This city will show you on March 4th, however, the credit he deserves. It will be a refreshing break from the bitter divides that you have attempted to create.

Comment by Shawn DeFrance — February 28, 2008 @ 07:54AM

This piece was so hard to read that I lost track a couple of times. If you are trying to get a point across, why not just get to the point.

Comment by Effie — February 28, 2008 @ 07:55AM

This piece was so easy to read that I never lost track. You did a great job of getting your point across.

Comment by Matt Minyard — February 28, 2008 @ 10:30AM

This story doesn't have the air of intentional smear job to me. Obama and his campaign have only themselves to blame for setting the expectations of him so high. As many of regular 'ol citizens have long suspected, Obama is neither saint nor empty suit, but just a regular politician. The type every campaigning politician claims to want to rid the whole country of. Whatever.

Comment by AGhost — February 28, 2008 @ 11:26AM

So the point of this article is that Obama isn't didn't stand up for random events in the black community and a black politican got him into the Senate? Oh, and he yelled at you for a unflattering article. Ok, now what? Does that disqualify him from being president? Does that make him less of a man? Please show me one politican who got where they were by their so called boot straps? Obama is a politican trying to get elected and if this is all you (the media, the Clintons, the Republicans) got, then I'm sticking with him.

Comment by tiwnkee1999 — February 28, 2008 @ 04:06PM

As I read this story I kept waiting for Mr. Spivak to get to his point. He starts out by saying that Mr. Obama calls him up and yells at him for writing what he believed to be unfair. At the end of the article he reveals that what Mr. Obama was upset about was his claim that he "talk[ed] jive." This seems like a reasonble complaint from an African-American trying to be taken seriously in politics. The title of the article is misleading, what "drama"? The big black column wih white text that appear in the center of the print article that reads, "Obama can't bring those issues up if he wants to be elected. And that's the travesty of the situation." This is also very misleading. That quote goes on to say "...that we find ourseles in as African-Americans," refering to Mr. Obama turning down an invite to attend the State of the Black Union Tavis Smiley hosted (21). Again this seem perfectly reasonable for someone who is trying to be more than the "black candidate." Mr. Spivak says, "After all, I admired the guy - and I still do," (25). This after he tries to blame Obama for the closing of his favorite bar, or his inability to save everybody in Illinois. There were other State Senators. I have to agree with whomever said it before me that the timing of this article is highly suspicious, especially with the misleading title and quotes. For a cover story of this low calliber the Observer seems to have been reaching for anything they could throw at the Senator and only came up with hot air.

Comment by DGFletcher — February 28, 2008 @ 04:26PM

Who's grand idea was it to distribute this as journalism? All over dallas, with a red eyed Obama on the cover, days before the primary. Visuals aside however, this whole piece came off as whiny. Like a disgruntled journalist who missed out on his chance to be in the inner circle, because he associated speeches from a black candidate with 'jive'.

And the best that could be come up with is not rallying to every 'black cause' in the state, or quotes from bitter politicians who admit they are upset solely because he is taking the spotlight from them.

Comment by K Woolley — February 28, 2008 @ 06:10PM

This is one of the most insightful articles I have read on the Senator.

Thanks......


www.yabbadabbahubbado.com

Comment by Jason Lizard — February 28, 2008 @ 06:44PM

What’s flawed about the 2008 Presidential Election?
I first voted for a President in 1980. Many have voted more; many less. So, in almost 30 years of following politics, how come no one has noticed the line between liberal and conservative has moved.
As we have had non-issues of inconsequence foisted upon us by the main stream media, the line has slowly been moving to the left. While Congress debates steroid use by a pro athlete, I’m told gas will hit $4.00 a gallon. While states vote time and time again for immigration control and the sanctity of marriage, judges and district attorneys rewrite or twist laws to suit their contributors.
These issues play right into the hands of the liberal movement. Whether it’s wolves in Montana, gay rights or any of the myriad of red herrings Congress and the media throw at us, we are becoming distracted by the lack of facts and the lack of leadership in our government.
Let’s face it. Facts have nothing to do with politicians getting reelected. Politicians do what they need to do to get reelected. The squeakiest wheel has been special interests. While we have been making a living, liberals have thrown their little black hearts and damned souls into THEIR issues.
In order to get reelected, politicians have had to move left to raise funds for their campaigns. They can’t decide on major issues, because that would dry up their source of funds.
I could care less what a politician says during a campaign. I know they are going to tell me what they think I want to hear. Anyone with a brain over 40 knows this. Look at their record that will tell you all you need to know about a candidate.
This is why we have McCain and Obama or another Clinton as our leading candidates for our next president. For conservatives, this is not a chose. All three are socialist/fascist and we don’t care for any of them.
Now, whoever gets elected, the line will move even further to the left and mainstream American, you and I, will be left holding less money, more political correctness and less integrity in our government.
That’s OK, I guess the price of gas, crime and the war in Iraq are less important.

Comment by Jerry Freeman — February 28, 2008 @ 08:48PM

You've got to be kidding me. This journalist seems to be trying really hard to dig up dirt but comes up with nothing. If you think any politician doesn't have to work behind the scenes, you're nuts. All those legislators in Illinois who dislike Obama are what they call "playa haters". If the African American community wants to advance, they should stop "hating" when an African American gets ahead in life. Get a life y'all.

Comment by JC — February 28, 2008 @ 09:15PM

Spivak strikes again. You should be ashamed for printing this crap.

This was a crummy hack job in 2004 when he traded on his "relationship" with Obama and scrounged a few grumbles from Chicago hacks who felt Obama had jumped ahead of the line.

A few things the Mr. Spivak evidently forgot to mention.

Obama's signature ethics reform bill was passed in 1998 and the Earned Income Tax Credit in 2000, under Republican controlled legislatures.

Obama chaired the Health and Human services committee in 2003-2004 which accounts for his sponsorship of most of the legislation passed in those years.

The work that Obama did to secure the video interrogation bill against vehement opposition is well documented. Hendon's claim that he took the ball to the 1 yard line is risible.

The story about Obama gaining his senate seat by legal technicality, challenging nominating petitions and so betraying his mentor Alice Palmer completely distorts the story. Obama was encouraged to run by Palmer who was herself running in a special election for US Congress. Days before the filing deadline (in December) and just a few months before the primary which would surely be determinative in his Democratic district, she lost the special and decided to reclaim her state senate seat. Obama refused to step aside and she was unable to gather sufficient valid signatures to get on the ballot. Challenging nominating petitions is standard procedure in Illinois politics and while Obama has indicated he regrets having displaced a distinguished progressive politician, he was certainly entitled to pursue a race he had invested so much in already.

Finally when Spivak gathered all those nasty comments about Obama he was the dark horse in a three way race for the US Senate nomination, and most of the Illinois machine was working for his opponents (namely Dan Hynes son of long time Chicago alderman and self funding millionaire Hull). Nearly all of the folks named are now outspoken advocates and supporters (but they're still hacks).

Comment by David Richardson — February 28, 2008 @ 09:57PM

I am very interested in this story as it gives much needed insight into the real Barack Obama. Nobody really knows who he is, and a lot of people are starting to realize that they may in fact have been duped by him. Obama is a very cunning, divisive character when you see the underside of the "hope" he preaches about all the time. He is certainly detrimental to the democratic party in the long run. No one person can bring transformational change to the White House. Obama is betting that people don't know this simple truth. The best any president can do is work hard and fight for the good of the people of this country.

Obama promises a lot, and will no doubt be unable to deliver. Should he win, his promises of hope and change will not materialize, and the electorate will turn on him. Obama's buddy, Deval Patrick, ran for governor of Massachusetts with the exact same campaign of 'hope and change.' Deval won and has been a disaster for Mass. because he had no experience and didn't change a thing. The people of Mass. were fooled once, and that's why they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary in the primary. Obama would fair no better than his friend Deval. Hillary is the real deal and will work her heart out for all Americans. There is still time.

Comment by Henna — February 28, 2008 @ 10:05PM

this isn't even a comment on the article. it's a response to one of these comments. i am so sick & tired of so-called "conservatives" grouping socialism & fascism together when they are polar opposites. socialism is a movement that suggests that all people are equal and wealth should be owned by the community. fascism is about the individual being less than the state. it's typically characterized by "patriotism", militarism & or anti-communism. sounds remarkably similar today's republican party to me.

Comment by Oh Please — February 28, 2008 @ 10:17PM

I liked this... mostly because it was a personal account of a journalist and literally his "drama" with the candidate. It was a guy, smoking cigarrettes with a homeless person, living in a room barely big enough for his bed, taking some role in history. Maybe not a history the world will know, but his own. It wasn't just a political piece, or just a opinion piece, it was a personal piece.
Also, it's nice to know that will all the hype Obama is getting from his " I'm going to change America" speeches, that some people are still aware of the possibility that they are just words. I hope they are not, for this country and my own's sake.. but so far.. just words.
Good luck on your writing endevors and can't wait to see what you write again.

Comment by flora — February 28, 2008 @ 10:46PM

You have made a very subtle attempt to induce negative reaction towards Obama. However, anyone with basic common sense and logic will see that you have an axe to grind. Considering that Obama is a politician, none of what you have written has any tarnishing effect on him. Add to this your less than fair motive, and your article is not worth being used as a yardstick to adopt a negative attitude towards Obama. On the other hand, it shows that Obama, at least from what you have written, is fairly clean.

Comment by PZ — February 28, 2008 @ 10:49PM

Great, great story. Finally we get a glimpse behind the halo, and get to see a bit of the real man. Because make no mistake, Obama is a real man, not the Messiah. When I see one candidate, a woman who has been dragged through pure hell, and has come out the other side--still standing tall, still sticking to her principles, making no weak-kneed apologies for her mistakes, I'm impressed. When I see a candidate I know nothing about, who comes out of nowhere speaking of hope and change (and little else), I'm just....suspicious. Unconvinced.

With Hillary I know the good and the bad. I believe the net result is that she'll get us to where we want to go. Like Tina Fey said on SNL: Bitches get stuff done. I don't want to find out what I don't know about Obama after he's President. Our country cannot afford that.

Let him work as a senator, and run again in 4, or 8 years. Let us get to know and trust him.

Comment by Julie — February 28, 2008 @ 11:22PM

"Savage Love: Readers' Advice on Trannies, Facilitiating Threesomes and Tongue Length" in the same issue with this supposed "expose" of Obama, tells me all I need to know about the quality of the reporting at the Dallas Observer. Evocatively written but incredibly biased piece of personalized fluff more reminiscent of a Facebook blog than investigative journalism.

Comment by lalou — February 29, 2008 @ 10:37AM

I can give you another paper with another article regarding how he got where he is: go to PennRepublican.com and see. totally different area reporting. i am not a democrat and have no plans to vote dem unless it is mccain/clinton. i think people mainly need to know about the people they support. thanks

Comment by TJS — February 29, 2008 @ 11:16AM

unity and change. that what the man's promising. imo, he's the most divisive candidate out there. if you look at this from a policy point of view, do you really believe republicans, even moderate ones are gonna come around to the pro-choice, pro-same sex union, anti-war stance? i'm a very liberal democrat who laughs at the idea of red states and blue states turning magically into something purple. unity SOUNDS great. it ain't gonna happen. and the way obamatons are treating the hillary supporters, you get your bottom dollar that a significant majority of hillary voters will drift to mccain. you know why? if you look at his policies, he's not a bad guy. he's been a POW for 5 years. he's got experience, which regardless of what people say, matters. would you hire a babysitter for your precious children with no references, a history of drug abuse, and no experience in child development? if you would, then don't blame your husband who was weary of the babysitter in the first place, when the kid burns his hands on the stove. and change? both hillary and obama are promising the same exact things. most of these issues and ideas obama stole from clinton platform. HILLARY is the BEST candidate for the job. she's worked hard her entire life, she's faced significant challenges, was at ground zero comforting families, firefighters and cops after 9/11. she's an intelligent person with massive foreign policy experience. she won't be spending the first two years of her presidency meeting world leaders;she already knows them. she can defeat mccain. she is battletested. you don't think the republicans are saving up all the dirt they've uncovered on obama for the general election? they've got a lot to work with already: tony rezko, his ties to iraqi government officials, his flip-flopping views on NAFTA, and the list continues to grow. VOTE HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2008

Comment by sooj — February 29, 2008 @ 12:36PM

Wonderful mix of recollection and original reporting, Stuart. It lends valuable insight both into Obama's record and the nature of small-time newspapers where most journalists get their start.

Comment by Chris Lloyd — February 29, 2008 @ 02:26PM

Apologies, I meant Todd.

Comment by Chris Lloyd — February 29, 2008 @ 02:30PM

If this is all you got on Obama then you are going to have to dig a little deeper. While reading the article, I kept skimming through the pages hoping to find the "aha" moment... hoping that you would get to the point already, but you didn't. I wanted to be sure I was voting for the best candidate and not purely based on "how I feel." Obama is clearly the best candidate. Concerning Hilary Clinton...personally, if your own household is not in order how can you run for president? If family values are such an issue to you, why stay married to an unfaithful husband who has disrespected you and your family time and time again just to fulfill your dreams of being president... lying to the American people. The point is no candidate is clean but I would rather vote for the lesser of two evils.

Comment by Elizabeth — February 29, 2008 @ 03:31PM

Show me a squeaky clean politician & I'll show you a miracle. Sen. Obama didn't get to where he is by playing nice nice. Politics is a nasty game. My vote usually comes down to the lesser of the evils. There has never been a politician in the history of this country who has delivered on everything they've promised. I'm sure there's a reporter with the same type of negative information on Sen. Clinton. On Sen. McCain. On Mike Huckabee. Everyone has skeletons. Surely we're not surprised that Sen. Obama has "haters". Hell, I've got haters & I'm a nobody. One thing I do know, whomever our next president is, it's going to be hard to do worse than what the current administration has done. At least Obama & Hillary are exuding hope. Currently we have despair. I don't claim any party. It's only another divisive force in our society. But face it Republicans, you guys have flat screwed this thing up. Let's give another party a chance.

Comment by Dee Tee Gee — February 29, 2008 @ 04:13PM

Great article. I support Obama. It was interesting to hear details of his rise to power. I also like the writer's approach. I'm surprised by the opinions in the comments. There is nothing really critical of Obama here. If anything, you get to see his human side.

Comment by Mike — February 29, 2008 @ 04:22PM

I'm surprised that you expected to get a reply through a candidate's website when it's barraged with traffic ranging in the hundred-thousands+ every day. ANYONE who writes to that info email will get the same reply. You came off as a generally sharp journalist, so I can't believe that you thought that was the best way to get through. I also wondered if you told the aides in your emails/calls exactly what this article was about that you wanted an interview for. It seems that saying you didn't hear from them is a lame way to allege that Obama had nothing to say about this time of his life. You took a chunk out of your credibility with that closing for sure.

Comment by Luci — February 29, 2008 @ 04:31PM

Wow, I knew I wasn't a fan of Obama. So many people are acting like the three monkeys. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. But evil still exists!

Comment by Tangie Collins — February 29, 2008 @ 05:17PM

I am not surprised to get this genuine look into Obama's psyche.
I can't think of a single issue that Obama hasn't reversed his opinion about as he PANDERS for every vote. Why else wouldn't he actually show up to vote against the Iran initiative he claimed to be against? Why else would he vote "present" so many times? Why else could he not hit the right button in the Illinois Senate SIX times?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
He is trying to manipulate every part of his record; unfortunately, by neglecting to have any convictions on any issues, he has set a record of his own.

VOTE HILLARY 2008!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Barbara King — February 29, 2008 @ 05:59PM

It was definitely an interesting read, but toward the end, I started getting the feeling that this journalist is more than just a little peeved at Obama's success and his own self-perceived insignificance. Now, I don't plan on voting for Obama. I support McCain, but this article is the most sorry attempt at dragging up dirt -- while aiming to appear fair -- that I have ever read. What did Obama do to you?? He yelled at you?? Awww. Obama was probably upset (rightly) because the article's lede sucked. "It's painful to hear and Ivy graduate talk jive." Wow. Is that even objective?? Everything else in this particular article just seems like an account of African Americans who are bitter at Obama's success and feel overshadowed by him. Pathetic. Did anyone every think that maybe Jones chose Obama to carry legislation because he knew he was brilliant and charismatic enough to actually get it passed?? Of course not. There must be some "dark side" to him. NOT! He's actually a kind, smart person. Get over it everyone. No dirt, and this is coming from a McCain supporter. But again, why should I care. If people actually fall for your attempts, then my candidate will have a better chance. P.S. Hillary will never win. As a Republican I would love for her to get the nomination, but it won't happen.

Comment by Suzanne — February 29, 2008 @ 06:48PM

People can see thru, the comments here are a lesson for those who try to influence the electorate with inuendo and shallow anecdotes. Lets not be naive, any candidate who has his/her eyes on the White House must have a big ego, no exceptions. Because this is what it takes to achieve this goal, it takes a competitive spirit. So, I am not surprised that Obama shares this very human qualities of common to all politicians. We just hope that beyond his political ambitions, the man shows integrity and good judgement.

Comment by David — February 29, 2008 @ 09:32PM

"....Concerning Hilary Clinton...personally, if your own household is not in order how can you run for president? If family values are such an issue to you...." Comment by Elizabeth


What do you want to bet that Elizabeth voted for Ronald Reagan (whose own children barely spoke to him while he was President). She probably supported Giuliani (too many family issues to list here)??

Comment by Julie — February 29, 2008 @ 10:17PM

I enjoyed a peak into the early years of Obama. I feels as if there was a media block on Obama. To me he seems to strong arm anyone who speaks out against him. NO different then the Mafia in that regard. Threats are threats. I am outraged by his backing from Farrakhan whom Seems to have a close relationship from the belonging to the same church for so many years. It does NOT matter that he is rejecting, Farrakhans endorsement. Now its in the news that Obama has a friendship with Bill Ayers one time Underground Weatherman rebel who bombed NYC Police Headquarters and others in the 70's. Ayers states his one regret is that he did NOT bomb more places. Ayers has contributed to Obama's campaign fund.

These video's take a minute to watch but tell us plenty about Obama.
1- Click here: You Tube - Obama Communist Flag In Office!
2- Click here: You Tube - Obama and the National Anthem
3- Click here: Media Matters - Hannity guest on Obama's church: Its "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like
4- Click here- Trinity United Church of Christ

IF Obama holds Cuba's Flag with Che Guevar on it, closer to his heart than our American Flag, than he is NOT fit to be our President, Senator, Police Officer, or to hold any other Govt. Job.

Comment by Caren — March 1, 2008 @ 01:55AM

I enjoyed a peak into the early years of Obama. I feels as if there was a media block on Obama. To me he seems to strong arm anyone who speaks out against him. NO different then the Mafia in that regard. Threats are threats. I am outraged by his backing from Farrakhan whom Seems to have a close relationship from the belonging to the same church for so many years. It does NOT matter that he is rejecting, Farrakhans endorsement. Now its in the news that Obama has a friendship with Bill Ayers one time Underground Weatherman rebel who bombed NYC Police Headquarters and others in the 70's. Ayers states his one regret is that he did NOT bomb more places. Ayers has contributed to Obama's campaign fund.

These video's take a minute to watch but tell us plenty about Obama.
1- Click here: You Tube - Obama Communist Flag In Office!
2- Click here: You Tube - Obama and the National Anthem
3- Click here: Media Matters - Hannity guest on Obama's church: Its "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like
4- Click here- Trinity United Church of Christ

IF Obama holds Cuba's Flag with Che Guevar on it, closer to his heart than our American Flag, than he is NOT fit to be our President, Senator, Police Officer, or to hold any other Govt. Job.

Comment by Caren — March 1, 2008 @ 01:55AM

Don't be hood winked. Vote for Hillary if you want a democratic president for the people. Obama stands no chance to win in November since the states of Florida and Michigan voted for Hillary. They will switch to McCain, especially after Obama bad mouthed them. He cannot win without them. The most people actually back Hillary.

Comment by john — March 1, 2008 @ 09:22AM

Thank you for being one of few media who find relevant ANY piece of Obama's pre-Senate life. I took a look at Obama's voting record in Illinois at the site www.obamacopy.com, and it was pretty scary what he chose NOT to take a stand on. Thank you, thank you!

Comment by Truth — March 1, 2008 @ 06:22PM

Thank you for being one of few media who find relevant ANY piece of Obama's pre-Senate life. I took a look at Obama's voting record in Illinois at the site www.obamacopy.com, and it was pretty scary what he chose NOT to take a stand on. Thank you, thank you!

Comment by Truth — March 1, 2008 @ 06:23PM

IF THIS IS ALL YOU CAN DIG UP (NOT THAT I BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF NO AUDIO NO VIDEO AND I AM NOT THAT STUPID) THEN I FEEL REAL GOOD THAT THE REPUBLICAN HAS NOTHING.

LETS TALK ABOUT SOMETHING SUBSTANTIATIVE EXAMPLE HOW EXCELLENT AN ORGANISER, ADMINISTRATOR HE TURNS OUT TO BE. HE HAS CREATED A NEW POLITICAL DISCOURSE, ARENA AND AGENDA. OUT CLASSED HILLARY. IF HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT IS A JUDGE. HE IS THE ONE.

CHOOSE WISELY. VOTE FOR THE MAN. BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA 08.

Comment by maxy samy — March 1, 2008 @ 11:09PM

What makes this story the least believable is that there is absolutely nothing concrete that can tie the story to OBAMA. No tape, no video. No photos. (Aint this guy supposed to be a journalist). I write better fabricated and imaginative stories than this one with more thoughtout evidence. It's like making up a story that I am a doctor going into surgery without a knife and basic medical tool. This guy is supposed to be a journalist and he has no photo, no audio, no video and expect to sell me this story. THIS IS THE BIGGEST FAIRY TALE. GIMME A BREAK.

Just another Billary trick. The only persons to buy this story are the same ones to buy her sob story and vote for her.

Nice Try. I will vote Barrack Hussein Obama 08.

Comment by Shalise Neddy — March 1, 2008 @ 11:26PM

SEN. OBAMA YOUR MENTOR HAS A PROBLEM, BUT YOU DON'T SEEM TO SEE IT

On Tuesday nights Debate, Tim Russert brought up which in my book, was a very poignant fact. That Obama's Pastor had called Louis Farrakhan a GREAT MAN. Obama stated that in the past, he Denounced Louis Farrakhan's racist beliefs. Then Hillary Clinton also stated a very poignant fact. That he never really REJECTED him in whole as a person. Obama looked almost confused, as if he couldn't distinguish between the two. So in his moment of temporary anguish, he then Stated O.K. I'll concede the point, I both Denounce & Reject.

OH Really? Do you really Reject and Denounce him Sen. Obama ?

O.K. let's examine his MENTOR, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Posted In Wright's 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness." Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and his values.

VALUES ????

How in the Hell are we suppose to believe that Sen. Barak Obama has now,

DENOUNCED & REJECTED LOUIS FARRAKHAN'S BELIEFS, WHEN THE MAN HE HOLDS UP AS HIS MENTOR. HIS PASTOR THE REV. J. WRIGHT THINKS LOUIS FARRAKHAN IS A MAN OF INTEGRITY & GREATNESS ????

WHITES ARE BLUE EYED DEVILS AND THE JEWS AS BLOODSUCKERS.



He's proud of these VALUES ?

Sorry people, OBAMA cannot have it both ways. There is something very, very wrong with this picture. I see Barak Obama in the same light as Tom Cruise, being led by the nose by a CULT. Neither thinks anything is wrong with their beliefs. Their MENTORS brainwash them into believing, that THEIR thoughts are FACT.

I think Barack Obama is one very misguided man. Naive when it come to Cuba, and wanting to jump unconditionally into the fire with untrustworthy individuals. Yes he gave a fabulous speech during the 2004 Democratic Convention. But does that make him Presidential material? He is inexperienced and at times seemingly of not having a mind of his own. He's a TALKER, but sometimes I question of who's putting the words into his mouth of which he speaks.

All I know is YOU CAN'T say you denounce and reject someone, but at the same time worship a mentor who thinks the man your proclaiming as Evil, personally thinks he's GREAT.



I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, AND IF THE WALKING COMA'S WOULD WAKE UP. They might see it as well, before it's too late. In my opinion Sen. Obama needs to get his head together, without the so-called inspiration of his MENTOR who has some very twisted & demented views, that seems to be shared by the Denounced & Rejected Farrakhan.

White Bigots, Black Bigots they are one in the same. I don't put up with either.

Comment by Linda Valerio — March 2, 2008 @ 01:07AM

SEN. OBAMA YOUR MENTOR HAS A PROBLEM, BUT YOU DON'T SEEM TO SEE IT

On Tuesday nights Debate, Tim Russert brought up which in my book, was a very poignant fact. That Obama's Pastor had called Louis Farrakhan a GREAT MAN. Obama stated that in the past, he Denounced Louis Farrakhan's racist beliefs. Then Hillary Clinton also stated a very poignant fact. That he never really REJECTED him in whole as a person. Obama looked almost confused, as if he couldn't distinguish between the two. So in his moment of temporary anguish, he then Stated O.K. I'll concede the point, I both Denounce & Reject.

OH Really? Do you really Reject and Denounce him Sen. Obama ?

O.K. let's examine his MENTOR, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Posted In Wright's 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness." Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and his values.

VALUES ????

How in the Hell are we suppose to believe that Sen. Barak Obama has now,

DENOUNCED & REJECTED LOUIS FARRAKHAN'S BELIEFS, WHEN THE MAN HE HOLDS UP AS HIS MENTOR. HIS PASTOR THE REV. J. WRIGHT THINKS LOUIS FARRAKHAN IS A MAN OF INTEGRITY & GREATNESS ????

WHITES ARE BLUE EYED DEVILS AND THE JEWS AS BLOODSUCKERS.



He's proud of these VALUES ?

Sorry people, OBAMA cannot have it both ways. There is something very, very wrong with this picture. I see Barak Obama in the same light as Tom Cruise, being led by the nose by a CULT. Neither thinks anything is wrong with their beliefs. Their MENTORS brainwash them into believing, that THEIR thoughts are FACT.

I think Barack Obama is one very misguided man. Naive when it come to Cuba, and wanting to jump unconditionally into the fire with untrustworthy individuals. Yes he gave a fabulous speech during the 2004 Democratic Convention. But does that make him Presidential material? He is inexperienced and at times seemingly of not having a mind of his own. He's a TALKER, but sometimes I question of who's putting the words into his mouth of which he speaks.

All I know is YOU CAN'T say you denounce and reject someone, but at the same time worship a mentor who thinks the man your proclaiming as Evil, personally thinks he's GREAT.



I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, AND IF THE WALKING COMA'S WOULD WAKE UP. They might see it as well, before it's too late. In my opinion Sen. Obama needs to get his head together, without the so-called inspiration of his MENTOR who has some very twisted & demented views, that seems to be shared by the Denounced & Rejected Farrakhan Views.

White Bigots, Black Bigots they are one in the same. I don't put up with either.

Comment by Linda Valerio — March 2, 2008 @ 01:09AM

I am a big Obama supporter and I am a student organizer for him. I actually really enjoyed this article. It reminds you that at the end of the day he is just a man. He has the potentional to be a transformative political figure, but this article reminds us that there is a human side to him. It sounds to me like Obama's politcal fortunes occured much like most other politicians, trhough a combination of chance and hard work.

Comment by Josh S. — March 2, 2008 @ 12:32PM

If a politician yells at you, then you're a solid political reporter. Talking about a black politician and "jive" is going to get yells - not because you're a reporter, but because your "creativity" got the best of you.

Comment by NotAFan — March 2, 2008 @ 04:56PM

I have to wonder how much the Clinton's paid him to write this article.

Comment by Bonnie — March 3, 2008 @ 10:01AM

I have to wonder how much the Clinton's paid him to write this article.

Comment by Bonnie — March 3, 2008 @ 10:01AM

After reading the first few paragraphs of this story I started to wonder if the author was actually portraying Obama in a good light. The article demonstrated how cunning a politician the Democratic presidential candidate really was, not a necessarily a bad trait in a leader. At the same time the piece showed Obama to be a made man. There's a Karl Rove-eque character pulling the strings behind a curtain. Obama talks not from the heart but from a script reminiscent of one George W. Bush. And in the words of our illustrious President (or his speech writers), "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Comment by Minh Huynh — March 3, 2008 @ 03:56PM

After reading the first few paragraphs of this story I started to wonder if the author was actually portraying Obama in a good light. The article demonstrated how cunning a politician the Democratic presidential candidate really was, not a necessarily a bad trait in a leader. At the same time the piece showed Obama to be a made man. There's a Karl Rove-eque character pulling the strings behind a curtain. Obama talks not from the heart but from a script reminiscent of one George W. Bush. And in the words of our illustrious President (or his speech writers), "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Comment by Minh Huynh — March 3, 2008 @ 04:18PM

Please consider voting for Senator Obama. I strongly believe he is the better candidate. Here is why.

Is Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama really a case of experience versus judgment? Hillary Clinton’s latest fearmongering "red phone call" ad really says a lot about that. The ad says Hillary Clinton has more experience in handling “red phone” crises. It was written by Marc Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief campaign strategist who even Hillary Clinton’s supporters admit is just like Karl Rove! http://www.observer.com/2008/panettas-lament-they-had-no-plan?observer_most_read_tabs_tab=2 When reporters asked Mark Penn to name one "red phone call" moment in Hillary Clinton’s experience he couldn't. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

But Obama quickly did. Her Iraq war vote was Hillary Clinton’s “red phone” experience. That was her test.

There are three defining moments in Hillary Clinton’s career, and each of them involved a poor performance:

1. Health care non-reform in the early 1990s. Giant lost opportunity.

2. Hillary Clinton’s support of Bush's war in Iraq. Huge mistake.

3. Hillary Clinton’s current campaign. Another example of her underperformance. The Clintons were the clear favorites. She was supposed to be an unstoppable force. Yet they had no plan B after not winning on Super Tuesday (reminds me of Iraq). Starting as early as December, Clinton had to fire a string of people for low blows and poor performance. They change their message every two weeks. They even ran out of money.

Obama, in contrast, has been level headed and steady in his positive message of bringing people together. He knows that the chip-on-your-shoulder fight the world attitude will work no better than last time Hillary tried it at health care reform. Obama is tough, and he knows how to use his toughness to lead rather than divide. He has fought and passed ethics reform in Washington, as well as transparency in government. He exposed the atrocities in health care for our veterans and passed laws to address it. Obama is the steady performer with better judgment who can get things done. He has run a fantastic campaign that has inspired and motivated a whole new group of people to vote Democratic.

Comment by Pat Tyler — March 3, 2008 @ 08:24PM

In an article called, “Obama’s Communist Mentor”, Cliff Kincaid notes: “However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis , listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father,
refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union . In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.” http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=4866_0_1_0_M

So far, Obama has distanced himself from his church, from controversial friends and colleagues and is willing to lie by omission about the true identity of “Frank”.
My favorite is the Four Seasons meeting with Arabs and criminal Iraqis that just happened to be another coincidence in his history, like the Rezko coincidence.

Read his National Service Plan on his website. He has plans for everyone to serve his agenda...do-it-yourself government while he changes the world. The only pledge Obama believes in is a pledge for Americans to serve him while he wanders the globe making gradiose speeches.

Thanks Todd for showing his human, I mean humanist side.

Comment by Anti — March 4, 2008 @ 01:33AM

I feel like reading that article wasted a lot of my time. I really didn't see the point. You made a lot of insinuating statements without painting an accurate complete picture. For instance, how many of the readers of this newspaper have been to the south side of Chicago? When I volunteered there in 96' it was in really bad shape. Of course there was debate about the projects, but you failed to mention the voucher system that was to help replace the old school methodology of packing low income residents in tall buildings with cement yards in a side of town with limited services and employment.

I think this article is more about you getting your moment then about actually reporting something of substance.

Comment by laura — March 4, 2008 @ 03:23AM

it's sad but you sound bitter

Comment by katie — March 4, 2008 @ 06:14PM

I think this article says far more about you than it does about Obama. (By the way, your essay could be edited down by about a third if you left out all your personal details that no one cares about). My take is that you are envious of Obama's success, frustrated that doors open so easily for him, that he has had this meteoric rise. You knew him when he was just like you. Your own career as a journalist has stalled, gone nowhere. You never got the big break that you wanted and feel you deserve Here is your chance. You can pimp out Obama, maybe get some of his lime light through association and maybe finally get your 15 minutes of fame. I know your suit is ready for your appearance on Chris Matthews and that your tape recorder is turned on for Obama's call. Don't hold your breath. I feel sorry for you.

Comment by diane — March 5, 2008 @ 11:49AM

The timing of this piece is really interesting ... the Dallas Observer decides, along with the Houston whatever-it-is, to run this hit piece on the eve of the primary, knowing well that they're punching Obama supporters--hip, smart young people who read weeklies--in the stomach.

Spivak says that the Obama people wouldn't call him back to respond ... well, why not? Spivak, dude, you don't suppose it was because you had already shown that you would ax the man, as for instance in your earlier piece, the one that caused Obama to call you and yell? Do you suppose that maybe Obama had figured out that you have a big chip on your shoulder, that you resent him, that you have nothing good to say, and the article would be preposterously one-sided?

I'm sure you worked hard to find a few cranky legislators and activists in Chicago who were jealous that Obama had more talent and got more credit than they did, and angry that he wasn't breathing fire at the man. But couldn't you have worked maybe half an hour more to talk to a few of the dozens of Democrats, or Republicans, from the Illinois legislature who could offer a more objective take on Obama's role?

So you're telling us, like wow, Obama is a politician! No, you're telling us that he was a MADE politician, a pompous but cowardly beneficiary of Emil Jones's largesse. Dude, did you consider that Obama's talent was DISCOVERED, not created, by Jones?? Can it be that Obama was a great political weapon for Jones to wield? That maybe Obama made Jones and the Democrats look good rather than vice versa? That Obama was correct in telling you that those bills would not have passed had he not sponsored them?
I don't know anything about Spivak but I suspect he realized, like any two-bit ambitious journalist, that a hit piece does one's career FAR more good than a glam piece. This will get noticed! I savaged Obama! On the eve of the big election in Texas! I hit his stupid ass fans in the gut!

Oh, but the media is so unfair to poor poor Hillary Clinton. Whaaa! Like hell! The media was lovin’ on Hillary for two years before a better candidate came along and swiped Iowa. Now the media is back to lovin’ on Hillary, because she’s, my God, she’s New York’s candidate! She’s SNL’s candidate (that skit by the way was by a right-wing writer)!

Good work Mr. Spivak, my friend, as John McCain would say.

Comment by Daniel Herman — March 6, 2008 @ 01:16PM

Why blame the messenger or the timing? Either what he wrote is true or it is not. To me the questions is whether or not Obama is running on his record and accomplishments or if he is a puppet for king makers. Is he? Wouldn't you WANT to know?

Even if he has just gotten a lucky break (from the Chicago machine, ahem!), doesn't this make you want to hear a bit more of substance from the candidate?

Comment by John N — March 6, 2008 @ 04:54PM

I would like to thank The Dallas Observer and Todd for the very detailed article on Barack Obama. I got so excited listening to Obama's speech at the last Democratic Convention. I thought the words Obama spoke were wonderful and beautifully presented. I was looking forward to learning more about him. Listening to him speak on the campaign trail, I began to get a sense that there was just something that was empty about his speeches. I began thinking it might be the man behind the words. The more I listened to him the more I did not hear substance, mostly motivational speeches well delivered. I wanted to know the real man. The article helped me to get to know the person and what he might or might not do as president. It helped me to know HOW he rose to POWER so quickly and it was not by hard work and accomplishments. In my opinion, there is no way that his record of "doing/not-doing" can stand up to a McCain in November. Let us not be sold another bill of goods as a nation that is hungry to believe, let us be wise enough this time to look at what he has and has not done. His record and his association with questionable persons is not a pretty picture. The republicans will capitalize on that, as well they should.

I am confident that Hillary can be victorious over McCain. She amazes me with her vast knowledge, her global experience, her strength even in times of adversity, and her compassion. I look forward to having her as my president solving everyday problems for ALL of us. She has real thoughtful, responsive solutions; she delivers. We are most fortunate to have such a remarkable woman and leader willing to assume the responsible role as President of the United States. The real Hillary has stood up!

Comment by Ida — March 6, 2008 @ 05:33PM

I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DEMS WERE THINKING.....THEY SHOULD HAVE BACKED HILLARY, THEY KNOW SHE HAS THE STUFF TO GET THINGS DONE; THEY HAVE SLIPPED UP.....BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT....HILLARY IS THE RIGHT CANADATE FOR THIS TIME IN HISTORY ....NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY OR DO...

Comment by CAROL — March 7, 2008 @ 03:17PM

This story should have been picked up and then explored further by the Associated Press. We are dealing with a golden-tongued orator who is often compared to JFK - but as it turned out, JFK was not a stellar president (though I loved him at first, like so many others)and didn't rate very high in the personal ethics department, either. Americans deserve to know more about Obama!

Comment by Emily Love — March 7, 2008 @ 03:17PM

Here's a good one.
The man behind the king
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZydhWoEHCdM
Enjoy guys

Comment by Rob Porter — March 9, 2008 @ 02:34PM

This is a deeply "disturbing" article about a deeply "disturbing" person! God help us!

Comment by Kansasgirl — March 9, 2008 @ 04:58PM

I am puzzled why the Barack "Slumlord Lover" Obama worsippers are attacking this article so vehemently. It is a rather mild critcism of him and his record. If it were and attack article, it failed miserably since it ignored most of his real sins as a politician.
If it were a hack job it would have brought up the facy that as a Slumlord Lover, he did noting to help the thousnads of families in his IL Senate District who were victimized by his two fast friends, Antoin Rezko and Allison Davis. After all, SIXTEEN of the apartment buildings repossessed or condemned that were owned by these two long time friends of his were in HIS district and yet I have yet to see one shred of evidence of Obama trying to help these families who ended up being thron into the streets of his district. I have seen many letters from Obama to other Illinois politicians on behalf of these two men in order for them to be granted redevelopment loans for these apartment buildings but not a single letter on behalf of the occupants of these buildings.

That is only one attack point he could have made. I have at least a dozen more that I can reel off, but my point is that not talking about any of these serious failings by Obama proves that this was NOT an attack article.

If anything, it glossed over the failing of this man and he should be thankful that people were diverted to these small sins instead of the huge ones that the author could have pointed out.

After all, if the electorate is occupied with minor issues it keeps them from learning about why he is really unqualified to hold ANY office, let alone the Presidency.

Comment by Dale — March 9, 2008 @ 06:01PM

I was a reporter and editor for several years. First of all, your writing style is horrible. How many paragraphs in a row are you going to start with "I?"

This smells to me like blatant self promotion. He yelled at you. Boo hoo. I once had all eight aldermen in a Chicago suburb surround me after their City Council meeting to chew me out over an editorial my paper ran.

Get a spine, lose the grudge and learn how to write.

Comment by Joe — March 10, 2008 @ 12:46PM

With almost two decades of experience dealing with politicians, the Obama in this story is a breath of fresh air. Name a pol who isn't trying to obtain power and use it. That is what they do for a living.
It is the author's responsibility to contact a person when quoting him or her, so I can certainly understand Obama, especially if the author puts fake quotes in the article.

And if you think this makes Obama look bad, gee whiz, where have you been? Apparently not following the Clinton escapades for the past 25 years.

Comment by Kevin — March 14, 2008 @ 01:24AM

With almost two decades of experience dealing with politicians, the Obama in this story is a breath of fresh air. Name a pol who isn't trying to obtain power and use it. That is what they do for a living.
It is the author's responsibility to contact a person when quoting him or her, so I can certainly understand Obama, especially if the author puts fake quotes in the article.

And if you think this makes Obama look bad, gee whiz, where have you been? Apparently not following the Clinton escapades for the past 25 years.

Comment by Kevin — March 14, 2008 @ 01:27AM

Democrats put themselves into this corner; they are damned if they do and ruined if they do not! Pour it on and keep their failure to Govern evident to the voter’s judgment until days after election.
They, The Democrats are the ones who invented Political Correctness that curtails our first amendment constitutional privileges.
Obama denies his pastor REV. DR. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, TRINITY UNITY CHURCH OF CHRIST:
Jesus answered him: Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Amen, amen, I say to thee, the cock shall not crow, till thou deny me thrice: John 13:38. Denial of Wright indeed is evidence for Obama’s willingness to betray a friend since 1991 to gain what he covets most, POWER OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Be assured that he would betray the USA in haste; it shows what an anomalous enemy the half- Nigerian, half-American is, the cock never crowed but once.
I remember the sub zero days of the cold war when Communism was threatening to destroy us from within. It certainly appears as they have captured the democrat party and that would make Communism half way there. Reporting this morning Center for Individual Freedom says; “Would you believe it if we told you that the U.S. House of Representatives voted to raise the price you pay for gasoline at the pump and -- at the same time -- give a huge tax break to that America-hating dictator Hugo Chavez?”
Patriot Post Quote of the week” The Democratic party is very close to being the [Communist-controlled Progressive] party of Henry Wallace... Today’s left sees the world pretty much in the same terms as the Stalinists did. What has happened is that it has lost its faith in the working class, so its agenda is entirely negative. They’ve dropped the dictatorship of the proletariat and they all say they’re democrats, but so did Lenin. The vast bulk of the American left is a Communist left and they’ve introduced some fascist ideas like ‘identity politics,’ which is straight out of Mussolini. They don’t talk about the working class, they talk about women and race. There’s not much that they’ve learned from the history of the 20th century.” —David Horowitz
However, like the Russian Communists, the Dems have miscalculated and America is not ready and will never be ready for COMMUNISM.
As George Washington said”: We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” —George Washington; and repeated in his own words yesterday by President George W. Bush.
Take back our first amendment rights; tear down this “Politician Correctness” and speak your own mind just as a Democrat, Geraldine Ferraro did last week about the half-Nigerian half American Obama.
Obama, if you have an ounce of stateliness you will resign your Senate seat. Then surrender your candidacy of the Presidential Campaign, immediately. It is a shame for we Republicans would take on a more formable candidate than you will ever be.

Comment by BillyBobGYN — March 15, 2008 @ 04:53PM

I love how all the stupid women on this forum continue to support him despite his falsities and hateful connections. If you seriously are going to support someone who for 2 years, attended a church that was anti-American anti-white anti-semitic. then diane and the rest of you, are ignorant little blind hopeful sheep who will not be swayed from your false idol. I pity you really, you make us all seem bad with your ignorance and illogical support of the man.

Would also like to note if he were white and had connections to an anti-american, anti-black, anti semitic church. He would be out of the race before he even started.

deny deny deny as you will.

Comment by Jan — March 18, 2008 @ 09:52AM

This story is important. It also goes with today's story in the Washington Post regarding Obama's attempts to hijack authorship of legislation that is the work of others. This points to character and lack of interest in actually doing "the work." This man is an opportunist with a golden voice who has seduced some of our best leaders. Please leave this article available throughout the campaign and into November. It is imperative that this man is not elected to the highest office in the land.
To read the Washington Post article, go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html

Comment by Mandelay — March 24, 2008 @ 07:23PM

Why did you choose to describe Senator Obama's former speaking voice as "vanilla"?

Comment by BeachSaint — March 28, 2008 @ 07:51AM

You must don't have nothing else to do and call your self a journalist. It's funny to me and probably a lot of other americans who would admit it. You elect a president that you did no research on BUSH and those who tried were fired and let this man do what the hell he wanted to do and nobody says a thing but that's politics. But I guess that's ok because he's white and that's what white politicans do but a black man gets up there doing the same thing and that's a problem. Lets be honest for once, white america is scared to death of the chance a black man could be president and would take a old man or woman than a black man with the same education or more and credintials. So as long as that job stays WHITE then that's ok as long as it not the black man. You can put that old white man or woman in the white house and in 4 to 8 years from now, white people will be back crying as usual when the whites they put in charge screws them again.

Comment by anthony — April 4, 2008 @ 11:51PM

I don't see the point you are trying to make about Obama except that you personally don't like Obama. Instead of all this rhetoric lambasting the candidates why don't you try to compare candidates by their agenda. Does MCain and his desire to win the war, in which he will reinstate the draft to conquer Iran too appeal to you?

Comment by Ziggy — April 12, 2008 @ 04:48PM

I don't see the point you are trying to make about Obama except that you personally don't like Obama. Instead of all this rhetoric lambasting the candidates why don't you try to compare candidates by their agenda. Does MCain and his desire to win the war, in which he will reinstate the draft to conquer Iran too appeal to you?

Comment by Ziggy — April 12, 2008 @ 04:49PM

I don't see the point you are trying to make about Obama except that you personally don't like Obama. Instead of all this rhetoric lambasting the candidates why don't you try to compare candidates by their agenda. Does MCain and his desire to win the war, in which he will reinstate the draft to conquer Iran too appeal to you?

Comment by Ziggy — April 12, 2008 @ 04:49PM

It took you a very long time to make your point. And as the entry above stated, I'm not sure what your point was, other than you personally don't like the man. If this story ran as a cover story, with the photo as described, then I would call this an intentional hatchet job.

However, there aren't enough bad deeds in here to merit a hatchet. No big smoking gun. Have you thought that perhaps the alleged legislation was give to him, because the other guys weren't moving it forwards? And he did?

Finally, having read it again, I think there are elements of personal resentment and annoyance. Did it bug you that you were on a mattress on the floor and he was in a high rise, riding around in a dark blue car, getting a buz cut. I'm not sure of the relevance of all these personal details.

Comment by AMC — April 20, 2008 @ 01:51AM