Ed Koch allegedly asked:

What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader
with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down
anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a president of the
United States to have the strength of character to denounce and
disown enemies of America ?^@^T foreign and domestic ?

Two things are in order.

1) Did any of our congresspeople and senators stand up and ``face down
to George Bush ``during any of his State-Of-The-Union Speeches and
denounce his inhuman air strikes against innocent Iraqi civilians,
night after night, despite their disagreement with him and his policy?

And how often do we actually see in our daily life anybody stand up,
denounce a speaker, and openly argue with him in a formal assembly?

There is such a thing as common courtesy in a civilized society.

People are taught to behave in a certain way in public, especially
with regard to a leader of a group. Before you will be so bold as to
face down a popular leader in front of everybody, you will have to be
ready to face the consequences, so we have been taught.

If Obama was such a person that would live up to Koch's prescription,
he would have been either a revolutionary hero or someone who has been
sent behind the slammer many times, not because of the pastor he faced
down to but because of the FBI and the local police who would find him
a threat to the existing social order.

As it happens, Obama is someone who gets along well with people of all
stripes and colors, of all walks and convictions. And that's why the
wealthy Wall Street bosses are backing him with money even the Clinton
machine has had a hard time to catch up to.

So, Koch's criticism is unrealistic and unreasonable.

On the other hand, consider 2) below.

2) Jeremiah Wright seems like a threat to Koch and the things he says
may sound hateful or hate-filled to his ears only because Koch has
consistently supports the foreign policy which Wright denounced.

Koch no doubt is a staunch supporter of Israel while Wright viewed our
unbalanced support toward Israel at the expense of the Palestinians as
an injustice.

So, it's more likely that it is the ideological divide which is the
source behind the intense attack Ed Koch and those who think like him
have against Wright, rather than hate they have allegedly discovered
in Wright's speech.

I detect anger rather than hate in Wright's speeches concerning the
conduct of our government.

And Wright's denouncement of our government's treatment of blacks must
also not have sat well with Koch, who was a NYC mayor and a high-level
establishment figure, is likely to be of the view that a prison system
for blacks is something the more of which is the better.

So, it is really the ideological clash between two social currents
within the contemporary America that have come to a head in Obama's
candidacy rather than that Wright is some kind of a monster that the
candidate must stand up and face down to publicly or else lose his
credibility as a serious contender for the office.

I have said that what Wright has said has been said by many people in
main street, is not particularly controversial, and does not warrant
the speaker to be thrown under the bus for.

It was even said by Congressman Ron Paul, the erstwhile presidential
candidate, regarding how our hated foreign policy may be the source of
te 9/11 type of attacks against us.

In fact, I have said that the struggle between Hillary Clinton and
Obama represents the more intense struggle between the war-loving and
influential neocons and the war-scared but wealth-loving Wall Street
bosses.

AIPAC, George Bush, and the arch-spokesman of the neocon war lobby
Richard Perle, aka the Prince of Darkness, are all behind Hillary to
win this thing so that they would have someone to carry their water
for them from inside the bowel of the power. They don't know Obama
enough to trust him to do the same thing for them.

Too bad that Ed Koch was NYC mayor and he couldn't appreciate the
sentiment expressed by Jeremiah Wright. If he did, NYC would probably
have found itself to be a more harmonious city between the blacks and
the whites who lived there.

lo yeeOn
========

Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an
agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and
truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who
are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright
rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.

Said Hillary Clinton's pastor Dean Snyder.

For more, please see the article written by whisperdispatch which
quotes the New Republic's Christopher Orr below.

Also, Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who is black, also voiced his
strong support for Wright and his church (to CBC), even though he
remains a Hillary Clinton supporter.

(The reason for Cleaver's continued support for Hillary is the
weirdest and the weakest I have seen---supporting for the sake of
loyalty like you would for your hometown football team even though you
have grave doubts about it.)

What we can draw from Cleaver's comment is that Wright's view, whether
you like it or not, is widely and warmly received in the African
American community. That explains why Obama's assertion earlier that
the church is non-controveresial.

Put another way, had Obama repudiated his church and his pastor, he
would have repudiated possibly half of black America. And likewise,
for any American, black, brown, yellow, or white, to repudiate that
church because of the pastor's rhetoric in his sermons, he will have
repudiate possibly five percent of all Americans who are living today,
or millions and millions of fellow Americans.

Instead of putting our heads in the sand, we as Americans should all
try to understand what has gone wrong with our society.

We should try to learn from our brothers and sisters, even though they
may have a different perspective, because we may be enlightened by
what they have seen and appreciated.

We should strive for a better union, instead of believing that we can
servive in mistrusting one another, occupying different neighborhoods
of a city and walking on different sides of a street.

Emanuel Cleaver is a strange fellow, loyal to Hillary for the sake of
loyalty. But his interview with the CBC serves to educate America
(and the world also) how widespread Jeremiah Wrifght's view of our
government really is. It wasn't that of just a few individuals' nor
was it some fringe element. It is widespread!

In fact, we can tell how widespread it is by examining what Ron Paul,
the republican congressman from Texas and an erstwhile presidential
candidate has said about our government and its foreign policy.

Hating Jeremiah Wright and smearing Obama will not put the matter away.

Rather, addressing it should begin with looking into the conduct of
our government in the past decades and with a willingness to change
it.

All the wars since WWII are practically our government's fault.

And all these wars are causing our societal infrastructure and our
economy to break down and collapse.

For the sake of our well-being and our children's, we need to change
the way our government works, change our foreign policy, and stop all
the wars that are bleeding us literally and figuratively to death.

lo yeeOn
========

Barak Obama is not Rev. Wright
Written by whisperdispatch
Friday, 28 March 2008
obama1.jpg (whisperdispatch) Amid a key endorsement from Pennsylvania
Senator Bob Casey are still "questions" about Barak Obama's former
pastor. I personally am sick to damn death of all this yapping about
Rev. Wright and his ridiculous comments.
I think the comments were absolutely horrid and inexcusable just as
those from John McCain endorser,
John Hagee . But what some talking heads on TV are missing is the fact
that it was Wright who made those statements, NOT Barak Obama.
In fact, some are blowing this out of proportion and trying to unfairly
visit the sins of Wright upon Obama.
This coverage would be entirely understandable if such hateful
commentary was coming out of Obama's mouth, as he would deserve all the
ridicule he's getting. However, he is by no means a presidential
representation of Wright's abhorrent viewpoint.
Some loudmouth chicken-little commentators, pundits and hack
journalists are acting like if Obama gets elected, he'll institute
white slavery or choose Osama bin Laden as his National Security
Advisor, or something equally as asinine.
According to a New Republic blog post by Christopher Orr , Hillary
Clinton's pastor, Dean Snyder, actually defended Wright somewhat by
saying:

"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I
have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a
profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society.
He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia
which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic
ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave
injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the
African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a
people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and
violence.
Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an
agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and
truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who
are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright
rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.
This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of
our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time
to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's
truth."

Mind you, this is HILLARY CLINTON'S pastor saying all these things
about the scorned Rev. Wright. Nobody is calling for her to now
distance herself from Snyder, repudiate his words and find another
church to attend. These comments sort of shore up the points Obama
made about putting Wright's comments in the proper context.
The inordinate amount of time spent on the Wright story is directly
related to the chase for controversy by the media. Moreover, they seem
to be covering the campaign race like an entertainment story.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed the controversial story as
having little to no effect on Obama, but still there are certain
entities in the general media who want to keep this in the headlines
for an extended time; probably hoping for at least a "death by a
thousand cuts" for Obama.
Again, the main point is that you cannot take the words out of Wright's
mouth and stick them into Barak Obama's, and vote against him on that
basis. It is foul and shows a lack of mature understanding of this
issue and the opinions of many people who just aren't as polarized. In
fact, some may be quite jaded at this point about this story.
What the controversy did do is provide a perfect illustration of the
actions of Obama. He didn't bow to public pressure and toss Wright
under the bus. He faced the issue head on and did so tactfully,
forthrightly, and honestly. And he did so without appearing
"Clintonian" in nature by trying to weasel around the issue or asking
what the meaning of "is" is.
For her part, Hillary Clinton's behavior is the very reason why so many
people see Obama as water in the middle of a desert: lying about her
Bosnia trip as first lady, bringing back up the Wright controversy
while reporters were jumping on her about lying over the Bosnia story,
her rising negatives, etc.
All of this is starting to make the once formidable Clinton look kinda
pathetic. My opinion of both Clintons have been greatly diminished. And
this is coming from an Edwards supporter who still longs for him to be
in this race.
The controversy dying down only to be reignited by those people
desperate to find something on Obama means nothing in the grand scheme
of things seeing as how it was Wright who made the statements and not
the leading democratic candidate for President.

---

Lawmaker dismisses Obama's attraction

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A congressman backing Hillary Rodham Clinton says white
voters are supporting Barack Obama based on the view that he is
articulate and his election would allow the nation "to get this
boogeyman called race behind us."

Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who is black, told Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation that Obama "is articulate. In the black tradition, he would
probably be mediocre."

"For White Americans, it's like, this guy can speak," Cleaver said in
the radio interview. "If you put him on a level with a lot of other
African-American public speakers, he may not even measure up."

But Cleaver also conceded in the interview that he thinks Obama will
win the White House.

"If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going
to be the next president," Cleaver told Canadian public radio in an
interview first aired on Sunday. "I will be stunned if he's not the
next president of the United States."

Cleaver has remained a strong supporter of Clinton despite pressure
from other black leaders and many of his constituents to switch
allegiance to Obama. He was not immediately available on Tuesday to
discuss his comments.

Some black members of Congress, such as Georgia Democratic Rep. John
Lewis, have changed their allegiance from Clinton to Obama in recent
weeks.

In the interview, Cleaver insisted he would not back away from his
endorsement of Clinton. He claims much of the support for Obama is
driven by a sense that his election will prove the country has solved
its problems with race.

"I think for many white Americans, they are looking at Barack Obama and
saying 'This is our chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get
this boogeyman called race behind us,'" Cleaver said. "And so they are
going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he
has any experience -- I think all that's out the window."

Yet Cleaver asserts that Obama as president could actually hamper
efforts to curb racial injustice. He said future concerns about race
"would be met with rejection because we've already demonstrated that
we're not a racist nation."

Cleaver represents a majority white congressional district in Kansas
City where Obama won a majority of the vote in Missouri's presidential
primary. He is the only ordained minister in Congress and still
preaches every Sunday at his mostly black Kansas City church.

Cleaver said he was "outraged over the outrage" at the controversy over
Obama's former pastor, who was criticized for making racially charged
comments in church sermons. Cleaver praised Obama's Chicago church for
having a "long and rich history of being involved in the betterment of
the Chicago Black community."

Last year, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., was criticized when he called Obama
"the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and
clean and a nice-looking guy."

Cleaver compared his continued support for Clinton to his loyalty in
rooting for his hometown football team when it plays a better opponent.

"Even though I don't expect the Kansas City Chiefs to beat the
Indianapolis Colts, I cheer for the Kansas City Chiefs," he said.

-----

Iraq war hits U.S. economy: Nobel winner

By Daniel Trotta Sun Mar 2, 10:03 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic
slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery, Nobel-winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz says.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is severely underestimating the cost of
the war, Stiglitz and co-author Linda Bilmes write in their book, "The
Three Trillion Dollar War" (W.W. Norton), due to be published on
Monday.

The nearly 5-year-old war, once billed as virtually paying for itself
through increased Iraqi oil exports, has cost the U.S. Treasury $845
billion directly.

"It used to be thought that wars are good for the economy. No economist
really believes that anymore," Stiglitz said in an interview.

Stiglitz and Bilmes argue the true costs are at least $3 trillion under
what they call an ultraconservative estimate, and could surpass the
cost of World War Two, which they put at $5 trillion after adjusting
for inflation.

The direct costs exclude interest on the debt raised to fund the war,
health care costs for veterans coming home, and replacing the destroyed
hardware and degraded operational capacity caused by the war.

In addition, there are costs not accounted for in the budget such as
rising oil prices and social and macroeconomic costs, which the book
details.

To illustrate how the money could be spent elsewhere, Bilmes cited the
annual U.S. budget for autism research -- $108 million -- which is
spent every four hours in Iraq. A trillion dollars could have hired 15
million additional public school teachers for a year or provided 43
million students with four-year scholarships to public universities,
the book says.

Stiglitz and Bilmes say they were excessively conservative in
calculating the $3 trillion figure, overcompensating for their bias in
having opposed the war.

'FLOODING THE ECONOMY'

Asked if the war has contributed to the U.S. slowdown, Stiglitz said,
"Very much so."

"To offset that depressing effect, the Fed has flooded the economy with
liquidity and the regulators looked the other way when very imprudent
lending was going up," Stiglitz said. "We were living on borrowed money
and borrowed time and eventually a day of reckoning had to come, and it
has now come."

The war has also altered how the United States has reacted to its
current economic troubles, he said.

"When America's financial institutions had a problem, they had to turn
to the sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East for recapitalization,
for the bailout," he said.

"The reason was obvious. The war had led to high oil prices. The war
had meant that America had to borrow more money. There weren't sources
of liquid funds in the United States. The sources of the liquid funds
were in the Middle East," he said.

Bilmes, a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the
U.S. Customs Department, said the war also limited options for the $168
billion stimulus package signed into law by President George W. Bush on
February 13.

"We really had very little wiggle room in order to pass this because of
the fact that we're spending $16 billion a month on Iraq and
Afghanistan," Bilmes said. "Actually the country could have used a
larger fiscal stimulus but there is (no) cash to accommodate it."

The authors said they were surprised by the hidden costs their research
found, citing, for example, what they called the underreporting of
casualty figures by the Pentagon.

The official Pentagon figure of nearly 30,000 wounded in action fails
to account for an addition 40,000 service members who have required
medical attention for non-combat injuries or illness, Bilmes said. She
based her conclusion on official Defense Department data from a
restricted Web site.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

In article <47f27959$0$6118$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
SnakeOilSalesmanObama aol.com> wrote: