Edwards: Are you Sure That was an Endorsement or a Rememinder of What Obama Isn't
What the media partrays and shows as a sound bite of Edwards saying one good thing about Obama is about Edwards saying one good thing about Obama; otherwise it was a Hillary fan speech, combined with an Edwards stump speech that ended up splashing a very cold bucket of water on the attendees of the Obama rally as it became pretty obvious that most people in the audience knew where Obama really stood as it related to Universal health care and the economically disadvantaged.
Edwards is not a fan of Obama, Edwards believes from the bottom of his heart to the tips of his toes that Obama is a Republican. Not a values voting Republican but a Greedy big money oil speculating republican. I suppose in my view I would have to add personally Obama would have to combine the worst of both the republicans and the democrats. The Republican greed and the democratic lust for baby blood in the form of abortions even up to the end of the birth cycle. This is what I got from the speech Edwards gave. In translation Edwards was saying we have to rally around this nominee now if we ever hope to have a democratic president. Democrats can not continue to knock each other out with a two by four leading to nothing. Edwards was saying that any democrat is better than no democrat.
However I really don't believe that any democrat is better than no democrat. In terms of Obama's concern for the poor his ties with the slum lord Tony Rezco where poor families went without heat in a brutal Chicago Winter without any assistance from Barack Obama even free heaters for the poor indicate that the poor could not do any worst than Obama, Obama's refusal to support a gas tax holiday for what would most benefit the poor, lower gas prices; a quarter discount could make the difference between getting to work and not in terms of miles per gallon; and most of all Obama's refusal to support Universal Health care for everyone adults and children indicate to us all that Obama can never meet the concern standards for the poor that Clinton and Edwards have espoused throughout the whole campaign. It has become obvious that McCain meets the compassionate threshhold moreso that Obama. It is becoming pretty obvious that an Obama presidency maybe more harmful to the poor than a Bush presidency has become. In any event I seriously question around rallying around a candidate that has shown over and over that he has no concern for the poor. I think a compassionate Republican could probably be more beneficial to the poor than an uncaring democrat.
Personally as it relates to the recent incidents with the poor, particularly Hurricane Katrina I do not dump the responsibility solely on the shoulders of FEMA but believe that Ray Nagin should get at least 60% of the blame for canceling the bus routes to get the people out of the flood zone, and not doing enough to get them out of the area. Nagin was warned and did not do enough to try to salvage the lives of the citizens of his city. Blood rests on his hands. I say all of this to say that Blacks want a black president but this does not mean that he is the best qualified or that he will particularly look out for their interests. The blacks of California have learned this through the school of hard knocks and I learned that at one point a largely black WATTS had elected a white mayor. African Americans really need to think seriously about who they support and if the individuals they elect are thoughtful enough, smart enough, and compassionate enough to fully and truly represent African Americans, Blue Collar Americans, Poor Hispanics, and Poor Whites. In Obama's case I think not. As for the media, if their sponsors advertise something you can't afford such as LV bags, Jaguar cars, and other luxury goods, The poor need to seriously consider if the news is representing their interests. You can afford Tide, You can not afford a fancy airplane ride to Singapare if you are working at Mc Donalds however you may be able to afford cable to listen to this brand of news. Critically think and realize that certain media outlets can not possibly represent the interests of the poor and the economically challenged. "WAKE UP"
Edwards is not a fan of Obama, Edwards believes from the bottom of his heart to the tips of his toes that Obama is a Republican. Not a values voting Republican but a Greedy big money oil speculating republican. I suppose in my view I would have to add personally Obama would have to combine the worst of both the republicans and the democrats. The Republican greed and the democratic lust for baby blood in the form of abortions even up to the end of the birth cycle. This is what I got from the speech Edwards gave. In translation Edwards was saying we have to rally around this nominee now if we ever hope to have a democratic president. Democrats can not continue to knock each other out with a two by four leading to nothing. Edwards was saying that any democrat is better than no democrat.
However I really don't believe that any democrat is better than no democrat. In terms of Obama's concern for the poor his ties with the slum lord Tony Rezco where poor families went without heat in a brutal Chicago Winter without any assistance from Barack Obama even free heaters for the poor indicate that the poor could not do any worst than Obama, Obama's refusal to support a gas tax holiday for what would most benefit the poor, lower gas prices; a quarter discount could make the difference between getting to work and not in terms of miles per gallon; and most of all Obama's refusal to support Universal Health care for everyone adults and children indicate to us all that Obama can never meet the concern standards for the poor that Clinton and Edwards have espoused throughout the whole campaign. It has become obvious that McCain meets the compassionate threshhold moreso that Obama. It is becoming pretty obvious that an Obama presidency maybe more harmful to the poor than a Bush presidency has become. In any event I seriously question around rallying around a candidate that has shown over and over that he has no concern for the poor. I think a compassionate Republican could probably be more beneficial to the poor than an uncaring democrat.
Personally as it relates to the recent incidents with the poor, particularly Hurricane Katrina I do not dump the responsibility solely on the shoulders of FEMA but believe that Ray Nagin should get at least 60% of the blame for canceling the bus routes to get the people out of the flood zone, and not doing enough to get them out of the area. Nagin was warned and did not do enough to try to salvage the lives of the citizens of his city. Blood rests on his hands. I say all of this to say that Blacks want a black president but this does not mean that he is the best qualified or that he will particularly look out for their interests. The blacks of California have learned this through the school of hard knocks and I learned that at one point a largely black WATTS had elected a white mayor. African Americans really need to think seriously about who they support and if the individuals they elect are thoughtful enough, smart enough, and compassionate enough to fully and truly represent African Americans, Blue Collar Americans, Poor Hispanics, and Poor Whites. In Obama's case I think not. As for the media, if their sponsors advertise something you can't afford such as LV bags, Jaguar cars, and other luxury goods, The poor need to seriously consider if the news is representing their interests. You can afford Tide, You can not afford a fancy airplane ride to Singapare if you are working at Mc Donalds however you may be able to afford cable to listen to this brand of news. Critically think and realize that certain media outlets can not possibly represent the interests of the poor and the economically challenged. "WAKE UP"
posted by blackhippychick @ 6:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home