Tuesday, November 4, 2008

It was the White People in Barack Obama's backround that were the Worst of All, Did the Media focus only on the Non Whites on Purpose?

I've never been comfortable with all the bashing of Barack Obama's non-white alliances. I guess it took me this long to figure out why. There are many white alliances in Barack Obama's background that have questionable character. George Soros would have to be number one on the list. Arianna Huffington would be number two. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews tied for third, David Axelrod number four, perhaps Bill Ayers would be fifth, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid tied for sixth, the rest of the MSNBC gang at 7th.

It probably looked racist to Barack Obama supporters for the opposition to be more pre-occupied with the non-whites in Barack Obama's background. Perhaps white people should have just focused on the whites in Barack's background that were behaving in what can easily be seen as questionable behavior.

The sad part is Barack Obama has conocoted a rainbow coalition of people of all colors that have checkered pasts. I think the reason many of the opposition complaints didn't stick was because white detractors of Barack Obama pointed to the non-white people in Barack's past, while letting Barack Obama's shady supporters who were white, off the hook.

Besides the white people mentioned above who I think have behaved in an ethically challenged manner, I should also add all the political losers who were white, that got on the Barack Obama bandwagon to crush the Clintons. These white political losers include Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, ALL of whom have RUN FOR PRESIDENT or the Democratic Presidential nomination, and LOST!

It is an obvious slap in the face to the Clintons and lifelong democratic voters for all of these democratic presidential losers to just throw the Clintons to the curb and support a one term inexperienced senator when Bill Clinton has been the only two term democratic president in the last 50 years.

Think about it, Democratic presidential losers from the past 20 years, all gang up on the ONE AND ONLY democratic presidential winner's family. It's kind of creepy, and speaks to a coup of the democratic party, funded by George Soros.

In a past article I have written fondly of Pastor Wright, I think he is much smarter than Barack Obama. Ironically, above and beyond the issue of the people in Barack Obama's background, there was the issue of very unethical occurrences in this years 15 caucus contests, and the Barack Obama camp accepting over 200 million dollars in undocumented donations, this after rejecting matching funds that prior presidential candidates had all agreed to abide by.

So the question I have is, why didn't whites opposed to Barack Obama's supporters go after Barack Obama's white supporters? lol, there were PLENTY of white backers of Barack Obama that acted highly unethically in this election cycle. I can only begin to guess at the back room deals made and money possibly offered to get several prominent white people to back Barack Obama at the expense of the much better known and respected Clinton family.

I wish I had connected these dots earlier. In a way I did, as I have always tried to focus on caucus cheating issues, the concept of fair reflection denied earlier this year, Obvious media bias led by MSNBC, and sexism. I feel I never was able to reach those that didn't like Barack Obama for his non-white affiliations to find a better reason even when those better reasons existed.

If you are white, and you don't like Barack Obama's rainbow coalition of provocative supporters with questionable backgrounds, you made a mistake by going after the non-white Barack Obama supporters. If you were white, you should have focused on the provocative people backing Barack Obama, who were also white, there were plenty to go around.


Alessandro Machi said...

It looks to me like you are not bothering to read the actual NewsMax article. I have gone ahead and inserted into the article the graphic that shows that most polls artificially inflated the lead that Barack Obama already had.

Notice the two bottom polls that are the most accurate are not very well known, whereas the most famous polls such as Gallup clearly have Barack Obama well ahead.

Once again, how can we factor in that these polls may have helped create their own destiny, that could have added another point or two to the final margin of victory.

Alessandro Machi said...

So you deleted all of your comments? How about having the integrity to explain why.