American Renaissance

Women Turn On ‘Traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for Backing Barack Obama

AR Articles on Elections
Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002)
Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002)
It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001)
Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999)
We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000)
Search AmRen.com for Elections
More news stories on Elections
Tony Allen-Mills, London Times, January 20, 2008

AMERICA’S favourite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Winfrey’s website, Oprah.com, has been flooded with a barrage of abuse since the queen of daytime chat shows joined Obama on a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-December.

Her intervention was widely credited with broadening Obama’s national appeal — especially among women — and with helping him to an upset victory over Clinton in the first vote of the election year in Iowa.

Yet a backlash by Clinton supporters appears to have prompted a rethink by Winfrey, the African-American media titan who is routinely described as the most influential woman on television.

She did not reappear in the final days before the New Hampshire primary — which Obama lost to Clinton — and has been absent from the most recent campaigning in South Carolina, which votes next weekend.

Obama aides believe that Winfrey will return to the campaign. Her own staff noted last week that in addition to her daily broadcasts on television and satellite radio, she has also been busy negotiating a multi-million-dollar deal with the Discovery cable network to create her own television channel, the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Yet Obama’s rivals suspect that Winfrey has been startled by the virulent reaction to her previous campaign appearance.

It started with a message on her website entitled “Oprah is a traitor” and rapidly expanded to include several discussions that attracted hundreds of comments.

In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said she “cannot believe that women all over this country are not up in arms over Oprah’s backing of Obama. For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She’s choosing her race over her gender.”

In a subsequent comment, 2nurselady wrote: “I don’t think Oprah is a ‘traitor’, but I do think she may be alienating a lot of her fans.”

Others have accused Winfrey of racism for siding with Obama when such a well qualified woman as Clinton was running.

Winfrey has built her career on empathising with women’s issues and offering a daily diet of redemption and hope. Her show typically focuses on women who have suffered but survived.

So hostile has the response been that some suspect dirty tricks. “All the rude and hateful messages on here can’t be from Oprah fans,” another visitor noted. “Someone’s campaign (wonder who?) is sabotaging the message boards.”

Winfrey received a rapturous reception when she campaigned with Obama last month. Yet several analysts warned that she might adversely affect his chances.

Original article

(Posted on January 21, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments

Oprah facing hostility form wome for supporting Obama? I dubt, except for a few radical, bra burning feminists.

The fact is Oprah is probably aware of the fact that Hillary is a BI**H!!!

Posted by Dan at 6:00 PM on January 21


This is proof of the idiocy of “diversity in politics.” No win situations, the continuous walking on eggshells, and bathetic sentiments abound.

Posted by Guillaume at 6:25 PM on January 21


Ole Oprah is losing fans fast….she only took a look at the outside of Obama the muslim…and now she will pay for making the wrong choice…tsk tsk!!

Posted by lydia at 6:26 PM on January 21


Now that the ‘shoe’ is on the other foot for once, would it be fair to label Oprah Winfrey a racist since she’s not backing a white woman in favor of a black man?

Posted by at 6:28 PM on January 21


It’s a good lesson for naive white women. Oprah is not ‘every woman’ - she is first and foremost black. Just a microcosm of the 40-year delusion of whites - and only whites - suffering from colorblindness.

Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 6:40 PM on January 21


Oprah still has some racial consicousness it seems.

As for the question of sabotage, I think most of her audience genuinely got pissed off when Oprah sided with race over gender.
The mostly White housewives probably have no racial consciousness to speak of and thus can’t fathom why any person, much less “Saint” Oprah, could use race as a basis for important decisions.

Posted by True Resistance at 7:05 PM on January 21


It’s funny that blacks (and I even know some) will accuse whites of being racist, yet they’ll prefer blacks (in this case, voting) over whites…yet WE’RE the racists.

Posted by at 7:08 PM on January 21


The idea of any celebrity-a sports figure or chat show queen such as Ms. Winfrey, giving political advice is nauseating. Just shut the heck up and leave us alone. Of course there is now a perverse EVERYTHING is political undercurrent in these times which leads all these so called celebrities to become advocates.

Oprah really does seem to have considerable influence over many gullible,(mostly) white women. She tells them what books to read, what pop psychology to follow, and now what candidate to vote for. I’ve also seen on non-AMREN type websites I’ve visited women swooning for Obama. Remember the Obama Girl Youtube video. It is Sick and Getting Sicker.

Posted by S & GS at 7:12 PM on January 21


This doesn’t have anything to do with race or gender. Winfrey is realizing the mistake she made by mixing business and politics.

Posted by at 7:16 PM on January 21


This is pretty entertaining, if you ask me. I love seeing overblown cultural icons like Oprah get trapped between all these squabbling racial and sexual-identity groups. Blacks on one side, women on another. What a laugh. Oprah supports Obama because he’s black. Females support Hilary because she’s female. That’s about as deep as it goes these days.


Posted by at 7:33 PM on January 21


If only White people were as smart as Oprah, they would realize where they’re loyalties should lie. But instead they buy in to the marxist feminazi garbage: no children, hate men because you’re not one, and unite against them. As Ann Coulter humorously pointed out, giving women the vote put us on the road to socialism. And as I’ve said in this very forum, maybe Whites don’t deserve to survive.

Posted by Flamethrower at 7:35 PM on January 21


If you consider all the Racist statements that Oprah routinely makes on her show.White women are just now realizing that Oprah Winfrey is a racist.These stupid white women are in fact being Sexist for demanding Oprah back Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.In the end we are all tribal and always will be.No matter how racially mixed any nation becomes.Brazil is a good example.Gang violence is endemic in any poor area of Brazil.

Posted by Tony Soprano. at 7:40 PM on January 21


Forget about any political thoughts she may have. The few times I ever see her, all I see is a fat black talentless woman. Why would anybody care what she thinks?

Tom Iron…

Posted by Tom Iron... at 7:41 PM on January 21


I think I figured it out:
The Environment is the Big Joker
Animal Rights are the Little Joker
Race/Ethnicity is the Ace of Spades (no pun intended)
Homosexuals are the King of Spades
Women are the Queens of Spades
Any non Protestant religion is the Jack of Spades

Send the memo out so they know what trumps what.

Posted by PincheGabacho at 7:45 PM on January 21


Why is Oprah a traitor? Hilary’s white female supporters are supporting Hilary because she’s white.

Posted by Tim at 7:52 PM on January 21


If the issue didn’t rank so importantly in our future, I could fall down laughing at these knuckleheads.

One group doesn’t like Winfrey’s actions because they think it improper that she won’t vote for a person based on sex.

Another group doesn’t like what she said because they think it improper that she won’t vote for a person based on race.

Does anyone else see the lunacy of BOTH sides defeating the purpose for which the right of suffrage was fought for throughout our history?

Neither candidate has the qualifications (not to mention congruent viewpoints) of losing nominees such as John Fremont in 1856, William Jennings Bryan in 1896, or Charles Evans Hughes in 1916. Of course all three are today labelled bad dudes because they were White, Christian, accomplished males.

And so the republic further washes down the drain.

Posted by Annoyed In Illinois at 7:54 PM on January 21


“She`s choosing race over gender!”
So… why is choosing gender okay and not race?!?

Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 8:10 PM on January 21


It must be a painful lesson for the women’s lib groups (predominately white, I would imagine), but does anyone see a pattern here? I’m sure many of you at AMREN do. Blacks, just like most other ethnic/racial groups, still possess racial cohesiveness and racial identity, and will choose one of their own. These white women’s lib types never have gotton over the civil rights movement, and heaven forbid they vote for a suitable presidential candidate that would benefit white Americans.

Posted by Expat Onlooker at 8:13 PM on January 21


Just another black, doing what most all blacks do, which is support black positions or people whereever or whoever they are.

She’s been outed with proof as being anti-white long before now, so we’re seeing nothing new.

Too bad her status doesn’t collapse and she goes broke because of her racism.

Posted by Ranger at 8:31 PM on January 21


I think the bigger issue here is that women don’t like black politicians. Deep down, the reason is fear. Every woman knows how dangerous black men are. How much more likely they are to rape, rob or murder them. How they brutalize their wives and sexual partners.

Women are a much more important demographic than blacks.

Posted by at 9:12 PM on January 21



Many “Liberal” White women believe Oprah Winfrey to be “a traitor”. Of course she is not. Its just that, unlike they, she has enough sense to support men of her own race.

Ronald

Posted by Ronald at 9:15 PM on January 21


I love it! Overstuffed Oprah really stepped into it, she should have known this would happen. This, however, is not race vs. gender for most folks. It is white vs. black, as it always will be, given that race has deeper evolutionary roots than gender. Oprah must know who has the numbers and cash, but clearly she does not understand that — when push comes to shove — staying in the black in America means abandoning American blacks.

Posted by PBL at 9:15 PM on January 21


Who is surprised? Race always trumps all.

I think this is marvelous…hopefully more Whites will see that it is OK to side with your race.

Posted by Renae at 9:16 PM on January 21


Ah, modern American identity-politics. What a tangled web they weave with this “struggle” for which “victim” group gets top billing. If it all weren’t so sad and destructive, it would be comical!

Posted by HH at 9:50 PM on January 21



It goes without saying that Obama and Hillary are BOTH hideous — so I don’t really care which of the two evils that some absurdly over-valued middlebrow bore from daytime TV chooses to endorse.

But I’m happy to hear Oprah’s ranking of racial loyalty above gender loyalty has got her fans’ knickers in a twist. Anything that helps loosen the psychic stranglehold Winfrey and her mush-brained Culture of Therapy have on our white females is OK by me. She’s been a real bad influence.

Let the healing begin!

Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 10:00 PM on January 21


Oprah Winfrey and her empowerment hour, are a lesson in the disfunctionality of many Americans, including herself. What exactly are thes female fans looking to her for? I really want to know.

Posted by Bobby at 10:26 PM on January 21


Of course race trumps gender, certainly for black women. Doesn’t anyone remember the O.J. Simpson trial? Remember poor delusional Marcia Clark convinced all those black “sisters” on the jury would sympathize with poor abused beaten Nicole against a man in an act of feminine solidarity. Not a chance!! All those black females saw was a White woman, who had “taken” a successful black man from them. Nothing else.
As for Oprah I just don’t know what the big deal is about her. She is a talentless pompous windbag. She is so full of herself like all ‘celebrities’. I simply don’t know why we pay so much attention to these people or put them so high up on pedestals.

Posted by at 12:26 AM on January 22


About time somebody spoke out against this media crea-
ted monster. The fact that so many White women think she is
great is a profound indictment against them and our Culture
as a whole. She is not the most popular among younger women
though-Ellen DeGeneres is. And that’s another indictment.
With role models like these for our women, there is truly
little or no hope. In fact, every time anyone in the MSM talks
about “women and children” they are dividing our race by leav-
ing out White men-as if there could be either White women or
White children without White men. Listen for it-it’s constant.
By a thousand little ways like this, they get under our con-
cious mind and wreak havoc in our subconscious. How? Because
the subconscious cannot tell the difference between fantasy
seen on TV and reality as experienced by the person themself.
Thus the power of theatre in traditional society and the much
greater power of our over mediated society. Ever see picture
of people watching TV for the first time-it’s utter worship.
And simultaneously as they watch the program they are program-
med themselves. The intensity drops off with use but it does
not matter as the damadge is already done. Constant viewing
just maintains the conditioning already there.

Posted by Leif the Lucky at 12:37 AM on January 22


I am a white woman and a democrat. I am voting for Hillary Clinton because Obama scares me. I am afraid that his years of studying Islam will make the anti-western terrorists think that they have a friend in the White House. I also think that electing Obama president would put Oprah too close to the White House. I do not like Oprah. Even the commercials for her show are annoying and much too loud. It is so wonderful if she is losing fans as a result of this. Maybe we can get her off of the air.

There are white men voting for Obama. Why aren’t they traitors? Maybe Clinton will learn a good lesson from this.

Posted by Stephanie at 1:44 AM on January 22


It is a sad reflection on modern America that candidacy for a leading political party is determined not by the worth of the idividual, but solely on if that individual happens to be black or a woman.

Posted by Kenelm Digby at 6:22 AM on January 22


Let’s make this simple. All Black men vote for Obama. All White Women vote for Hillary. Black women, Asians, and Hispanic don’t get to vote. And if you are White and don’t vote for Obama you are a racist. If you are a man and don’t vote for Hillary you are a sexist.

I don’t see how this country has lasted this long with all the White men running the country.

Posted by Drifter at 6:29 AM on January 22


It seems like some women follow Oprah like a bunch of zombies from a George Romero movie. Who elected her president anyway?
In the past, talk show hosts didn’t support Political candidates: Johnny Carson, Jack Parr, Steve Allen, David Letterman, Jay leno, etc. Now that tradition is broken.
Does Oprah support Obama because he is black? What do you think?

Posted by Sardonicus at 8:13 AM on January 22


It’s a sad commentary on the low level of intelligence of much of the United States when an afternoon TV show hostess influences the votes of millions of Americans.

Posted by at 8:23 AM on January 22


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY


I ran across this earlier today, and it only makes me wonder a little bit more about Obama’s character. And bear in mind that the accuser is probably legit in that he is even willing to take a lie detector test. Is this the kind of man people want to become the next president of the United States of America? I wonder what Madam Oprah would think.

Posted by Expat Onlooker at 8:27 AM on January 22


As far as popular support Oprah is on the downhill slide. She started out letting guests make their point with very little intervention by her. Today “Oprah Knows It All” even when experts come on she makes sure they know what OPRAH thinks. I wonder how much longer these foolish middle aged WHITE women will continue to show their Great Open Mind To Diviersity by filling her studio and putting up with an hour or more of her Self Back Patting? If she is so hot, where are all the blacks in her audiance? I sure can’t see them. Oprah will never starve she has proven to ba an astute business woman BUT Oprah has gotten to the point where she believes all the hype her producers put out about her. (Final Note) If it were a black against a white in this race and a white show host promoted the white candidate on the same basis as Oprah does your ears would be filled with the word RACISISM..

Posted by T-Rexx at 11:03 AM on January 22


did anybody consider the fact that Oprah is based in Illinios and Obama is the Senator from Illinios. The race and gender issue has blinded people from the obvious.

Posted by too_sense at 11:33 AM on January 22


Whites have created the diversity myth, and they become enraged when “minorities” and especially fellow Whites don’t play the game properly. Trouble is, the game is illogical, and there’s no one consistent set of rules to follow.

Not that anyone here needs reminding, but to show you how the mainstream views Whites as a non-entity, CNN had an article yesterday about black women voters, asking whether they would vote their gender or their race. The article stated that they were the only voting bloc faced with this dilemma. Oh yea? What about White men? John Edwards aside, White male democrats will either “vote their race” or “vote their gender” in choosing between the two top democratic contenders, same as black women.

The diversity myth will continue to destroy Whites until enough people get their acts together and begin to resist it, from the ground level on up to the highest echelons of power. Those who can’t see that the diversity myth divides, rather than unites, are delusional. And the best definition of mental illness is delusional thinking.

The whole thing sickens me.

Posted by Greg at 12:52 PM on January 22


A president should not be chosen because of race or gender - PERIOD. I’m hoping that the Democratic race alienates the two sides against each other so that when a candidate is chosen - the other side will be too angry to side with it. This is of course if the Republican candidate is NOT McCain - if it is, it really doesn’t matter. Immigration is my MAIN concern, followed by the economy.

Posted by at 1:11 PM on January 22


>>>It is a sad reflection on modern America that candidacy for a leading political party is determined not by the worth of the idividual, but solely on if that individual happens to be black or a woman.

Mr. Digby, as much as I’ve come to enjoy your many posts, permit me to say you are way off base on this one. Even reversing their respective gender and races would hardly endear either of these two equally unacceptable candidates to us. The problem being the “worth” of either of these two candidates; NOT the race or sex issue.

Ms. Clinton has mangaged to acquire for herself a well-founded reputation as an inveterate LIAR! Mr. Obama has portrayed himself, not only as a liar (his ‘autobiography’), but also as a pandering race-hustler in the worst sense of the word. For example he NEVER attempts to proffer his bi-racial heritage as a “bridge between both races” but thinks and refers to himself as a Black. Which speaks volumes for his transparent phony image.

We Americans have our flaws, admittedly. But surely this election has brought out the absolute WORST of possible political candiates in BOTH political camps.

Witness that the media and political machinery of BOTH the Republican and Democratic parties are united trying to portray Mr. Paul as an ineffective marginal contender. His unacceptability to his Republican party as well as our controlled media being his basic HONESTY!

You might consider Obama’s shabby political history — one of dodging (NOT VOTING) on any issue even remotely smacking of being controversial. Would YOU want a leader who is afraid to commit himself on what he may or may not think is proper — for fear of losing popularity? Clinton’s pandering and tendency to tell people what they want to hear, rather than how she truly feels on critical issues speak for themselves.

I personally would have no problem with Colin Powell, a respected Afro-American in the White House. But comparing Mr. Powell to either Clinton or Obama is tantamount to comparing Mount Everest to a mere pebble. Perhaps now you’ll reconsider your earlier statement.

Posted by Fed Up at 1:41 PM on January 22


Stephanie,

Would you be willing to step outside your “democrat” identity and look at Ron Paul?

Ron Paul will keep us safe from terrorists by arming our military to the teeth, stopping visas from terrorist-sponsoring countries so they can’t get in here, gaining control of the borders so they can’t just walk in with illegals (will also stop illegals by removing their bait - welfare) and moving our soldiers out of the Middle East and bringing them home, so they are nowhere near the suicide bombers.

Here’s a webpage of his stand on the issues:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

It’s time to stop being a “good democrat” or a “good republican” and be a good American.

Fabulous video: https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

— I’m a white woman who’s voting for a white man — not because he’s a man (or even just because he’s white) but because he’s the best person for the job.

Posted by at 2:28 PM on January 22


Oprah won’t have to worry about having her show pulled, even if the ratings tank.

Her media backers, who made her what she is, are perfectly content to keep her in business dividing and weakening America.

Posted by at 4:17 PM on January 22


Why are we so willing to label Obama as being Black, even though he has embraced his blackness over his whiteness? We shouldn’t allow him to do that!
If he were half Asian would we immediately consign him to the Asian cubbyhole?
I personally wouldn’t vote for him because of the church of which he is a member, the pastor who presented Louis Farrakhan an award. He was also educated in a Muslim school. That’s enough for me.

Posted by Taurus689 at 4:47 PM on January 22


FEmale at 2:28. You should vote for a white man because YOUR RACE is more important. Do you think any black person gives a d@mn about YOU? Wise up, lady.

Posted by LOGIC at 5:07 PM on January 22


If I had to choose between Obama and Hillary, I’d go with Obama. This is because I can’t stand the thought of another Clinton in the White House. I mean, really! Are we somehow cursed to have two families-the Clintons and the Bushes-handing off the presidency to each other in perpetuity?

What’s next-Hillary Clinton, then Jeb Bush then George P. Bush then Chelsea Clinton and so on and so on?

Posted by at 7:47 PM on January 22


I never understood how Oprah came to have so much power. She’s only a talk show host. Nobody takes Ellen Degeneres or Tyra Banks or the women on The View (not even Barbara Walters) so seriously.

Posted by at 8:44 PM on January 22


Oprah sees race as more important than sex. Surprise, surprise.

Posted by Carl at 9:33 PM on January 22


Black first and always, no matter what.

Posted by at 9:36 PM on January 22


“did anybody consider the fact that Oprah is based in Illinios and Obama is the Senator from Illinios. The race and gender issue has blinded people from the obvious.”

Well, I was reading a local Chicago newspaper article a couple of months back; although The Oprah does her show in Chicago, it is signficantly RARE for anyone to actually see her outside of her show “about town.” She apparently prefers her Kalifornia digs as “her crib.”

Posted by at 9:40 PM on January 22


In the Leftwing pecking order race (meaning black) ALWAYS trumps gender (meaning female). Amazing that there are white female feminists who are so clueless that they don’t realize that. The female prosecutor in the OJ case was so stupid she figured she had a sympathetic jury because it was mostly women, even though they were mostly black. Anyone on this site could have predicted the results.

Posted by at 10:49 PM on January 22


I’m a middle-aged white female who plans to vote for Ron Paul. However, I live in a state that doesn’t have primary voting until springtime - long after all the “Super Primary” fanfare in other states has shaken-out the field of candidates.

The idea that “most white women will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman” or “…will vote for Obama because Oprah thinks he’s terrific”, is complete nonsense to any white female voter with a brain.

Posted by Lady Lina at 6:48 AM on January 23


To LOGIC at 5:07 p.m.

I think I am “wised up.” You’ll note I was trying to LOGICally explain to Stephanie, a “democrat” female who plans to vote for a black man, some specifics about policies to look at in regards to a man running for President who is white.

I don’t think I implied that I think there’s a black person out there who gives a d@mn about me. I assure you, I won’t be voting for Obama. I’ve read Steve Sailer’s review of Obama’s
book. It’s clear Obama’s first loyalty is to his tribe in Kenya. The Kenyans are engaged in tribal warfare (and probably always will be.) I don’t want my husband’s taxes and / or my son (during military service) being sent to get mixed up with that endless horror. If Obama is elected, I think it’s a fair bet, that’s what he’ll do as commander-in-chief. I want none of it.

My point about “person” is that you must look carefully at the policies. Just because he’s white doesn’t mean he’s reliable to protect my interests as a white person. Lyndon Johnson — a white man — signed the Civil Rights Act.

Signed, Female at 2:28

Posted by at 10:59 AM on January 23


Oprah Winfrey has acquired her power and vast fortune by tailoring her show’s format to appeal White, upper-middle class suburban women. Just how many blacks are interested in seeing the cast of “Friends” reunited besides Oprah Winfrey? Had tailored her show to a predominately black audience, she would have had to deal with things like cheating spouses and paternity tests. Oprah, more than likely, would have been yanked off the air years ago (like Geraldo, Ricki Lake, etc.) and would be just a nobody right now.

Posted by at 1:42 PM on January 23


“I am a white woman and a democrat. I am voting for Hillary Clinton because Obama scares me.”

Stephanie,

You are also likely either very young or a fool?

Any white man or woman who would vote for Comrades Hillary or Obama are traitors, traitors to their race. Both of these Reds are promising the same things, womb to tomb socialism and a “diversity is our strength” Utopian States of America that is majority nonwhite. Do you really want to live in a country that over 50% nonwhite?

Sure, most of the Republicans stink too; however, none are as bad of any of the Democrats (except for John — No Brains — McCain) and will likely do less damage to the country.

Stop dreaming and start thinking, irregardless of how painful such a process might be for you?

Posted by John PM at 7:07 PM on January 23


Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

She may be a “traitor” to women, but she’s not a traitor to blacks.
She’s just giving her loyalty to where she places the greater priority.
And it’s obvious what that priority is. Race trumps sex.

If only whites could get the same message!

Posted by at 8:32 PM on January 24


“The idea of any celebrity, sports figure, or chat show queen giving political advice is nauseating. Just shut the heck up and leave us alone. Of course, there is now a perverse EVERYTHING-is-political undercurrent in these times, which leads all these so called celebrities to become advocates. “
Posted by S & GS
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
I just got a message from Newsmax excitedly informing me that, “Stallone backs McCain”.

Do I care? Big deal! What makes Stallone so wise that I should listen to his political advice? As you said, just shut the heck up and leave us alone.

Posted by voter at 10:19 PM on January 24



“I can’t stand the thought of another Clinton in the White House. Are we cursed to have two families — the Clintons and the Bushes — handing off the presidency to each other in perpetuity? What’s next-Hillary Clinton, then Jeb Bush, then George P. Bush then Chelsea Clinton and so on and so on?”
Posted by at 7:47 PM

…………………………….
Could be. A good observation. It strikes me as mighty strange that in a country bursting with three hundred million people, out of those we can’t seem to find any worthy candidate for the presidency other than someone named Bush or Clinton.

So it is that democracies/republics transit into empires. Actually we’ve been (informally) in the empire stage since 1898. All we’re lacking now is an emperor.
When will it become formal?


Posted by ghw at 8:52 AM on January 25


Women supporting Clinton because of her gender is just as biased as people supporting Obama because of his race.

Posted by Citizen at 3:41 PM on January 27



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)