digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at img503.imageshack.us

CNN.com's - Front Page Obama hit-job

img503.imageshack.us — A single statement from a speech that was meant to ease racial tensions and fear of his "anti-American" stance is pulled completely out of context in order to present a distorted view of what was said. Shame on you CNN. You are going a long way to re-earn the "Clinton News Network" tag that you so rightfully deserved in the 90's.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • joaob, on 03/19/2008, -11/+317After lasting only 7 minutes on the front page it has now been removed. Thank goodness for screen capture.
    • arajan, on 03/19/2008, -5/+52great job dude!! i started off being ambivalent about CNN but now am sure they are knee-deep with the clintons. this was just another example. BTW there will be numerous attempts by many many people/channels to quote BO's speech out of context, which is why we need to ensure that maximum people read/see the whole speech.
    • lava, on 03/19/2008, -3/+23Wow, I don't care much about MSM bias, but that's pretty bad. I happened to glance at the speech, and out of all of that CNN's editors focused on that?
    • sanman, on 03/19/2008, -5/+19Regarding the phrase "Clinton News Network", to paraphrase Olbermann,

      "you are sounding like your opponent is the Democrat, and you are the Republican"

    • NoStoppingUs, on 03/19/2008, -43/+10uhhh...are you people ***** kidding me? "stained by the sin of slavery"? i hate obama, and i would completely agree with that statement. what the hell are you people drinking that you'll digg anything thats pro obama? jesus christ
      • wexmajor, on 03/19/2008, -3/+18What? The issue isn't that the sentiment is inaccurate, it's that CNN completely misrepresented the speech. Judging by that title it sounds like Obama talked for half an hour about how much the Constitution sucks. He didn't do that. It was practically a throwaway comment.
      • gsadamb, on 03/19/2008, -2/+20But the problem is that the headline doesn't at all capture the essence or point of his speech.

        It'd be like saying "1984" was about the future of video display devices or something.
      • sarixe, on 03/19/2008, -4/+11he's right, you know.
        1) just because someone attacks obama, doesn't mean they're automatically wrong, just because you support him.
        2) this comment was taken out of context and unfortunately timed, and it should be something good for obama. "stained by the sin of slavery" is exactly true, if you look back on history. just because obama was pointing this out doesn't mean he is, or should be implied to be, racist.
        • Hacbarton, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5That's not quite the point. The meaning of Obama's speech is that we can not keep having the same conversation over and over, and the headline makes it sound like he's still having the conversation, when he's in fact trying to move past it.
      • MixMastaKooz, on 03/19/2008, -2/+11I don't quite know where you're coming from: but the way the headline is phrased, it's very anti-Obama. As if saying that the Constitution is stained by slavery is an outrageous statement (and we both agree, if I read you correctly, that our Constitution does have the stain of slavery on it. Ergo, not an outrageous statement).
        It's being dugg because it's a huge abuse of journalistic power on CNN's part and we are questioning their integrity.
        • NoStoppingUs, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2thats what i dont get. i hate obama, and i would agree (loosely) with the idea that the constitution is stained by the sin of slavery. what is wrong with that? i hate obama, but i completely get his point, and hes right. this is absurd!

          i dont understand whats wrong with the headline. its essentially saying obama believes slavery was a horrible time in our nations history.
          • kufu91, on 03/19/2008, -1/+8The problem is that wasn't his point that he was trying to get across in his speech. The fact that the founders left this divisive issue for the next generation points out the importance of dealing with the choices and actions needed to form "a more perfect union."
          • green67, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5@NoStoppingUS...you "hate" Obama?...why?...I understand disagreeing with his views, but "hate" is a very strong word.Your opinion is exactly what "the powers that be" want to hear.Change is a very scary thing to those who it threatens...you are either very ignorant or very scared....either way, you are a pitiful excuse for an American.I just hope that your views stop with you...but I fear I am speaking(typing) in vain...
      • DaviDTC, on 03/19/2008, -1/+10Using only what you said, I can make it look like you said, " 'I' 'would completely' '*****' 'jesus christ' 'with' 'obama' "
      • OwdenBowden, on 03/19/2008, -6/+1I cannot for the life of me understand why the supporters of Obama can excuse him for his continued association with Jeremiah Wright and his hate mongering church (as well as with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam). This is 100% unacceptable behavior by the Voting Public and Obama.
        Obama has yet to denounce this association (and in turn he is endorsing everything that Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan has been preaching).

        Now I understand why Obamas wife has a problem with America - because she is just as hateful and anti American & anti semitic as her and Barack's Spiritual advisors have been.

        QUESTION:
        So please answer me this: If Barack Obama has had a problem with the views of his spiritual leaders then why has it taken him 20 years to denounce them?

        Just say NO to O in 08
        • ianam, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1That's a pack of talking-point lies designed to derail Obama's candidacy, not to deal with reality. And Obama's association with Wright is no more inexcusable than his association with his racist white grandmother.
        • OwdenBowden, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Once again - NOT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. Obama is the Same Politics but in a different color suit. SSDD.

          ANSWER THE QUESTION. -
          • DooM, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1HE answered the question - we don't have to. Watch/read the speech - he very clearly explains why he condemns the man's words but can't condemn the man. I'd explain it to you but I'm not the ***** internet version of Cliff's Notes.
          • jj9000, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1You expect somebody to read a speech when they can just spew ignorant talking points?
            -OBAMA'S PRIEST SAID BAD THINGS!
            -LAWL OBAMA IS ISLAM!
    • jdaniel284, on 03/19/2008, -18/+7I don't like CNN and I think the front page was politically motivated.

      However, I will say that the section that CNN was referring to bothered me. Here it is in context:

      "The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations."

      That is troubling. I don't think the Constitution of the United States is "stained by slavery". Not to mention, slavery is not an "original sin" of the United States. The word itself is derived from the historically common practice of kidnapping white Slavic peasants, many of which were sold to the rich black Egyptians.
      • archiesteel, on 03/19/2008, -3/+11"Original sin" here doesn't mean that the Americans were the first to deal in the slave trade. Anyone knows there were slaves before then, going back to the origins of civilization (and probably before). It means it was there at the origins of the nation, the origins of the US. In other words, slavery was (unfortunately) part of the founding of the United States.
        • jdaniel284, on 03/19/2008, -14/+2It was not a part of the Constitution though. Our history, yes. Our Constitution, no. That's what bothers me.

          Keep in mind, the Constitution is what abolishes slavery.
          • archiesteel, on 03/19/2008, -2/+12You mean, once the 13th amendment was added in 1865...Obama was clearly talking about the *original* constitution, which did not prevent slavery (though, as Obama himself noted, it could not reconcile it with its basic principles).
          • qwerter, on 03/19/2008, -1/+18It most certainly was a part of the constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution describes what is known as the "Three-fifths compromise" wherein all slaves were to be counted as three fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and representation.

            The Thirteenth Amendment is what abolished slavery.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromi ...
          • ianam, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3"Keep in mind, the Constitution is what abolishes slavery."

            How can an American be this ignorant? Didn't you make it past 1st grade?
        • UNCCEJ1010, on 03/19/2008, -2/+10"Keep in mind, the Constitution is what abolishes slavery." Not in its original form.
          The constitution included provisions for counting slaves as part of a state's population.
          Furthermore, note that Obama said "was stained" not "is stained."
          The constitution has changed over the years.
        • sephers83, on 03/19/2008, -3/+6jdaniel284, An AMENDMENT to the constitution is what abolishes slavery. It was not in the ORIGINAL document. And while the constitution does not directly speak of slavery, Obama saying that slavery is a stain on our constitution is a perfectly acceptable statement, because slavery essentially goes against everything that our constitution is supposed to stand for i.e. freedom.
          • jdaniel284, on 03/19/2008, -11/+2The original document ALLOWS itself to be amended. The U.S. Constitution is unique in this regard. And the original document says nothing to suggests it is "stained by slavery". Nothing.
          • iofthestorm, on 03/19/2008, -2/+8@jdaniel284: As others have said, there's the whole 3/5 compromise that anyone who's taken any US history should know about, where a slave counts as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation. I'd say that's a mention of slavery right there. Now just stop posting before you make yourself look even stupider.
          • gsadamb, on 03/19/2008, -2/+8Except the part where it specifically counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person.

            The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

            "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

            But I guess just making stuff up is as good as facts.
          • qwerter, on 03/19/2008, -2/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromi ...

            Hey constitution... you got something on your tie.
      • Rednik2011, on 03/19/2008, -5/+6Check out the law professor Akhil Amar's book "America's Constitution: A Biography". His analysis of the constitution and its pro-slavery slant is quite interesting and makes a convincing case about the pro-slavery slant of the Constitution and its inability to resolve it.
        • jdaniel284, on 03/19/2008, -7/+1I feel the U.S. Constitution is a brilliant document that has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it's very philosophy is liberty.

          However, I would be interested in someone's opinion that is the exact opposite of this. Especially if he has the cognitive ability to build logical arguments instead of simple rhetoric. I may check it out, because arguing that point would take much skill. Thanks for the recommendation.
          • Trykt, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3The Constitution is a fantastic document and no one's trying to deface it here. The fact is that at the time the original document was written it allowed slavery to continue.

            The best part of the Constitution is that it can be, and has been, amended.
          • ianam, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0jdaniel284 is a smug ignoramus. Check out the rhetoric of the U.S. Constitution itself (later amended):

            "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
        • revisrev, on 03/19/2008, -2/+0jdaniel, it's like this:
          A lot of the founders would have liked to outlaw slavery in the constitution. A lot of the founders would not have signed the constitution if it had outlawed slavery. So, they didn't outlaw slavery. The slavery issue was put on the back burner by the signers of the constitution in order to make the union work. They knew that over time societies can become more enlightened, and so they left that work for future generations, hoping sensibilities would evolve over time and bring the issue to resolution.
          The point of Barack Obama saying that, is that there is work that has been left for our generation, our level of civility, our sensibilities. The time has come, there are enough people at this point in time that feel it is time to tackle the issues left for us.
          What makes this a beautiful speech is the clever writing and flawless delivery. What makes this the right speech at the right time is that all of the ideas that are presented tie right back in to "We are who we've been waiting for" and "Hope" and "Yes we can." I've seen a lot of good speakers, but I don't think I've seen any who deliver so well on such a consistent basis.
      • Nowheredan, on 03/19/2008, -3/+21I think you're missing the point.
        First of all, the Constitution WAS stained by slavery.
        Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
        "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

        Second, he's not saying that the US came up with slavery. He's saying that slavery was being practiced when the US was formed. Original sin, in Christian mythology, refers to the sins into which we are born - the US was born into slavery.
        • ianam, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Article 4, section 2 is more explicit:

          "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

          "held to service or labour" == enslaved
      • ecualung, on 03/19/2008, -1/+8I think you're missing the point. To say that slavery is the USA's "original sin" is not to say that it was first ever done in the USA. Obama means that it's the "original sin" in the sense that it was the reality that colored nearly all aspects of society, indelibly, for all the succeeding generations.

        AND, you're leaving out what Obama said only a few sentences later, which is that, in fact, the very language of the Constitution ITSELF is what resolved the issue of slavery, because it affirms the equality of man. So although the document was written in a historical context that condoned slavery, it nevertheless provided the language for its condemnation. The document was "ahead of its time" in this sense. Listen to the WHOLE speech and you will understand that Obama is extremely reverent toward the Constitution.
      • scotticus, on 03/19/2008, -1/+12Finish the quote and it isn't in the least troubling:

        "Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

        And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time. "
        • dinot, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Damn you and your facts! I want(need) a reason to irrationally hate this man and you're ruining it for me!!!!!
      • yournightmare, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2"However, I would be interested in someone's opinion that is the exact opposite of this. Especially if he has the cognitive ability to build logical arguments instead of simple rhetoric. I may check it out, because arguing that point would take much skill."

        --Lol. Well, besides the 3/5 compromise that other people have already pointed out, the Constitution (that's the ORIGINAL Constitution, since you seem so big on the word "original") says that fugitive slaves have to be returned to their owners. Check Article 4, Section 2 and see for yourself. This clause was later superseded by the 13th Amendment. It CLEARLY says a slave must be returned to his/her owner. It's not an opinion. You can argue about it if you like, but if you do it will be a clear demonstration that you have far less cognitive ability and skill than you think you do.
      • ianam, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0"The word itself is derived from the historically common practice of kidnapping white Slavic peasants, many of which were sold to the rich black Egyptians"

        That, like the rest of your post, is utter BS.
    • LordBoreal51, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5I agree that the headline and out of context quote was complete sensationalism, but that does not reflect CNN in general. If you watched it tonight most of the interviewed agreed that Obama's speech was an eloquent and fair way to deal with the issue of his preacher.
      • mccune, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I agree. I pop on CNN.com regularly throughout my work day, and they tend to have far more pro-Obama articles than pro-Clinton ones from what I've seen. I don't really know where people are getting this whole Clinton News Network thing from, a holdover from Bill I'm guessing.
        • MacEnvy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1There are a lot more good things to say about Obama than Clinton. Fair != Balanced, despite what FNC would have you believe.
    • sanman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+8http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/story?id= ...

      Obama: 'To Completely Disown Rev. Wright Is to Disown the African-American Community'
      • jj9000, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1That was just a sub-headline under a pretty reasonable leading one: Exclusive: Obama on Reverend, Race and When He Was Ashamed For His Own Community

        sanman's almost as bad as CNN.. :)
    • 4tygames, on 03/19/2008, -2/+79Mirror:

      http://image.bayimg.com/dajgiaabd.jpg
      • MrSlumberjack, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1won't be chuggin for too long
      • pimpofpixels, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Am i blind? I don't see what everybody's so upset over. Honestly, I don't see it.
        • magus_melchior, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Out of several paragraphs of discourse, they chose the one quote that can hurt him the most.
    • rentmitchum, on 03/19/2008, -2/+11I like how the screen capture lets us know the submitter clicked only election news, except "Judge rips Paul McCartney's ex-wife." lol
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 03/19/2008, -12/+3Breath of fresh air from the "blow job" digg provides for him
    • victordelprete, on 03/19/2008, -14/+3No, SHAME on Digg for burying Ron Paul in favor of Obama! Digg is slanted just as badly...
      • revisrev, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Digg is not a News Network. Digg is a place where you go to see what the people on Digg think is good. If you're relying on Digg for your news, then... I'm sorry, I can't finish. The idea is too absurd.
    • Kamill85, on 03/19/2008, -1/+10Btw: host it on ***** flickr next time, thanks!
    • UrinalPooper, on 03/19/2008, -4/+6This doesn't shock me... when Obama started winning primaries the wedged articles about his wins in between articles about riots in Kenya and Michael Vick's dogs:

      http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b5/methfront/wha ...

      pretty much the most egregiously racist thing I'd ever seen from a major news site.
    • solistus, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Searching for the original headline on Google hits this story, so I guess they rewrote it:

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.speec ...
    • shieldsmw, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2within hours, the story had virtually disappeared from CNN's front page. to me, that's worse. the guy gives a historic speech and it takes a back seat to crap stories about britney spears and the like.
    • Idolatry, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1It is shameful on CNN's part to do such things. I saw their news coverage yesterday and it does not look good for Obama. They have taken this stand against him and Faux News had already done so and people are foolish enough to believe the MSM. His prospects in the General Election are looking worse by the day as the only way Hillary can win now is by getting a drastic turnaround. Thanks Sean Hannity and the MSM for ruining a promising candidate's run over a stupid issue.
  • NameTry2468, on 03/19/2008, -12/+198Hahaha! You have GOT to be ***** me! Wow, CNN...
    • ethamajin, on 03/19/2008, -0/+12wow indeed. CNN must be counting on the fact that their internet readers don't actually watch the content they cover =]
    • Dr00pieS, on 03/19/2008, -3/+34BLACK is the new president...bitches
    • leamanc, on 03/19/2008, -12/+1Sensational headline? Maybe. But he did say it, so it's fair game to quote him on it. As a public official, he should be more mindful of things that can be used against him in the court of public opinion.
      • UNCCEJ1010, on 03/19/2008, -1/+8He said "was stained." The headline implies that Obama believes the current form of the constitution is tainted.
        The constitution is not the same as it once was.
      • qwerter, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9You can take anything out of context to make whatever point you want. It's irresponsible journalism, plain and simple, with a political agenda to boot.
      • Hacbarton, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3It's not that the quote is some shameful or that's its taken out of context- it's that the role of a headline is to summarize and characterize a story, and this one completely misses the point. It'd be like running a headline about 9/11 that said " Four Planes Fail To Land"
    • matrixbandit, on 03/19/2008, -0/+8I know.. thank god we have CNN.. I mean here I was sitting here thinking that slavery was something this country was proud of.
    • Fordi, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1You know... that screencap was one of the few times that my immediate reaction was *facepalm*
    • poxonyou, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I wonder if CNN will hold resentment of Obama throughout his career if he becomes president? Several of their lead Democratic pundits were part of the Clinton presidency or part of Hillary's campaign. MSNBC would be the only MSM network left without a strong, consistent bias against him (of course the resident Republicans on the network would give him a hard time).
      • Hacbarton, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Actually, MSNBC's resident Republican, Joe Scarborough, just called the speech "the most important speech on race in 45 years".
    • jonnyboy1544, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2So if CNN is for Clinton and FOX is for Bush, who is for Obama? You guessed it, BET.
  • tomlasusa, on 03/19/2008, -8/+67Opponents and advesaries are no doubt salivating over the fact that he sat in the congregation and heard his pastor make 'volatile statements' -- which he of course disagreed with. Just as Obama pointed out, on any given Saturday or Sunday a pastor, priest or rabbi is liable to utter some strong comments to those listening. Does everyone abandon their churches when they hear them?
    • warnergt, on 03/19/2008, -24/+2Do you take your children to learn anti-American, anti-white racist diatribes?
      • archiesteel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+12Do you often make logically fallacious arguments like that?
        • kss42, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Do you belieeeeeve in life after love, after love, after love?
      • californiakevo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+8Do you take your children to see Larry the Cable Guy?
    • aklaxman, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2 Obama was not in the congregation when Pastor Wright made the comments in question.
      • debi55, on 03/19/2008, -3/+0He missed christmas mass? Look to youtube and you will see him in the crowd. Let's face it, there are those that will not see. He admitted hearing negative things like this. Oparah got out because the church was "unhealthy" for her so she was disinfranchised. Check the facts. I'm bi-racial and don't need excuses to fail or hate. I stand on my own merits. Can Barrack? I was a supporter but he just lost my vote and those of other blacks who resent others breathing hate into the world.
        • Joshuarr, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Go back, listen to his speech, and come back.
    • tricks574, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1No, but most also don't hire said pastor to work on their campaign.............................
      • Barbarino, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Or give awards to Louis Farrkann.
    • Owndyou, on 03/19/2008, -8/+2He was in the congregation- he said he was there to hear these types of comments. Either way, he knows that they were being taught. Also, some pastors say dumb stuff but not GOD DAMN AMERICA. Not as ignorant and hateful as "the US government created AIDS to carry out genocide on the black man". Give me a break, this guy is racist, just like farrakan, al sharpton, jesse jackson, and the KKK. The point is Obama's lack of judgement. He chose that church over all others because of Jeremiah Wright and what he was teaching.

      Please read http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWVkMThjN2RjN ... this article to see through Obama's fanciful words and empty rhetoric to understand the true meaning behind what he says so eloquently.

      Thanks you Barack Obama for teaching me about race and the oppression of the black man.... and the white man... and the brown man.... and the asian... and women .... and immigrants .... AND ANY OTHER VOTING BLOCK THAT YOU HOPE TO CAPTURE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.
      • johnhummel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7I'm going to cut and paste another comment I made - just because you seem to only want to focus on those three words - "God damn America", and not the beginning and the end of the sentence around them.

        Here, I'll say it too:

        God Damn America.

        When financial institutions get the laws changed so Joe Average finds it harder to declare bankruptcy, then the same financial institutions run to the Fed for money because they're "too big to be allowed to fail" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... ), and take the same tax dollars they claim they shouldn't have to pay from the same Joe Average they screwed over - then God Damn America.

        When we have terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the US leadership decides that it's more important to go after Iraq - a country that had no bin Laden ties, a country that was contained, a country that had no WMD's and posed no "eminent threat to the United States" - then told you that if you dared questioned them you were "emboldening the terrorists" - then God Damn America.

        When we are told that torture is perfectly acceptable (for the same things that we punished Japanese soldiers after World War II for doing), then when our soldiers are caught without proper training, without proper supervision - and caught torturing physically and sexually Iraqi prisoners, and we are told that *none* of the leadership of those soldiers are responsible - then God Damn America.

        When US veterans come home and they are told they can't be elegible for the GI bill because they were 10 days away from being qualified, when US veterans come home and have to wait 18 months before it can be proved that the shrapnel in their head was caused by their service to our country, when US veterans come home and have increased PTSD and other mental issues - but instead we leave them in places like Walter Reed or without help, then God Damn America.

        When we decide that someone having the audacity to speak out against these evils from a church pulpit, and actually say out loud that American actions abroad of removing democraticallly elected leaders and putting in our own (like Pinochet, like the Shah of Iran, like propping up the dictatorship of the Saudi royal family) solely for the means of financial gain, then wonder why we are attacked - when we say to a person like Wright who has brought up these truths "Well, you are a racist for daring to say we have responsibility for our actions abroad" - then God Damn you, too.

        Personally, I'd rather speak out for the man who has the courage to point out evil for what it is and name it. And once we have done naming the evils of greed, and kleptocracy, and incompetence from people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, then we can go fight these evils for what they are. And on *that* day, then we can all proudly say God Bless America for doing the right thing.
    • joeanon, on 03/19/2008, -6/+2The problem is that Wright always acts like that when given higher levels of public attention.

      Knowing he was under greater attention and scrutiny Wright used Obama's popularity as a world podium for what is effectively a hate speech. This man is so out of touch he is oblivious that the majority of people... rich or poor are white. Yet he mentions the rich white people.

      He is clearly intolerant of other people's opinions. I hate Fox, but this man makes then look fair. He will not let another person speak their mind. He will oppress them, belittle them and define them as a means to control them. Many religious leaders wind up like this, their power goes to their head.

      The reality is that Wright is naturally like this, with or without national attention. The attention just helps more people see that sometimes the man interjects his personal agenda as though it was Jesus's.

      According to this man Jesus was a black man who hates whites for being damned by god.

      He sounds like a black and less radical version of www.godhatesfags.com

      They both use these similar tactics in attacking American's for not being Christian enough.

      The problem with that is America is not a religious nation, we have no national religion and we cannot without interfering with Freedom Of Religion. So.... American's have no obligation, as Wright believes, to act Christian or obey HIS interpretation of God.

      He is intolerant. If he was what, he would be a racist. Fortunately for the radical minorities, the white aren't intolerant as the preach or quite honestly we wouldn't let you because whites have the national majority at any point. WE are the ones that abolished slavery, not Martin Luther King or any blacks for that matter. It was all white people that CHOSE to give blacks freedom, they didn't pressure us.

      So, while there will always be rich white racists, to generalize the people who gave you freedom and democracy after your tribes sold you into slavery, shows a lack of understanding, a lack of judgment and a lack of education of your own history.

      The man is a big black propagandist with god on his side. There can't be white, black and latino values. There can only be American values otherwise YOU UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY and divide the nation.

      EVEN if black values were needed as a means to lift the black man from oppression. Who decided when to stop that division ? Who stands up and says.. hey blacks are equal enough to stop trying to empower themselves beyond that of their demographics.

      No one will do that, they will just endlessly empower themselves under a strategy like black values. It won't ever end like that, the radical blacks will be drawn to black values and they will divide further from non radical blacks and the rest of America.

      You are creating a subset of people who blame white people for their problems and think that by coming together as an entity separate of white American and hedging out white influence they will be better off... but that's a joke.

      White America gives minorities more money than they will EVER give themselves, at least for now. Minorities aren't paying for themselves to be on welfare and they are the prime abusers of the health care system.

      Those damn rich white American's making over 350k a year are paying the majority of income tax, much of which goes toward medicare and welfare among many other social program that the working class benefits from more than the wealthy class.

      Wright is a symbol of Obama's bad judgment when it comes to backing religious figures.

      EVEN WORSE than this guy was the anti-gay singer he took on tour when campaigning part of the south.

      American's are morons, so they are more worried about superficial BS statements like GOD DAMN AMERICA or AMERICA CAUSE 911. Well, we did, and anyone that's so patriotic they can't admit it,,, is not a patriot, but a fool who would oblivious repeat the mistakes of their past. If you don't know, Eisenhower, JFK, and Lyndon Johnson put Saddam power in their meddling in the middle east.

      Reagan shipped TENS OF THOUSANDS of weapons to Muslim Extremists under an executive order.

      Anyone too stupid to see that constant meddling in other people's nations doesn't led to retaliation is just an asshole who knows better, but out of patriotic retardedness can't seem to admit it. If you can't admit American foreign policy directly resulted in Jihads against America then we're doomed to repeat this. We never had any good enough reason to tamper in these peoples governments. They would have sold us their oil no matter who was in power AND we should have been, as President Carter tried to tell you, ending the practice of being reliant on foreign oil.

      I think cheap oil overall has served us well, and likely we've made more money on 10 cent a gallon oil than we'll wind up paying in middle eastern wars, but that's just ONE of the costs. By staying with oil we also failed to innovate right UP until oil spiked. It was pressure from the west likely that kept oil prices too low, resulting in high consumption and dwindling reserves.

      American's should worry about the suggesting that Obama's didn't have the foresight to not bring these people on his campaign in the first place, not one some radical anti-white Pastor says. They should worry about Obama voting for the Patriot Act twice and REAL ID. They should worry why Obama's health care plan is no different than Hilary's and almost certain to fail.

      If not voting on the war or giving pretty speeches is his greatest strength. I doubt we should expect much from Obama. Reagan gave good speeches also, but he marks the decline of US power .. if you know your history. That's the start of the national debt, the push of consumption economics, the largest break in taxes for the wealthy in history, wartime spending ... all the time. (we used to differentiate between wartime and peacetime spending, reducing peacetime spending to focus on infrastructure or lower taxes, since Reagan that policy died. Reagan also killed third party clinic drug review, leading us to medical costs that go up 10% a year and endless brands of erectile dysfunction drugs and anti-depressants. Yet these drugs are mostly the same drugs they made 10-20 years ago, changed as little as possible in order to get a new patent and resold with cherry picked clinical data. The drug companies actually chose what data to give to the FDA under the new system. We'll in the 80's, in the wake of AIDS, we had a lot of complaints drugs were getting approved too slow, so rather than work out a way to test on terminal patients. They figured.. hey why not just test the new drugs... on the public. You'll get fast result like that for sure. OK, but AT LEAST poison us with innovative cures for heart disease, cancer and AIDS... not yet another Prozac clone or allergy medicine or sleep aid. THANKS REAGAN

      Wright doesn't scare me as much as people thinking American foreign policy didn't lead to 911. However, his obvious lack of demographics knowledge is disturbing. I suppose he thinks black people invented being oppressed by rich white people..

      But in all reality, that's why we ALL came here. You'd think a man who has no real job other than to write speeches of hope and enlightenment could figure that out on his own.
      The blacks in America today are lucky to be here, just as all us working class peoples. Many of us came as slaves or refugees, so I don't feel sorry for blacks and I think continuing to be overly empathic for them is doing them harm. Obviously they to feel they deserve extra rights.. still. Most blacks HAVE NO CONCEPT they are racist against whites... yet let a white person refer to them in a way they don't like... they call racism.

      I'm surprised the good Pastor isn't calling everyone criticizing him white racists also. Maybe Obama scolded him for being so intolerant in the face of unity and hope. WHAT AN ASSHOLE. You see the campaign of hope... and you know... hey if black and whites really god along... there would be no room for my hate speeches against whites.

      What man of God would be so bold and ignorant to, in the face of perhaps the greatest movement of hope in modern times, to attacking white people, attack America, and say nobody every called Hilary nigger.

      ***** the media isn't even TOUCHING that one they are such pussies after a decade of 80's political correctness jammed down our throats. NOBODY EVER CALLED HILARY NIGGER.

      So, what,, being called nigger makes you a good President huh. Pretty convenient opinion to be hold by a black values Pastor isn't it.

      I guess Hilary being riddled with slander and called a monster, bitch, whore, she-devil is nothing like being called a nigger right.. Because oppression against black people is SOOO much more important than oppression against anyone else.

      The man is a fool trying to rally support for HIS agenda and using Obama's popularity. Not much of a friend this guy turned out to be for Obama. I can't imagine he didn't know what he was doing or that he's never done this before.

      These are feelings he's been just waiting to release on the public, given he was important enough to say them. Obama made him important and his true colors showed through because he thought he was on a roll and untouchable.

      Oh how easy man is corrupted by power.
    • TinternAbbot, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Most of us DONT have pastors or priests or rabbis who utter phrases like "god damn america." Sorry, Obama, you fail.
  • DeadFox1, on 03/19/2008, -9/+109OMG. thankyou, Clinton News Network.
    • sgtpppr, on 03/19/2008, -0/+8Tonight on Anderson Cooper 360, they showed only a minute or two of the speech and labeled the whole thing as 'damage control'. They barely said anything about the speech and aimed the entire story on the 'fiery rhetoric' of the pastor of the church he attends. I was actually caught off guard by how they changed the whole focus of the speech.
    • sickswaystop, on 03/19/2008, -4/+4This is the same channel that innterupted clintons speech on super tuesday only to cut to Obama's, which he got to finish in full. (CNN aired the rest of Clintons speech later that night, to squash any bias towards Obama) CNN is still a credible network because they focus on providing stories in the most detail. I think it depends largely on when you tune in, or what types of storeis your looking at. News companies work around spin, but CNN seems spins it every which way. And no I don't work for CNN.
    • JettaMan, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3You think Obama is getting a rough ride from CNN. Try being a Republican.
      • DeadFox1, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1If I were a republican; no problemo. I would only be watching FNC!
      • MalenfantX, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0Don't you think Republicans should be held responsible for being the superstitious, warmongering, borrow-and-spend fools that they are?
        • JettaMan, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Don't you think Democrats should be held responsible for implementing social programs that we can't afford, that hurt the economy (and the poor and middle class), that make people dependent on handouts, for embracing world government, and giving a huge tax burden that they expect our children to pay off? (Yes, I know, Republicans do that too... that's really the problem isn't it?)
    • soulkitchen, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1 CNN is dead to me
  • thejimmyo, on 03/19/2008, -7/+171I think that the speech was a brilliant indictment of how we oversimplify complex issues and obsess over fast and easy soundbytes. Things like this worry me that CNN, MSNBC and FOX will just be searching for words and phrases that people can raise their voices and argue over.
    • lovek, on 03/19/2008, -0/+17Looks the Colbert Report called them out on that very issue not 5 minutes ago. Hopefully they were paying attention.
      • burgermind, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Thank you for giving me a reason to watch TV.
    • Edrick, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5....is that a squid in your icon?
      • 0xception, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6it's cthulhu

        Vote for Cthulhu!
        • mOdQuArK, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Why vote for the Lesser Evil?
        • zKman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Cthulhu/Clinton '08

          Why vote for the lesser evil, when you can have both?
        • Joshuarr, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Who better to answer 'the call'?
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Well, then thank goodness for the Internet so that we can all make fun of the dying "Main Stream Media". May they perish soon.
    • sickswaystop, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1...such as?
      • johnhummel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Such as the only thing you see is people saying "OMG - Wright said 'God damn America'", without brinigng in the beginning and end of the sentence "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme" - suddenly, it takes on a totally different meaning. I've been in church where it's been discussed that if America turns to sin, that God will damn America like He did Isreal - and yet, nobody has ever accused them of not patriotic.

        Wright says the same words, and suddenly "OMG - he's an America hating racist!" *That's* the kind of "simple and easy soundbyte" that FOX, etc are playing. It's like the Dean Scream all over again.
    • sloppychris, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Where's STEPHEN A. SMITH!!! when you need him?
  • joaob, on 03/19/2008, -9/+65Share this out. Let's expose them.
    • debi55, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0I thought they were Obama people, especially Martin who keeps saying, as a husband of an ordained minister.... Hillary is described in terms that are usually predatory and Obama is usually glorified or excused....he is portrayed as "victim". Let's face it, people have proven that women are still the most discriminated against. I'm black, and have heard family members put down whites, it goes both ways. Let's get back to real politics. Ever heard, "birds of a feather flock together?". I will be watching my candidate to see if he can "change" my mind and "how he sees himself".
      • addicted68098, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Clinton tries to portray herself as the victim and it is sort of ridiculous
    • marklittle, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Mirror: http://peachpic.com/out.php/i42_obama.jpg
  • DeadElephantORG, on 03/19/2008, -28/+304THAT IS SO ***** OUTRAGEOUS. I can't ***** believe it. I just watched that speech and I'm crying with gratitude for Obama's courage in speaking directly to the unutterable racial pain in our culture. It's an historic speech of healing. And THEN I see that reprehensible headline, and suddenly the bigoted and self-serving source of our dissension and hatred is laid bare.

    Way to be the problem, CNN. Way to be the problem.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/19/2008, -53/+7You are so damed gullible and stupid it isn't even funny.
      • nirav72, on 03/19/2008, -3/+18Why do you even bother posting? when no one will see..because its buried!
        • 0xception, on 03/19/2008, -1/+8normally he's been buried and reported! mostly for all the spam he flings around.
      • busket, on 03/19/2008, -2/+8This from someone who no doubt supported the invasion of Iraq. Gullible and stupid indeed.
      • theblankcanvas, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4HAHAHAHAHAHA you dousche. sincerely, reality.
      • Spudster, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I think I agree with this guy. Yeah it's not really accurate of what Obama was saying, but I don't think it should be getting the OUTRAGEOUS reactions were seeing here.
      • BigLLamasHouse, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2RepubOperative, you probably have a W '04 sticker on your car and a Dick Cheney pin-up poster to beat off to over your bed. Its pretty obvious who the mindless drone is here
        • dpazar2, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1So what if RepubOp does?? Dead Elephant org freaked out over something that he/she has no control over whatsoever...this has nothing to do with what party anyone is supporting...it happens in both parties. Thats politcs, so stop being so damn immature and trying to find little ways to nit pick people and see what was actually said...what was said is freakishly out of control.
      • Spoomeister, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1DIAF
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Yes, but the best response is to simply ignore them, or discredit them on sites like this that have heavy traffic. Which is also more fun.
    • nittanylion06, on 03/19/2008, -7/+11"...I'm crying with gratitude for Obama's courage in speaking directly to the unutterable racial pain in our culture."
      .. wow, seriously, get a grip ...
    • tricks574, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Unutterable racial pain? Perhaps you haven't seen the rest of the world? If someone so much as utters something that could be deemed racist on the radio in America he or she is grilled for days and most of the time faces serious social consequences. If you go to many places in Africa or the Middle East, you might be killed because you criticize someone who is spouting off racially driven *****. Yeah, America did some bad things to blacks and other minorities, and yes we haven't yet gotten it 100 percent right, but its a hell of a lot closer than a lot of the world, so be grateful for that.
      • Gutterpunk, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Only people who get grilled for weeks are under scrutiny for all the wrong reasons, which is usually the sheer joy that American take into seeing their mighty fall.Tthe scrutiny doesn't make the USA a bastion of anti-racism, it only make newspaper sale.
      • fluxion, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3which is exactly what Obama's speech was about: the progress that has been made over the years and what we have to be thankful for as Americans, but also what remains to be done in order to make a more perfect union.

        it is unutterable racial pain, as there are pains, and we're discouraged from speakin on such issues due to crap like what CNN just pulled here. the statement doesnt make any comparison to the pains of other nations, or the extent of those pains
      • Spektr4, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Obama definitely said some things that people in his position usually dare not say. The reasons *why* some black people have that anger, for example. Or white resentment over affirmative action and welfare. The good thing is, Obama "gets" it. The biggest thing his critics missed in that speech is that by saying what he said, he *proves* that he's different from Wright. He's proven that he grasps the racial issues at play in America better than, probably, 99% of Americans. I consider myself fairly enlightened, but he put some things in perspective for me with that speech.
    • Spudster, on 03/19/2008, -3/+3I think someone is getting a bit reactionary... It was a quote taken out of context, that's all. Yeah it's a black mark against CNN but it's more of a mistake by one of their techies than anything else.
      • fluxion, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2it goes completely against what Obama's speech was about, it's poor journalism, mistake (highly unlikely) or not
    • BigLLamasHouse, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2I'm with you Dead Elephant. I never in my life thought I would ever hear a presidential candidate say some of the things he said the other day. I've always thought the words Candid and Candidate would never go together. He was speaking from the heart and speaking a lot of truths that everyone knows but few will talk about. Racial pain isn't the biggest problem in our nation, I would go with poverty. But if this recession doesn't subside soon, the 2 problems will become worse. Also, you are very right about media being a self-serving source of information and sometimes hatred. They try to sell papers. It's what they do. There is a section of our city called Little Mexico. If someone were to walk through the streets there and recite some of the things William Randolph Hearst said about Mexicans to sell papers in the early 20th century, they would have a hard time explaining themselves. News outlets are just as self-serving as other corporations. Thank God for the internet.
  • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -10/+77Sensationalism at it's finest.

    I can see it now, one candidate will say something like "Who would have a desire to kill children?" and it will hit a site's front page as "Candidate X discusses desires to kill children!"
    • EXreaction, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9Jack Tompson wants YOU to molest children.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 03/19/2008, -7/+4"Sensationalism at it's finest."

      Look at where the ***** you're posting a comment.
    • BradHAWK, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1"Jesse can't swim"
  • Ell3, on 03/19/2008, -87/+22So let me get this straight, you Obama supports are "outraged" at CNN because CNN put a direct quote from Obama on it's front page. lol I think you're "outraged" because you're embarrassed that Obama said it and you'd rather the rest of the world not see it.
    • matt70, on 03/19/2008, -6/+50Actually Elle, I'm proud he said it. Jefferson knew it. Franklin knew it. Adams knew it. The outrage comes because, taken out of context of the rest of the speech, it appears to be something it is not.
    • theuniversal, on 03/19/2008, -4/+23Ell3: your reading/listening skills seem to be lacking. The headline is not a quote from Obama's speech. Check again.

      Obama was talking about the past, that at the time of the convention the slavery issue divided the states and was unresolved.
      • jbdobd, on 03/19/2008, -4/+14Ell3 has never been known for her command of the English language.
    • martalli, on 03/19/2008, -3/+37Three words completely out of context. I could quote you "outraged at CNN". Isn't that what you said? I guess you are a strong Obama supporter now by your quote.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Whenever I see your post there is this song that begins playing in my head. I just can't place it... anyway, here is something I found just for you. It has to do with the Iraq War. I hope this helps to explain things in a better way for you.

      http://www.bobfromaccounting.com/4_09/explainingwa ...
      • motivatedmama, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Oh that is so cool! Maybe I have a warped sense of humor but I'm gonna share that around.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/19/2008, -22/+3Debunking the Obama speech.

      http://blog.odessa-syndicate.com/2008/03/18/unreal ...
      • burgermind, on 03/19/2008, -1/+8That blog says he should have been MORE critical of the racism inherent in the original constitution.
      • felman87, on 03/19/2008, -1/+11no one wants to read your dumbass blog
      • TotalHalibut, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6Blogs don't debunk *****. Your sorry excuse for newmedia is a sham.
    • jimmyb3, on 03/19/2008, -6/+1Be careful Ell3, this board is filled with Obama-loving liberal pansies.
      • TotalHalibut, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1***** yeah, we need McCain. Nothing better than perpetual, illegal war for no reason. Look at the economy, it's stronger than ever!
    • dinot, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Ell3: "put a direct quote from Obama on it's front page"... Wow! You love Obama so much that you want a direct Obama quote on the front page of Digg?

      See what happens when you take things out of context? You Obama-lover, you.
  • tvfilm, on 03/19/2008, -92/+18im sorry, but you obama supporters are complete and utter idiots.
    • stupidStan, on 03/19/2008, -6/+28way to back up your comment with any sort of logical thought process or justification
    • NoStoppingUs, on 03/19/2008, -23/+3i'll help him.

      being the president is all about judgement. heres a man who went to this pastor's church for 20 years, and never once stood up to him to tell him he was wrong to say what he was saying.

      do you think he has the ability to stand up to our enemies? what happens when he meets mahmoud ahmadinjead? he's going to sit and nod his head like he did for 20 years in front of wright?

      you guys can deny and spin it all you want, but you arent stupid. this has the potential to bring down obamas candidacy, and you're scared *****. his negatives are increasing on a daily basis. first he said he never heard him say anything crazy, and now he's admitting he did. if he lied about a little insignificant fact, what else is he lying about? he also lied about how much he's obtained from rezko.

      but none of that matters. he's the messiah, and i hope he wins so you people can look like the tools you are.

      GO OBAMA!
      • archiesteel, on 03/19/2008, -1/+11"never once stood up to him to tell him he was wrong"

        How do you know this? Were you privy to all of their conversations?

        The only thing I see here is people like you stoking the flames of intolerance and incomprehension between the two communities. You should be ashamed of yourself.
      • SpaceRibs, on 03/19/2008, -6/+4i'll help you.

        being the president is all about judgement. heres a woman who doesn't release her tax information to the american people.

        do you think she has the ability to stand up to our enemies? what happens when she meets mahmoud ahmadinjead? she's going to sit and nod his head like she did for 20 years in front of bill?

        you guys can deny and spin it all you want, but you arent stupid. this has the potential to bring down clintons candidacy, and you're scared *****. her negatives are increasing on a daily basis. first she said he never heard him say anything crazy, and now she's admitting she did. if she lied about a little insignificant fact, what else is she lying about? she also lied about how much he's obtained from health insurance companies.

        but none of that matters. she's the messiah, and i hope she wins so you people can look like the tools you are.

        GO CLINTON!
    • blackcloud333, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4He is just an overflowing douche bag. He does not have a logical thought process.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2"im sorry, but you obama supporters are complete and utter idiots."
      If we're the idiots, then why are you the one making such an idiot of yourself grammatically?
      You'd think to help sell your argument in some reasonable fashion you would at least do that right. You have also forgotten the reasoning behind your douchebag remark. We know you are a douchebag because of all your past posts proving as such.
    • tomvale13, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1But if you vote for Hillary or McCain, that makes you smart. I'm sorry but thats the second most retaded thing in the world, right behind you.
  • azpat, on 03/19/2008, -8/+168It is stained by the sin of slavery. I have no problems with that statement. Everyone here who is proud of the 400 years of slavery this nation practiced raise your hand! Yet we're proud of America. Why? Mostly because of the constitution and the system of Government provided by that "god-damned piece of paper" (as George Bush put it (how is that not as bad as saying "God Damn America")). A system which was able to correct itself, ammend the constitution and end slavery in this nation. But never the less the stain lingers.

    There's nothing at all wrong with that statement.

    However, CNN clearly took it out of context to be sensationalist. Out of all the important topics he raised in that speech this one line is what the headline with?

    that ***** me off not as an Obama supporter, but as a thinking man. Some politician challenges me to think about issues such as white resentment, black anger, affirmative action, globalization, immigration, etc and that one line is what CNN thinks best describes the speech?

    Not only is that insulting to me as an American, and a person with an IQ above 2, but it's also wrong. It doesn't capture the central message of the speech. It doesn't even capture any of the supporting arguments of the speech. A 5th grader could do a better job getting the "main idea" of the speech. CNN has never written a book report?

    As the 4th branch of government, that's unacceptable. That's just ***** completely unacceptable. Seriously, CNN doesn't have anyone with a 5th grade reading comprehension level? Either they're completely ***** inept, or they're a peice of ***** tabloid without even the thrill of naked chicks on page 3.

    This isn't an Obama story, it's a media story. The media is trying to ***** with you. It may be "what they do" but we don't have to take it. Dugg for truthiness.
    • warnergt, on 03/19/2008, -8/+3The United States didn't invent slavery but we did contribute disproportionately to inventing the abolition movement that ultimately got rid of slavery.
      • geezor, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9disproportionately very little, you mean? the british empire had outlawed slavery centuries before the usa did.
        • MixMastaKooz, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act

          The word you meant to use was "decades."

          Try 3 decades (1833) for slavery and 6 decades (1807) for the slave trade.
          • crawf061, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2International Slave Trade was abolished in the US in 1808. After this, only descendants of slaves could still be slaves. By this time, the slave population was self sustaining though, so this just prevented people from getting new slaves from elsewhere in the world.
          • MixMastaKooz, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Thanks crawf061! You are very correct! My bad.
    • trogdoor, on 03/19/2008, -8/+4'provided by that "god-damned piece of paper" (as George Bush put it)'

      citation?
      • rabidg00se, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6I don't know how credible this is, as I just Googled the phrase, but:

        http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/prin ...
        • mOdQuArK, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5The Capitol Hill Blue was where it was first reported, but there is no corroborating evidence (and nobody willing to confirm the statement). It sounds so much like something people would _expect_ Bush to say in private, though, that it has been a very hard meme to discredit.
    • EXreaction, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4Even still, they are not half as bad as Fox News.
      • mOdQuArK, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Considering how low the bar is set in that case, that's not much of a achievement :-)
      • worthone, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Comparing to a larger evil can not justify the existence of a smaller one. They are still bad; abusive, one-sided members of the media. They are nearing ineptitude in terms of healthy journalism.
    • jdaniel284, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2There is a difference between saying that our history is stained by slavery, and saying the the Constitution is stained by slavery. Keep in mind, it is the Constitution that abolishes it.
      • aklaxman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Eh no that would have been Lincoln's Emmancipation proclamation, The Constitution was amended after the war to reflect the change in the laws along with the Bill of Rights
      • johnhummel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Except that the Constitution contained the measure that a slave was to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for counting the population - in other words, it tactically agreed with slavery when it was drafted.

        It was not until 87 years later that an amendment removed it - and another 100 years before the Civil Rights movement filly carried out the promise.
      • ianam, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1The Constitution WASstained, just as Obama said:

        "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1The system didn't end slavery. You know, the meaning of the Civil War is that the system didn't work at that time.
    • 140Suffolk, on 03/19/2008, -3/+6400 years of slavery? Not the USA. This country had about 80 years. From 1776 -1850.
      Then we fought with ourselves. Half a million Americans died. And don't believe that the Civil War was about anything else. It was not.
      • BigJigger, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9But it was, though.
        • 140Suffolk, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2The South seceded so they could continue slavery, as anti-slavery forces in the North kept passing laws that limited slavery in various ways. Then the North went to war to get them back into the Union.
        • wild, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1""If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. ""
          -Lincoln

          For him, it was about saving the Union and moving America forward, united. While he wasn't of mind that slavery was right, it wasn't his main focus.
          • 140Suffolk, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, so? Doesn't change what I stated: South seceded cause Northern legislators were making it harder and harder for slavery to continue. The South saw where it was going and seceded ONLY SO THEY COULD CONTINUE SLAVERY. If Northern legislators had not kept limiting the extent of slavery, the South would not have seceded.
            That makes the United States the only nation in human history to go to war to end its own practice of slavery.
            As opposed to several Muslim states that still practice slavery to this day. The Sudan and Mauritania come to mind. So why any American blacks side with the Muslims is beyond understanding.
      • caketank, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4The Revolution was in 1776, but Jamestown was settled in 1607 and slavery followed pretty closely. The transatlantic slave trade began (from Africa to the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America) in the early 1500s. Jim Crow lasted until the mid-1960s. It all depends on how you count, but I'm inclined to count all of it.
        • 140Suffolk, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Why not count the 800 hundred years of slavery, that still continues, to Arabs. Even today in the Sudan and Mauritania. It was the Arabs that invented slavery as an industry. The Arabs kidnapped millions of white Europeans as slaves too, for 800 years. But I digress...
          I am counting slavery in the US, as this CNN article was about the "stained" document.
    • soulpiercer7, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2truthiness does not mean "containing truth" according to wikipedia: "Truthiness is a word that U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert popularized in 2005 as a satirical term to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts"
  • matt70, on 03/19/2008, -5/+95As a middle-aged white guy, I'm glad he came out and said it. Those who know their history know that many of our forefathers felt the same way. Franklin and Adams (John and Sam) were vocal critics of slavery. In fact, ten of thirteen states had already outlawed it at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
    • badqat, on 03/19/2008, -19/+1Liar!
    • MixMastaKooz, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5Um...this is off the top of my head: Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. That's 6 states that had slavery from the original 13 that didn't ban it until the Emancipation Proclamation and then the end of the Civil War. I'm pretty sure some of the northern states like New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania didn't abolish it until after the Constitutional Convention...
      • matt70, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6MixMastaKooz: A slight correction. The slave TRADE had been outlawed by ten states at the time of the Convention. Sorry for the confusion.
        • MixMastaKooz, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Fair enough. You need to watch out for those ambiguous pronouns! :)
    • goldielax25, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Uh, you are incorrect. Slavery was condemned in the Northern states, and emancipation measures passed, but other than Massachusetts in 1780, no states actually enforced emancipation laws in the colonies until a gradual process between the revolution and the civil war.
  • Kent4jmj, on 03/19/2008, -62/+11The real issue is his having anything to do with the good Reverend at all!
    He is either naive and really stupid which disqualifies him as a serious candidate.
    Or he knew exactly what his Pastors positions really were which is more scary and still disqualifies him.
    • phunlee, on 03/19/2008, -3/+6or...you can go to hell.

      Really? only those two options, huh.
    • badqat, on 03/19/2008, -18/+2He's naive and stupid AND a closet racist himself!
      • burgermind, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5What's he racist against? His family members? Face it, this meme will not float.
      • enclaved, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7Who exactly is he racist against? His left half or his right half? Does he hate the jews or arabs? Oh right, hyperbolic drivel, how much longer until this circus is over?
      • zspade, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Sounds like something a closet racist would say...
    • mrsammercer, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5For an explanation of his stance, maybe you should check out the speech that he gave today. In it's entirety of course.
  • ToastedZergling, on 03/19/2008, -46/+7Ron Paul ?!
  • shadoturtl, on 03/19/2008, -9/+53making fox news look legitimate one page view at a time.
    • badqat, on 03/19/2008, -23/+3Why do libtards insist that Fox isn't legitimate? Oh, because they tell both sides?
      • skeletorcares, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3fox is flat out wrong way too much. its not only the bias that they show.
      • Aensland, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Both sides, haw. Hillarious.
      • suprememilo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Colmes-Libreral L O fscking L
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Oh god no. Fox is FAR, FAR more egregious. I won't go check to see what crap they extracted from a 38-minute speech, as I refuse to click them, but I'm assuming their hatchet-job on Obama is far worse.
    • zKman, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Fox News had the post speech headline: "Obama Condemns Pastor, But Won't 'Disown Him'." I don't think they even watched the thing.
  • GinsuGuy585, on 03/19/2008, -9/+24Some editor somewhere should be shot.
  • SickMonkey, on 03/19/2008, -6/+69CNN is pathetic. When Obama won Wyoming, they were the last news site to post the story, and when they did, they buried it in small type halfway down the page. They also have grossly skewed the delegate count towards Hillary by 25-50+ over the actual numbers.
    • nittanylion06, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4I'm sure the other 3 people repeatedly refreshing CNN.com on a Saturday evening were disappointed as well..
      • caketank, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1They were probably busy updating the site.
  • Yakovzoya, on 03/19/2008, -28/+16Sensationalist, yes. Malicious, probably not.
    • skeletorcares, on 03/19/2008, -3/+6i swear. the best comments always get buried if they aren't in direct agreeance with the bias of the article!
  • replaysMike, on 03/19/2008, -7/+29WTH CNN? That was the best speech I've heard in a long time, very presidential. Looks like someone is getting fired!
    • drib, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4If by fired you mean a bonus from Bill and Hillary themselves, then maybe.
  • FcukAllYall, on 03/19/2008, -7/+33WTF CNN...did U HEAR the speech on your own network? I guess the ***** not! Dumbass media
  • ninjasenses, on 03/19/2008, -8/+13Player haters.
  • jpesicka2, on 03/19/2008, -7/+27lol ok...if there was nothing wrong with it then why did they pull it?
    • RepubOperative, on 03/19/2008, -6/+5I've got a copy and plan to post it elsewhere....sort of let the word get out.
  • masgrada, on 03/19/2008, -2/+11At least he knows the constitution is there.
  • mcla0181, on 03/19/2008, -14/+2Control, it seems, comes in many colors, not just white! ... hahahaaa
  • pintomp3, on 03/19/2008, -1/+14soundbites and out-of-context quotes FTL.
  • john2kx, on 03/19/2008, -14/+4*****
    • solarweasel, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6don't worry, i'm speechless too.
  • jm4847, on 03/19/2008, -6/+8It's the truth though. It is shameful that slavery was around for so long.
    • tricks574, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Yes, but its not like slavery is an exclusively white crime
      • zeromous, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4I'm not trying to minimize what black people in America went through (perhaps its the irony of American slavery amidst a free republic is what makes it so 'memorable' to those who were enslaved). What about serfdom in EU and Middle East? Chinese railway builders? The slaving crimes of any empire of note? Did you know there are still slaves out there?

        Racism is everywhere, against everyone, all around the world, all the time- that's what is a shame. What is even more shameful is slavery still exists.
  • MJDub, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4That's garbage, but if it was only up for 7 minutes, hopefully the harm done was minimal.
  • narcofiche, on 03/19/2008, -8/+7God, I am so angry.
  • shugdoo, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9CNN was a promising resource in its inception. Over time it has lost its way, now featuring cretins like Beck and Kurtz, and pulling Faux Noize-type stunts like this one.
  • rosco01, on 03/19/2008, -3/+8Every time I see him, I want to subject Wolf Blitzer to "non-torture."
  • nijato, on 03/19/2008, -4/+11Full text of speech with video:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/ ...
  • SargedeathXmode, on 03/19/2008, -3/+8But didn't they realize their mistake and removed it? Sure, the writer on there is very biased is is probably getting screamed at now, but the fact they removed it after seven minutes (which is really hardly anytime for people to complain in hordes) means that it's just one stupid pro-Clinton writer, not all of CNN. If we can't trust CNN for neutral news coverage, what can we trust? If anyone watched the analysis of his speech today, the person would find it was a quite fair discussion.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Um, you can't trust the MSM. Trust websites that DECLARE their bias- it removes a step. I'd rather read a "Daily Kos" or "Red States USA" post just because, while I may not agree at all, I at least know their bias. The old canard of the "unbiased/fair" corporate media is as dead as the printing press.
    • rebotfc, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2the BBC.
      • MalenfantX, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0The BBC is your best choice if you only can have news from one outlet, but to stay best informed you need to get your news from many sources and have a great ***** detector.
  • RichStradler, on 03/19/2008, -27/+4Just words in the US of KKK A in Obamas new afrocentric world
    • 55mph, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1it's actually funny you should write that. Afrocentric World. My world certainly has become Afrocentric recently. My kids listen to Rap. I can't miss an episode of Flavor of Love and i recently discovered Flav's group, Public Enemy. I drive a big silver Mercedes and my net worth vanished yesterday when Bear Stearns was stolen by JP Morgan. I may be out of job next week but thanks to my new Afrocentric identity, i'll head for the nearest corner with a Bodega and chill. It's all good! I got my whip at least for another month.
      • MalenfantX, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Stolen? Bear Stearns ran themselves into the ground.
  • whorunbartertwn, on 03/19/2008, -7/+11I plan on voting for Obama, and I can't stand Billary... but come on CNN has done plenty of articles that paint Obama in a very positive light and Clinton in a negative. I thought with Ron Paul the whole"OMG press conspiracy!" deal would die, but it's just taken on a new form.
    • sl9sl9, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2Well said, that was an balanced comment, which is very rare here.

      It was blatantly a mistake that was very quickly rectified in only 7 minutes, but it goes right to the front page here and all the Obama zealots go absolutely ***** ape-***** over what is effectively a typo. Sad.
      • utjimbo2010, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Seriously, most of this discussion is a huge Obama circle jerk. CNN fixed it in a few minutes. So people on here posting how angry they are should really lighten up. And I'm tired of getting on the front page and seeing all this anti-Clinton ***** all over it. Do you people seriously think Obama's perfect? I'm an Obama supporter, but some of you people are just ridiculous.
        • burgermind, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1What do you mean, "you people"?

          But seriously, it was a great speech. The Obama supporters are worried someone will ruin their moment. Makes sense actually. That's something the media really does. If they can make some heat by fanning the flames of racism with innuendo, they will.
    • mrsammercer, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2It's not that CNN is trying to tip it in any one direction. The problem is they are sensationalizing one statement taken out of context to make news out of it. It doesn't matter who it hurts or helps, they just need a soundbite. Something quick to catch the fickle attention of the people who don't have time to pay attention to things that are actually newsworthy. This was an extreme case, which is probably why it was taken down after, what was it, 7 minutes?
    • zeiben, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1No. Sorry. This is not a Ron Paul thing.
      In the little time that I've watched CNN, I have twice heard them refer to Obama as "Osama".
      That this was up for any amount of time indicates that either (a) they think we're all idiots or (b) they have no editorial mechanism in place or (c) they're in the tank with Clinton.
      They've already played the incompetence card over the Osama thing, so I'm not buying it this time.
      • whorunbartertwn, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Some recent CNN article titles searchable on their site:

        Analysis: Obama has advantage in head-to-head with McCain
        Obama increases lead in delegate count
        Obama camp questions Clinton's readiness to lead
        Girl seen in Clinton's '3 a.m.' ad supports Obama
        Big backer goes from Clinton to Obama
        Dodd endorses Obama
        Analysis: Obama runs table; McCain gains with conservatives

        A fact check on Clinton's foreign policy claims
        Cafferty: Would Clinton do anything to win?
        Commentary: Clinton mixes messages on Obama
        Obama knocks Clinton for ties to lobbyists
  • snotrokit, on 03/19/2008, -6/+11aaah nice to see the Clinton News Network back in full swing. They are just as irrelevant as Fox. I honestly don't remember the last time I watched either.
    • rainchild, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I only watch their primary coverage when John King" the making magic map man" is on and rockin. Otherwise they have, sadly enough become a very talboid network
  • FcukAllYall, on 03/19/2008, -2/+20BREAKING NEWS: CNN, Fox & NewsMax have joined forces....after Scientology is destroyed, mabe they should be next
    • digitalhair, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1we have the resources to take on all of them at once, let's not put it off.
      • legendxx, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Just like you had the resources to elect Ron Paul. No? Well you must have had the resources to atleast make him a serious GOP candidate. No? Well you must have made a dent in some of the primaries. No?

        The internet is a joke when it comes to swaying people's opinions. Now if you wan't to raise awareness on an issue, you've come to the right place.
  • consonance, on 03/19/2008, -1/+16I am disgusted right now with CNN pulling that from Obama's speech, as if it were the most important component of what he said, as if it were the crux, the cornerstone of his speech. CNN should reprimand whoever thought it was appropriate to ignore his wish for racial harmony and his admittance of the truth of racial tensions in America, and reach for the one line that could be construed as anti-American. And being taken out of context like that is such a lowly fate for words with such high hopes. CNN should be ashamed. Their news is playing to all the controversies and distractions that Obama is trying so hard to tell us to ignore, and the best CNN can say is that Obama believes that the Constitution is stained. Indeed, I'll say it, too. The Consitution as it was written did hold the sin of slavery. That is fact. But for CNN to take such a petty road on a such a meaningful speech speaks volumes about what the channel really values in politics.
    • digitalhair, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3I share your disgust, but this was their NATIONAL news site. We can't just let them reprimand some scapegoat for this and allow some sort of Rumsfeldian "few bad apples" response. It's clear to me that these editing paradigms come straight from the top given the scope of the readership of CNN's front page news. We have to hold the network responsible because this is NOT the first time "errors" like this have occured. We are increasingly enabling this New Yellow Journalism movement and increase advertising money for these people simply by angrily investigating these articles, or watching their TV networks for an apology. I say we start BOYCOTTING major TV network news altogether. CNN should pay for this, not just some editor or columnist.
  • ryanwritescopy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+24Lincoln: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here."
    --As seen on CNN in 1863
  • jcroweall7, on 03/19/2008, -11/+19Yeah, hit-job. That's why their "analysis" article for his speech is filled with glowing reviews.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.speec ...
    • burgermind, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2You have a point, we should keep perspective. Too bad those quote marks around analysis will get your comment buried.
  • nakile, on 03/19/2008, -11/+31Strange. I thought everybody liked CNN a few hours ago?

    http://digg.com/politics/POLL_Majority_of_Democrat ...
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1i get digusted with CNN at times too. like last week when they had 6 stories covering the tornado through downtown which hit their offices. 6/10 headlines were about the tornado. 3 of them talked about videos of the tornado. 100 people dying all around the world, and they focus on a their own asses.
    • fluxion, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1i like The O'Reilly Factor sometimes too. i even think Bush has his lovable moments.
    • Myonosken, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3People who support Hillary are democrats too....
    • Enron, on 03/19/2008, -0/+6CNN is only supported when they say what diggers like to hear.
  • viperrepiv, on 03/19/2008, -0/+11funny how they are doing the exact same thing he talked about....
  • Jadinlee, on 03/19/2008, -2/+15I'm all too happy to add CNN to my list of sites and news sources that I will no longer visit. I don't have time for tabloid journalism and won't waste my time on it. There are far too many excellent alternatives.
    • nittanylion06, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Plugging your ears and chanting to yourself won't stop the world from turning...
    • 3ugene, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2All media is biased. That is your problem if you liked CNN before this. CNN just attacked your guy. You got offended. Until you realize that these networks are bought and paid to sell news, you are just going to keep moving like it actually upsets anyone. You are part of the problem in this psychological game of ping-pong.

      Ditch Mainstream Media ENTIRELY!
    • tkidBOSTON, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Excellent alternatives such as... ???
  • SlipStream89, on 03/19/2008, -2/+12Did you guys see on the image that Miley Cyrus changed her name...
    • nighthawk8713, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3And a horse outran a tornado. The most trust name in news at its finest.
  • DannoSpeaks, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Any chance there is a link to the actual article in question?
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1The screen-cap included the CNN-pulled snippet of unfairness.
      • DannoSpeaks, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3Yes, I saw the screen-cap. Any chance there is a link to the actual article in question?
  • NX47, on 03/19/2008, -15/+3Another perfect example of why I wrote this piece: http://dalewest.blogspot.com/2008/03/responsibilit ...
    • homercles337, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Nice piece. I genuinely hope something is done to change the main stream press.
  • katorga, on 03/19/2008, -2/+33Umm. The Constitution was stained by the sin of slavery. The framers knew it when they wrote it. The framers who were against it left clear written accounts of this. It is why Lincoln referred to us as an "almost chosen people". More than half the nation resisted slavery for decades, and in the end went to war and paid the blood debt to end it. They abolished it and eventually fixed the document. The Radical Republicans forced through the civil rights acts in 1866, 1871 and 1875, and enforced voting rights at gunpoint to try enforce the constitution. So exactly how is Mr. Obama's statement incorrect or incendiary?
    • scottrag, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3I am in agreement with this, that front page didn't say much at all... I think the people commenting here are taking this headline just as out of context as they are saying CNN did with Obama's speech. Why is this incendiary to Obama is exactly the question. I don't get it. Anyway, we can all speculate on how and why it got on the page for 7 minutes, but who cares, its not damaging.
    • flintmecha, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Nobody is disagreeing with the statement. The problem is it is painfully obvious that the CNN writer who put that up intentionally chose that one statement to pull out of context and put on the front page. A majority of Americans who have not seen/heard/read the speech and who do not understand what Obama means by it will only see "OBAMA INSULTS THE CONSTITUTION" and go into a rage. It was a diliberate attempt to get people offended by using words they won't know the meaning of.
    • olbap, on 03/19/2008, -0/+4Lets get one thing straight. Lincoln didn't free slaves out of the kindness of his heart. He freed them so he could hurt the South. Thomas Jefferson, while not approving of slavery, still considered black people inferior to whites.
      • katorga, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0What Jefferson "felt" is immaterial. We live in a constitutional republic and all that matters is that everyone is equal before the law. If you have that, it does not matter that others think about you. Every civil rights act from the 1760's to 1964 was about making everyone equal before the law.
    • 0Degrees, on 03/19/2008, -2/+2To think the civil war was fought because of slavery is a sentiment that is far from true.
      • katorga,