posted February 15, 2008 01:26 AM              

--Toni Morrison, Nobel and Pulitzer prize winner, (taught English at two branches of the State University of New York. In 1984 she was appointed to an Albert Schweitzer chair at the University at Albany, The State University of New York. From 1989 until her retirement in 2006, Morrison held the Robert F. Goheen Chair in the Humanities at Princeton University...In May 2006, The New York Times Book Review named Beloved the best American novel published in the previous twenty five years. -- from wikipedia) has these profound words for Obama...

Toni Morrison Endorses Obama for President

Renowned author Toni Morrison endorses Obama, citing his vision

January 28, 2008
BY NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press

WASHINGTON--— The woman who famously labeled Bill Clinton as the ‘‘first black president’’ is backing Barack Obama to be the second.

Author Toni Morrison said her endorsement of the Democratic presidential candidate has little to do with Obama’s race — he is the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas — but rather his personal gifts.

Writing with the touch of a poet in a letter to the Illinois senator, Morrison explained why she chose Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton for her first public presidential endorsement.

Morrison, whose acclaimed novels usually concentrate of the lives of black women, said she has admired Clinton for years because of her knowledge and mastery of politics, but then dismissed that experience in favor of Obama’s vision.

‘‘In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates,’’ Morrison wrote. ‘‘That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

‘‘Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom,’’ Morrison wrote.

In 1998, Morrison wrote a column for the New Yorker magazine in which she wrote of Bill Clinton: ‘‘White skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.’’

Obama responded to Morrison’s endorsement with a written statement: ‘‘Toni Morrison has touched a nation with the grace and beauty of her words, and I was deeply moved and honored by the letter she wrote and the support she is giving our campaign.’’

posted February 15, 2008 01:34 AM              

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or "new-centrist" ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me "proud."

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

posted February 15, 2008 10:02 PM            

This famous supporter of Hillary switched loyalty to Obama from Hillary and he is a superdelegate.

posted February 16, 2008 02:26 PM            

Gee, there were some hoping for change in 1992...when the utterly corrupt Clintons were trying to sneak into the White House...as the "agents for change"...."change agents".

They succeded...in producing the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States...a scandal a day...after an ethical administration. A change indeed....after vowing to run the most ethical administration in US history...they produced "change".

posted February 16, 2008 05:53 PM            

Well, he managed his campaign well so far didn't he?

posted February 18, 2008 01:34 PM            

I am ok with any of the three candidates (Mc Cain, Hillary or Obama). They all are really good. And they all support green.

I guess people who want to go for change (especially young ones) is choosing Obama but most of them don't know what that change brings. As people get closer to the election the Obama mojo may be over perhaps over that question. Affection invalidates all logical choices really LOL

People who don't wan't change and are happy with SSN benefits , Medicaid etc (especially old people) . are contend with Hillary and McCain perhaps for his role in Vietnam. On the democrats side, Hillary may win Penn, Texas and Ohio because people don't want change there.

My house has not been foreclosed. I have health insurance. Illegal immigrants are a major burden to those that pay taxes. But the candidates have same stand on that issue. So what issue is important to me? The Iraq issue. America is already awoken and trying to lessen its dependence on oil. I don't think you will find many cars on the road in the next 12 years. Most people are already working from home because of technology. Scientists are getting successful results with antimatter research. It will wipe out America's yearly budget if they pursue this source of energy. So I want Hillary or Obama to win and Mc Cain to loose. Besides Iraq war was totally wrong on ethics.
Why was Saddam executed? Utter injustice.

Between Hillary and Obama is still a tough choise. The way the superdelegates is structured, Hillary will win on the democrats side. The Clintons have a heavy influence on the democrats. Who knows how they reward them and make them happy. Well as long as the nation is also benefitted that is allright LOL

Its really tough call. I would rather wait and watch what happens. If you asked me who I will vote for then I do not make a decision until the last minute at the booth.

posted February 18, 2008 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

Why was Saddam executed? Utter injustice.

---

posted February 19, 2008 10:46 AM            

Bush has made this whole thing very personal issue. His father encouraged Saddam during Iran-Iraq conflict and later we find that Sept 11 was a false pretence to oust Saddam.

Bush apology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/12/september11.usa2

What I am saying is that when a criminal exists in society, then the society is also responsible for his crime. Its a very deep question. I just can't comment right now for lack of time.

posted February 19, 2008 12:54 PM            

Since you have, let's see your proof of unethical, scandalous or moral, physical or political corruption in the Bush administration.

posted February 19, 2008 03:13 PM            

How about using torture?

How about secret prisons?

How about the fact that Cheney feels the need to have a "man-sized" safe in his office?

How about illegal wire tapping?

How about Cheney ordering the destruction of his visitor logs?

How about Cheney's made up stamp Treated As: Top Secret/SCI used on mundane paperwork?

How about Cheney's call for the abolition of the National Archives when he was asked by the House of Representatives to hand over details of how he uses classified information?

And that's just off the top of my head.

If we google Supreme Court showdowns with the White House we find that the Supreme Court believes that prisoners [in the War on Terror] have the right to challenge their incarceration.

posted February 19, 2008 09:03 PM            

quote:

---

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback… not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change" - Michelle Obama

---

Man! I was listening to a very popular conservative on radio commenting on that speech and I wondered "OMG! Why do some people quote people out of context?". This guy only focussed on part of her sentence "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country". On that he saids that is what he hates about the leftist the most. Was she never proud of America during Berlin wall collapse? Or during Russia's collapse, etc. I say , You moron. Read the rest of the lines. She is a educated women (perhaps gone to Harvard). She may not be interested like you in keeping your stupid radio show going and controlling those dull rightist brains. Geez.

posted February 20, 2008 02:03 AM              

02/19/2008

By MICHELLE ROBERTS / Associated Press

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, addressing a rally in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood in this majority Hispanic city, said Tuesday that the issue of immigration should not be used as "a political football."

Security of the border has to be combined with a pathway to citizenship for people who are already here, he said to cheers at an event in advance of the hotly contested March 4 primary against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Let's solve it instead of trying to score cheap political points," Obama said.

The nation must secure its borders and punish employers who recruit illegal immigrants and pay them unfair wages, he said.

"It's not going to just involve building a big fence all the way across the border. That's not going to work," said Obama, addressing an issue that has angered many border residents.

While some physical barriers will be needed, better monitoring should also be used, and those who are already in the United States should be encouraged to come "out of the shadows," Obama said.

Illegal immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship, provided that they register, pay fines and learn English. Rounding up and deporting all illegal immigrants is impractical, he said.

posted February 20, 2008 10:22 AM            

I have the same view point

posted February 20, 2008 01:18 PM            

"How about Cheney's Energy Commission for starters?"

Explain how this is unethical or illegal acoustic. Court decisions would be nice.

"How about using torture?"

Waterboarding (3) causes no pain and causes no damage to the body. Waterboarding is not torture at all.

"How about secret prisons?"

What about "secret prisons" acoustic? Nothing unethical or illegal there. Holding terrorist prisoners in undisclosed locations is neither illegal or unethical...or immoral.

"How about the fact that Cheney feels the need to have a "man-sized" safe in his office?"

Wow acoustic, that's a biggie? Cheney has a Biggggg safe in his office. Now acoustic, that's clearly illegal, immoral, unethical...not to mention fattening.

"How about illegal wire tapping?"

Wiretapping suspects in the interest of national security is not and never has been illegal acoustic. The federal government...executive branch...has always had this authority...as previous courts have ruled...up to and including the US Supreme Court. I've covered this with you before..quoting chapter and verse from court decisions. So acoustic, there's no excuse for your ignorance on this subject.

In fact acoustic, the NSA was listening in on phone conversations of suspected terrorists...on calls originating outside the United States.

"How about Cheney ordering the destruction of his visitor logs?"

No legal or ethical requirment exists for the maintenance of visitor logs acoustic. If I had a runaway leftist congress sticking their lonnnng noses into Executive Branch matters, I wouldn't tell them if their hair was on fire.

"How about Cheney's made up stamp Treated As: Top Secret/SCI used on mundane paperwork?"

Presidents and Vice Presidents get to decide what is secret, top secret or confidential acoustic. Always have, so this is nothing new but it is something for leftists to bellyache about. Something leftists are verrry good at to the exclusion of almost everything else.

"How about Cheney's call for the abolition of the National Archives when he was asked by the House of Representatives to hand over details of how he uses classified information?"

Gee acoustic, I'd like to see your source for this little gem. How about it acoustic? Did you get this "hot" information from one of your favorite looney bin web sites?

Even if true, Congress has no authority whatsoever to question...or require the production of records to determine how Presidents and Vice Presidents "USE" classified files. Fact is acoustic, most members of Congress do NOT have high enough security clearances to view those files...or what's in them.

Further acoustic, given the proclivity of leftist congressional members...and their little moronic leftist staff members...to release classified information to the press...illegally, I might add; Bush and Cheney are protecting the security interests of the US by refusing to tell them much of anything.

"If we google Supreme Court showdowns with the White House we find that the Supreme Court believes that prisoners [in the War on Terror] have the right to challenge their incarceration."

No prisoners in any past war have been granted the right to appear in a US criminal court acoustic. That's insanity, just the kind of leftist insanity one would expect for the looney left. Why google the Supreme Court acoustic. Why not show me the actual court cases...if they exist.

"Everyone knows this White House is the most tight-lipped in modern history. There would be no need for that if the Administration were above board."

With the leftist press and leftist congressional members and their leftist staff members ready, willing and panting to inform terrorist enemies all about US security programs and plans to stop them, it's no wonder the White House is buttoned up tight. It would be a breach of the Presidential Oath of Office to do otherwise...given the treasonous activities of some members of Congress and the leftist press.

posted February 20, 2008 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

"How about Cheney's Energy Commission for starters?"

Explain how this is unethical or illegal acoustic. Court decisions would be nice.

---

Court decisions would be nice on whether or not John Kerry's a traitor, too, but I don't see that happening.

quote:

---

Waterboarding (3) causes no pain and causes no damage to the body. Waterboarding is not torture at all.

---

The sensation of drowning incurs no pain?

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

You were saying? http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php

WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior Justice Department official told Congress on Thursday that laws and other limits enacted since three terrorism suspects were waterboarded have eliminated the technique from what is now legally allowed.

"The program as it is authorized today does not include waterboarding," Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, told the House subcommittee on the Constitution. "There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding under any circumstances would be lawful under current law." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iASWS1P4bBULp9TwdMDnotGBi5bQD8UQ83V00

quote:

---

What about "secret prisons" acoustic? Nothing unethical or illegal there. Holding terrorist prisoners in undisclosed locations is neither illegal or unethical...or immoral.

---

It would be considered both unethical and immoral by normal human beings who believe in accountability. I suggest you think about what you say before you say it brother.

quote:

---

Wow acoustic, that's a biggie? Cheney has a Biggggg safe in his office. Now acoustic, that's clearly illegal, immoral, unethical...not to mention fattening.

---

When was the last time the American public made a stink about a Vice President's mondo-enormo safe? Yeah... it's never happened until now, so what does that tell us? Why does this Vice President have such a need for privacy and secrecy? This is also my response to whatever you said about Cheney's Treated as Top Secret stamp.

posted February 21, 2008 04:50 PM            

quote:

---

Human rights groups say the process opens the door for third-party countries to torture suspects.

---