There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?
In Colorado, two sisters say they pray daily for his safety. In New Mexico, a daughter says she persuaded her mother to still vote for Obama, even though the mother feared that winning would put him in danger. And at a rally here, a woman expressed worries that a message of hope and change, in addition to his race, made him more vulnerable to violence.
“I’ve got the best protection in the world,” Obama, of Illinois, said in an interview, reprising a line he tells supporters who raise the issue with him. “So stop worrying.”
Yet worry they do, with the spring of 1968 seared into their memories, when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy were assassinated in a span of two months.
Is anybody worried about *America’s safety?
Could this be another effort by the MSM to paint Obama with a messianic image?
http://tinyurl.com/2ylkbg
Obama – Fascism with a smiley face.
Gordian…..cause the whole world has been really safe with Dubya, right?
I find this story useful only because I have had such worries about him myself. As I’ve said a couple of times before, I’ve heard Obama compared with JFK, RFK, MLK, and Abraham Lincoln, an auspicious and extremely dangerous list to be on. This is a good reminder that the Secret Service know what they’re doing.
As I have said in previous posts, we need to keep an eye on Hillary and the Clinton machine. The Clintons have a way of removing “obstacles†in their way. Generally, scandals are the prefer way to get rid of people in the world of politics. It appears that Obama overcame the Larry Sinclair scandal since Larry failed his lie detector test last week. I suspect that Ralph Nader entering the race may be a Clinton ploy, but that remains to be seen. This may all be a moot point because Hillary will probably win all three states on March 4th. That will revitalize her campaign. However, if she doesn’t, she’s done. Then, Obama will need extra security.
I also have a problem with comparing Obama to MLK, JFK and RFK. First of all, it has been proven repeatedly, that criminal elements within the government were behind their assassinations. The ‘lone nut gunman’ conspiracy theory just isn’t true. MLK, JFK and RFK were killed because they were going against the desires of the establishment. Obama is an establishment candidate with big money and top globalist support. Also, he is a better candidate for the globalist establishment because he is the perfect wolf in sheep’s clothing. Everyone knows Hillary is a wolf. Also, it will be hard to criticize Obama without being label a racist.
-Vincent
#3,
A whole lot safer than it would have been without him.
Nutcase weirdos are always possible, so it’s good that he has Secret Service protection. I want him defeated, not murdered. However, can’t these people see the difference between the atmosphere of the late 60s and today? There just is not a groundswell of racist feelings, not from the majority, anyhow. Equal opportunity is something that has been accepted; more than that, it is a core belief for most people today.
RE: #2 –
It would be interesting to compare the attacks by radical Islamist terrorists from, say 1992 to 2000 and those since then. It’s true that the targets haven’t been against the U.S. since 9/11/2001, but I’m sure that will change when Pres. Clinton (44) or Pres. Obama surrenders to Osama bin Laden.
No, it most certainly has not been proven. Otherwise you would be naming names and not blithering on about unknown “criminal elements”. In the case of JFK’s assassination I would say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was indeed a lone gunman. The latest scholarship of Posner and Bugliosi has put to rest the conspiracy theories.
It is unnecessary to rigorously “proove” conspiracy theories because everyone knows the evidence has been suppressed or destroyed by those in power.
Of course that raises the question why anyone knows there was any evidence in the first place. But then that’s expecting reason from the irrational.
#s 9 and 10,
You gentlemen have obviously not learned that the lack evidence is proof of a conspiracy. Get with it, guys. 🙂
Obama is under around the clock protection. In fact unless my memory has failed he was the first candidate (outside of HRC who has life time protection owing to her marriage) to be placed under Secret Service protection. Although I am not sure (these things are not usually advertised for good reasons) I have not seen any of the tell tale signs of security around McCain yet.
The Secret Service are an extremely serious and professional outfit. They know what they are doing. Anyone running for President has to assume some risks. But with the level of security that comes from the boys with sunglasses and wires running out of their ears, he is probably safer than I am.
ICXC
A/O
WordsMatter, I don’t want to be drawn into a senseless political debate, but you’re comment at #8 with regard to surrender is hateful, inflammatory, and does nothing to advance political discourse here. You may think that their proposed withdrawal from Iraq will embolden the terrorists (it probably will), but no one is suggesting “surrendering to Osama bin Laden”. If anything Obama has taken flak for suggesting we go after him more aggressively in Pakistan, Musharraf be darned.
Safer, Christopher? For who? Seems that terrorism has increased worldwide over the last 8 years. He hasn’t been doing a very good job. I suspect we’ve been lucky.
Fortunately, he wins in either case. If there are no attacks he claims credit for being a great president. And if there were, he can tell people they need his protection. Nobody is allowed to examine the issue outside of the received neocon wisdom.
#13 Alta – Are you suggesting that if Obama becomes President, an emboldened Osama will leave Pakistan and [i] move to Iraq? [/i] OK, I can believe that.
#14 John – Since [i] nobody [/i] is [i] allowed [/i] to examine this issue [i] outside of the received neocon wisdom, [/i] just what is your perspective on all this anyway?
Anonymous Layperson said:
[quote] In the case of JFK’s assassination I would say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was indeed a lone gunman. The latest scholarship of Posner and Bugliosi has put to rest the conspiracy theories. [/quote]
LOL…..I’m sorry…..I had to laugh to keep from crying that people are so blind to the facts. Did Posner explain the magic bullet theory? I would pay money to see them scientifically explain that one. First of all, have you researched both sides of the Kennedy assassination? By that I mean the official story and those who disagree with the office story? The thing about “so-called conspiracy theories†is that they don’t have to necessarily prove WHO did the deed. What most of the true conspiracy theories do is disprove the official version of the story.
Saint John Hunt, the son of E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame, released video and audiotape confessions of E. Howard admitting to the planning and execution of the Kennedy assassination. E. Howard Hunt is also the guy whom Ethan Hunt in the Mission Impossible movies are modeled after. You can listen to several of the tapes online and the alternative radio broadcast interviews on St. John’s website. Also, Bar McClellan, the father of President Bush’s former press sectertary, Scott McClellan, and LBJ’s former attorney also wrote a book about LBJ’s and the Dulles’ involvement in Kennedy assassination. These aren’t tin foil wearing morons that are disputing the official story.
As for the RFK assassination, the London Guardian had an article about new forensic evidence that disproves the official story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination
The point I was making in my original post is that only the anti-establishment candidates seem to get shot. Can anyone name an establishment candidate that has had an assassination attempt? Obama appears to be an establishment man, so I doubt that he would be shot. However, he could. In fact, there was an article out on Friday that discussed the secret service stopped checking bags at one of this rallies. That’s how most assassinations are planned. They are allowed to happen. But, how would a lone nut know when there is lax security unless he or she knows before hand.
-Vincent
[i]hateful, inflammatory, and does nothing to advance political discourse here. [/i]
Unfortunately, what I said is [i]true[/i]. Not nice, but true. Beyond your emotive words – “hateful” and “inflammatory” – I would suggest that facts might be the most useful tool for advancing political discourse.
What Obama and Clinton are suggesting is the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which in any reasonable mode of speech is called a surrender. The carnage which will ensue there will be horrific. And if you think al Queda will not pursue their agenda onto American soil, then you obviously don’t know about sharks and blood.
Then I would suggest you buy the books written by Posner and Bugliosi as they contain excellent explanations of the exact trajectory of that shot…
Well then, John, I guess you can explain why the first World Trade Center attack followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole managed to happen with a liberal Democrat in the White House. Thought not.
Conspiracy theorists have a problem in that there has never been any really credible evidence to support their Oliver Stone world view of events. It all falls apart under close scrutiny. But once something gains the status of urban legend facts no longer really matter. I know this since I used to be a certifiable conspiracy nut. Bugliosi’s book cured me of that. But it’s an extremely long read. The whole conspiracy legend has gained so much currency that it’s probably not correctable anymore. Way too many people who don’t read long books have heard from everyone that Kennedy was killed in a conspiracy and that’s that. Most people just aren’t able to accept the simple un-sexy/un-Hollywood reality that the most powerful man in the world was murdered by a nonentity named Lee Harvey Oswald.
Bugliosi’s book is the gold standard on the subject. It is massive and unbelievably detailed. And for those exact reasons very very few conspiracy believers will read it.
ICXC
A/O
Words Matter & Alta Californian,
Surrender is indeed the correct term. Let us be clear what we are discussing here. We are talking about withdrawing troops from a country that is being subverted by Alqaida and a predatory neighbor (Iran). If we abandon Iraq one or both of those entities will wind up running a large chunk of that country under the best case scenario. In a worst case scenario one of them could wind up running the whole thing.
Reasonable people can debate whether or not it was a wise idea to go into Iraq. I happen to think it was a mistake. But that’s neither here nor there. We are there now. Alqaida is there. Iran is there. The government of Iraq is not yet stable and strong enough to fend off their enemies without our help. If we leave, we are surrendering Iraq to the enemy. And Words Matter is correct. There will be a blood bath in the wake of our departure.
ICXC
A/O
[i]I happen to think it was a mistake.[/i]
For the record, AO, I agree with you. I’ve never thought it was wise to go in. But…