The Case for an Obama-Clinton Ticket
Maybe, just maybe, it’s now worth at least asking whether Hillary Clinton might wind up as the Democratic candidate for vice president.
When the chatter about a Democratic “dream ticket” began last year, it was easy to dismiss. Either Clinton or Obama would win a clear victory in the primaries and, after what inevitably would be a contentious campaign, each would want as little to do with the other as possible.
Clinton, if she emerged victorious, would instead choose some kind of national security graybeard to her political right, a retired general perhaps, or maybe even a Republican. Likewise, Obama as the presidential nominee, with his future-versus-past emphasis, would recoil at the notion of adding to his ticket a woman who serves as one of the preeminent political and cultural icons of the 1990's.
More recently, Clinton herself actively stoked the speculation, teasing audiences with talk of a Clinton-led dream ticket. It was, of course, a transparent ploy to undermine Obama’s front-running campaign, but it did raise a practical point: Like it or not, Clinton would probably have no choice but to offer, at least, the vice presidency to Obama if she were to win the nomination, since she’d pretty much have to tear the party apart to secure the top spot. A dramatic outreach to Obama would be a pragmatic necessity.
That’s looking unlikely to matter now. When the primary season ends in early June, Clinton will trail in pledged delegates and almost certainly in popular votes, and it grows clearer by the day that the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will not move as to overrule the primary electorate and hand the nomination to Clinton anyway.
If Obama is the nominee, there’s certainly no reason to think that Obama would want to include her on his ticket, given the hard personal feelings that their nomination battle has generated. Plus, her presence —and the presence of her husband—would threaten to overshadow Obama during the fall campaign. Obama has spent more than a year urging voters to “turn the page” and to move beyond the Clintons and their comfort-food appeal. Wouldn’t it undermine his own message to add Clinton to his ticket?
The problem is that Obama, even though he is the near-certain Democratic nominee, is on pace to win by the smallest margin in the modern era. He will probably beat Clinton by around 125 pledged delegates (out of about 3,200 awarded) and perhaps 500,000 votes (out of about 30 million cast).
Moreover, it seems likely that Clinton will win multiple states between now and the end of the primary season, starting with Pennsylvania on April 22, with follow-up victories in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico likely as well—and maybe in Indiana and North Carolina, too. The Michigan and Florida issues may go unresolved as well, leaving Clinton to shout—potentially to great effect—that she’d be on the cusp of overtaking Obama if only those two states could have their voices heard.
In that time, Obama should win his share of primaries, too, with victories in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana very likely, and Indiana and North Carolina as strong possibilities. But it doesn’t look like he’s going to win the nomination going away, like past nominees who have faced only nominal opposition in the late primary states (like Bill Clinton beating Jerry Brown in the spring of 1992) en route to clear first-ballot convention victories.
The divisions within the party could be considerable at that point. A nomination-clinching stampede of uncommitted superdelegates to Obama as soon as the primary season ends—perhaps instigated by Nancy Pelosi—seems likely, but that will leave millions of Clinton supporters bitter and resentful, especially if the Florida and Michigan issues are left unresolved.
Another problem for Obama is what seems to be a widening racial divide, both in the Democratic race and in general-election match-ups with John McCain. Clinton’s strengths—and Obama’s struggles—with working-class white voters are well documented, but are taking on a new urgency in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy.
Before, a compelling case could be made that the working-class whites who have been backing Clinton over Obama were embracing Clinton more than they were rejecting Obama—and that the vast majority of them would vote the Democratic line in the fall no matter which candidate emerged as the nominee. Add in Obama’s superiority over Clinton in attracting independents and Republicans and it was easy to argue that he would run as well as—and, in many cases, better than—her in the fall in just about every swing state, even the ones he lost to her in the primaries.
Now, that’s not quite as clear. As the Wright story exploded, Obama’s numbers imploded in polls in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and North Carolina, a clear sign that a new wave of white voters was moving away from him. This damage may prove fleeting; polls in the coming days, which will measure the impact of Obama’s speech on race, should help answer this question.
But the themes that Obama’s opponents pressed in attacking him over Wright are themes that Republicans will return to throughout the fall campaign, trying to scare those same white voters into abandoning Obama and the Democrats for McCain. Obama may well be capable of preventing these defections with his own personality and message, responding to the fall G.O.P. attacks much the way he responded to the Wright controversy with a masterful and well-received speech.
But he could also reassure those skittish white voters simply by having Clinton, with her demonstrated appeal and her perceived experience, by his side on the campaign trail and on the ballot. It’s not that he’d necessarily want her there—and it’s an open question whether she’d even want to be there herself. But both of them may find the pressure from their party is just too much.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Hillary Clinton should not run as VP or even President with Obama. Why?
1. Because he brings Wright with him and then the Republicans will have a field day.
2. His covert disdain and hostility towards her although it might just be more of his theatrics to encourage his fan base to bash her will just taint the entire run to WH with more of the hypocrisy that voters are exposed to. Moving especially independents to vote for McWar.
3. Most important is that Obama's support of the hate monger is too powerful a message of his own hypocrisy about unifying and the "raising above" rhetoric.
4. We don't want to here another "uh" in his speaking. Four years of "Uhs" would just drive us up the wall. I don't know who started this ridiculous rumor that the man is eloquent. Filled with platitudes yes, but eloquent, I don't think so.
Unfortunately, voters are such lemmings that they'll go with anything anyone says. . .they've been doing it all this time so why should we expect anything to change.
I can't see her taking the number 2 position. Her vanity and ego preclude that.
Would it make the ticket stronger? Probably not. But who knows. Only idiots are going to vote for either one of them anyway, and Lord knows we have an abundance of idiots in this country.
Barack Obama represents renewal of the American spirit. He has started a movement of change in America that will continue, even if he doesn't get the nomination. You can feel it, not only in the U.S. but around the world.
I happened to watch a documentary last night on him called 'Obama in Africa'. His appeal is impressive, it is universal, his compassion real. He is reaching out to the ordinary people like no other political figure has in memory.
Whereas Hillary (and Bill)Clinton are part of the establishment he is looking to change and therefore it is very unlikely they could team up.
If Americans really want change, they will vote for Barack Obama. If they are fearful, they will choose the status quo and America will be stuck in this neverending cycle of 'spin and soundbites' that the media feeds its viewers as entertainment, leaving the people 'as an audience', rather than taking part in their own destinies.
America already is stuck in a neverending cycle of spin and soundbites. That's not going to change by a Obama presidency.
He might have popularity, but how does that translate into getting things done, pray tell? Who cares what Europe thinks of us, or Africa for that matter.
It's not so much that she helps the ticket as it would be an effort to unify the party. Warner or Biden would help an Obama ticket more than Clinton, but Clinton might accept it as a path to the Presidency.
Obama’s 5,000-word speech is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of his scandalous dereliction. Not worthy of praise
Charles Krauthammer’s column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group. E-mail him at letters @charleskrauthammer.com.
THE BEAUTY OF a speech is that you don’t just give the answers, you provide your own questions. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which “controversial” remarks?
Wright’s assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV “as a means of genocide against people of color”? Wright’s claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?
Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: “There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?”
But that is not the question. The question is why didn’t he leave that church? Why didn’t he leave a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) “God d--- America”? Obama’s 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.
His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.
(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there’s Wright, but at the other “end of the spectrum” there’s Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, “who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?
“I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother.” What exactly was grandma’s offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street.
Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one’s time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?
(b) White guilt. Obama’s purpose in the speech was to put Wright’s outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country,” and then proceeds to do precisely that.
This contextual analysis of Wright’s venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It’s the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That’s why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.
But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.
Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
TR I N I T Y U N I T E D C H U R C H O F C H R I ST B L ACK LI B E R ATI O N THEOLOGY
Obama’s church embraces controversial doctrines
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy News Service
WASHINGTON
Jesus was black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.
Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago – Barack Obama’s church.
Obama’s speech Tuesday on race in America was hailed by some as a masterful handling of the controversy over divisive sermons by the longtime pastor of Trinity United, the recently retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
But in repudiating and putting in context Wright’s inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn’t address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.
Wright has said that a basis for Trinity’s philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone’s seminal 1969 book, “Black Theology & Black Power.”
Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.
Today, Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stands by that view, but also makes clear that he doesn’t believe that whites individually are the Antichrist.
In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, “I would point to that church first,” referring to Trinity. Cone also said he thought that Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.
Obama, 46, who is biracial, joined Trinity in his late 20s when he worked as a community organizer. He says he’ll continue to worship there.
He and other Chicagoans have praised Trinity’s role as a melting pot that brings together blacks and some whites from all levels of wealth and education, boasts a joyous and energetic choir and is deeply involved in community work.
Trinity’s affiliation with the United Church of Christ makes it part of a liberal, mostly white denomination that was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.
Trinity goes further, embracing black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces.
In that and related doctrines, the church and some of its guiding thinkers at times have been socially ahead of the curve and other times outside the mainstream of American religious and political thought.
For example, the 8,000-member congregation embraces the 8,000- member congregation embraces the idea that Jesus was black. It has supported left-wing social and foreign policies, from South Africa to Latin America to the Middle East.
It isn’t clear where Obama’s beliefs and the church’s diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Such a DREAM TICKET would have a double-negative. Hillary would be an 'anchor' to such ticket and drag it down. Even the Democrats are not thrilled about a 'BILLARY' back in Wash., DC.
----------------------------------------------------------
Let's see if I have this straight: Obama should offer the vice-presidency to a power-mad back-stabbing bitch?
I was a long-time Republican, converted to Democrat after these Bush-Cheney years. I'm from Chicago, and have followed Obama for years now. The guy's the real deal. Oh.. and Trinity has white members, by the way. Everyone in the Midwest is shaking their heads with disgust and confusion at the sheep who are buying into this 45-second tape of Wright, who is actually a well-respected guy. But that's off-topic.
The reason I switched was because I came to the realization that for 20 years our presidents have lied to us. I sincerely like Obama, the man. I know many who know Obama, the man. He has a legitimate chance at changing the rusted face of US politics, despite what some are now trying to paint as different. Believe it or not, he's legit.
So... I'm voting this year for a reinstallation of integrity into the Oval Office. Policy, unfortunately comes second for me this round. I will vote for Obama. If Obama picks Hillary as a veep, I'll be voting McCain.
Again, I don't like the policies, but I believe he is inherently honest.
Clintons? Um... not so much.
First off, someones comment about Mark Warner running on the ticket with Mr. Obama... That's a laugh... I live here in VA and he (Warner) is a shoe in for a US Senate (the other Warner (R)current seat)... he isn't about to get linked with that sort of issue to sink his own chances at being President some day.
Secondly, I FORMERLY supported Mr. Obama but have since had a change of heart... You guys can buy into his BS all you want but I've decided otherwise...I KNOW that I'm not alone in my thoughts on this...
As for Hillary running on a ticket with him? That would be mad in her case... he is now carrying the heavier political baggage. The kind that I doubt will ever go away! I'm now supporting her both in money and vote... I would not support her if she chose to run with him in November. Let his ship sink on his own and come back to run again in 4 yrs. I will wholeheartedly go with Mr. McCain in November if these are my choices! Again, I know I'm not alone in this assumption... And before I get branded a racist for certainly I don't really care... I have black friends who wouldn't vote for him either...!!!
So it's settled then. Obama needs to go with someone else. Sebelius is who most insiders believe he's going to grab. Fantastic choice.
I think everyone agrees on this now.
It's about time the Dems agreed on something.
He might wish to have her on his ticket, but if it comes to that, I would urge her to refuse. Then she can run again in 4 years when the people can no longer put up with McCain.
I think a lot of you Obama supporters should rethink the honesty factor in him. This is one reason why I can no longer support him. He was supposed to be different then all the others... in fact though he is the same if not worse!
First off that speech was a joke (no matter how well written/given it was) because he would have NEVER made it had he not gotten involved in the pastor scandal. He twisted the story about his church first saying things he later retracted and changed his story.
He's taken credit for legislation he never was a part of (see recent Washington Post article regarding the immigration bill) and I just now find him to be a complete opportunist! Something that Obama supporters claim about Hillary Clinton!
The only duty in his mind is that he has to win ... but at what cost?!
Fighting any chances of a revote in Florida and Michigan which could have settled this whole delegate dispute?? A sign of a true leader is one who would end the fight to move the Democratic process forward and that's not him. He knows in doing so he ruins his chances of the nomination with revote. I find this to be the total cowardly way out to get a win! Again, that's the sort of guy we would want to run our country? His misguided mental picture of dividing to unite??
And not to mention his severe lack of judgement to sit in on sermons for over 20 years that he supposedly doesn't agree with... Again, this is the sort of guy we would want to run our country?
For me and a lot of others I think not! This whole thing has nothing to do with him being black or about his venomous lipped pastor for that matter! I clearly support free speech so if his pastor wants to spew that sort of crap that's his business... MY role as a voter is to vet Mr. Obama based on his judgement (or lack of in this case) to associate himself with the notions of such a person whom he says he doesn't agree with... for 20 years.
Now I dont know anyone else but would you sit in a church for 20 years if you didn't agree with what was being said by the pastor? I think NOT! It's just not in human psychy to do so...
As far as his chances go in the fall, I would be betting on the other guy right now. His attitude toward MI and FL revotes are going to sink his chances at either of those States. I've talked to many Democratic voters in Michigan who tell me he shouldn't even bother to come speak there in November because he's wasting his breath... As for Florida, one instance is my 88 year old grandma, a life long Democrat, who because of her vote being lost in the primary, is now jumping parties in November. I would think that with many many seniors who vote Democratic there that this is going to be a reoccuring theme. I would also think that States like Ohio and Pennsylvania which he needs are going to go "red" this November.
For the guys who are promoting this new level of measure, the electoral college calculation. At this point, that would probably be the most accurate way to know if he has any chances in November because it's easy to do the math based on what will elect the next President. In doing that math, at this point, things aren't looking that good for his prospects now!
First of all, on the list of Presidential priorities, "renewal of the American spirit" should not be prioritized above strength of character in fighting for truth and justice. Silence in the face of lies and injustice is unacceptable.
Likewise, if Obama were truly sincere about changing the establishment, he wouldn't be siding with the establishment in fighting to disenfranchise millions of FL and MI voters.
That said, I wouldn't mind if Obama were Hillary's running mate, because I think she is enough fighter for the both of them. Obama can do what he does best: remain silent when it's convenient for him, and then when it's expedient, speak up to "renew the American spirit".
Click
God, you're gullible. Obama is far and away more truthful than the exaggerating Hillary Clinton with her 50+% disapproval ratings.
Watch this and get back to us: Hillary lied about Bosnia - 4 Pinnochio's says the Washington Post:
Video to prove it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
Puhleese!!
First off, you were never an Obama supporter.
Secondly, the legislative leaders in both of those states knew exactly what was happening when they moved their primaries up and if the voters in that state want to be angry at someone it is their very own elected leaders (including the Governor of Florida) who made this stupid and now embarrassing decision because they wanted their state to have a more important part to play in the elections and to gain the profit that an active campaign in their state would bring. Well once again Florida is at the center of a vote debacle and unfortunately Michigan too. The voters in those states should look hard at their current state elected leaders on this one.
I know many white Americans have grandparents and parents who might have racist views. I can still love and admire my parents, but attribute their beliefs to their being from another generation and time in history. I understand how you can love and respect someone as a man of integrity, but differ on some very important and fundamental points. I would not have respected Obama as much if he had condemned his pastor in order to try and win your vote. Frankly it would never have been enough anyway -- you were never going to vote for him in the first place.
Choosing Hillary as his Veep would be the first truly dumb thing Obama has done in this campaign. Her presence on the ticket would be rocket fuel to the G.O.P., giving them two already-weakened candidates to do battle against. Why hand the GOP 20 years of Clinton sleaze and scandals to play with? Plus her mug up there next to Obama would just remind voters how ugly the primary was, and voters would imagine a truly bonkers White House. And the whole time Hillary would be running her own covert, rogue, Penn-driven operation, which would likely blow up in both her and Obama's faces before Nov. Democrats are ACHING to be free and clear of the Clintons. Obama would get zero points for hauling that baggage along behind him.
I think Obama should drop out of the race because the morons in our "country" do not deserve his talent and cannot negotiate candor and intelligence. He will be throwing his pearls before swine. Morons need a packaged comfortable lie. Obama should withdraw into his private Senatorial life and watch the whole thing meltdown. The hatred for Obama, and the lack of insight into the brilliance of his speech on race (the greatest speech in my 50 Caucasian years) is telling. White morons hate black people unequivocally. Just listen to Dylan's "Only a Pawn in their Game", that about sums it up. Some moron will shoot him. He should deliver an excoriating speech and withdraw from the race. He has his daughters to think about. Amerikkka is heading down the tubes fast. Obama should forget about saving it, and enjoy his life. Let the morons impress each other with their dogma and stupidity.
first to rthmcd,
You state as fact that his appeal is "Universal". Well I don't feel his appeal therefore even if every single other person in the universe feels it its not "Universal!" However far from it. The closeness of the race between Clinton and Obama, shows its not "Universal" and in fact is closer to 50/50.
Secont to EBradly who says "I think everyone agrees now" many of the posts disagree with you. How can you say "everyone agrees?"
Obamas supporters seem to exaggerate his position. The truth is that we are in a close race that appears to be tipping ih HRC's direction right now. That doesn't mean she will win, but clearly Obamas position is less favorable than it was just a couple weeks ago.
Either candidate would be foolish not to seriously consider the other as their running mate for fear of alienating a large block of voters. Lets keep it real.
If either of them cared about the people in the US they would withdraw and work for the people in another position. One is no different from the other their number one interest is themselves. Why are we all taking sides and trying to promote our views when they are all powerful and trying to get more power. Obama could withdraw and help the party and so could Hillary.
A definite NO, NO. The Billarys should just fade into their retirements and forever rid the political landscape of their blight. There are a lot of white female/male contenders for the VP slot who have faithfully stood by Obama from the begining. I'm sure there are a few among them who have much more real experience than Hillary and much less baggage or no baggage at all. If this leads to diehard Hillary supporters bringing down the Dems at the elections, they will have only themselves to blame when the current quagmire continues for another 100 years, and their progeny ends up doing all the sacrificing for the misguided Bush/McCain/Republican policies.
Tao_changer, you are so right! How has America survived for the past 200 yrs + without Obama? America as a country has really accomplished nothing compared to one individual Obama's long list of accomplishments. How dare American voters even question the perfection that is Obama?!? Don't the swine realize that Obama is thy savior and thou shalt have no other candidate besides Him?
Shame on me for thinking that America is bigger and more important than any one man.
tao_changer,
Well spoken, sir. My wife and I had the same conversation last week. It's not a matter of whether or not Obama is ready to lead this country, it's a matter of whether or not this country is ready for him. And we're evidently not.
Most of my friends and family live abroad and in Canada, and I can tell you we look like idiots to the rest of the world right now. I'm continually being asked why people keep bringing up this Wright thing even though there are white members of Trinity, more videotape has shown a context that is contrary than initial portrayal, etc. And yet they quote each other with this racist, anti-American label out of... who knows. Fear?
He's a remarkable man that's being ripped apart by people who simply don't want to look at facts and use logic.
And it's sad. We desperately needed him.
Words of advice to Obama if he is between the Clintons and Power:
Remember Vince Foster.
Enough with "disenfranchise" nonsense. THEY VOTED IN AN ILLEGAL ELECTION! Case closed. Turn the page.
A "close race" is which Hillary is losing by delegates, number of votes, and number of states? Get out of the alternative universe!
The Florida and Michigan voters do, in fact, have a legitimate case for litigation for disenfranchisement/disallowance of their legal right to vote. This would be a stretch seeing as it's only a primary, and not a general election - to which these rights would actually apply.
It is NOT, however, litigation against the DNC that could be heard. It would be a suit against the respective states, specifically those who knowingly altered primary dates with prior knowledge that the result would be... what it is.
For those who remain Hillarious, please stop with the ridiculous argument that the DNC wouldn't let them vote. This is the responsibility (and culpability) of the respective state legislators who broke the voting rules. Period.
Legal matter aside, can you imagine if the DNC DID allow a revote in Michigan and Florida? For the next election we'd see 50 states moving their primaries to whenever and wherever the hell they wanted.
"For the '12 election, Montana has decided to hold their caucus on June 14, 2010, aboard Carnival Cruise Ship Enlighten, departing from Miami Port C, at 10am sharp. Go ahead... disenfranchise us."
YOU ARE A RACIST.
YOUR COMMENTS PROVE YOU ARE A RACIST.
I ENVISION YOU AS A REDNECK TRAILER DWELLER.
YOUR SISTER WEIGHS 240 LBS, WHICH IS 5 LBS LESS THAN YOUR MOMMA.
YOU HAVE NO TEETH.
YOU EARN LESS THAN $18,000/YR.
YOU GET FOOD STAMPS AND YOUR FAVORITE MEAL IS M&M PEANUTS AND MOUNTAIN DEW.
YOU DESERVE TO DIE A SLOW PAINFUL DEATH.
YOU ARE A RACIST.
There comes a time when the true Chritian needs to slip through the crowd, "harmless as a dove, clever as a snake". The confused hate-filled ones will kill you because your light is too bright. Does anyone read Wilhelm Reich? The US government arrested Reich in the mid 1950s, burned all of his books and research notes, and sent him to die in Lewisburg Penitentiary. Reich, the psychologist, points out in his book "The Murder of Christ" that humans kill that which they are incapable of. Hate filled neurotic parents stamp out the spark of independent genius in their children. Obese parents manufacture obese kids: they are unable to witness their children having normal sexually attractive bodies and healthy self images. It is a stark reminder of their own forsaken lives. The crowd that one week cheers "Hosannah in the Highest", the next week yells "Crucify him". In Reich's take on things, the people could not stand having around one person so bright who called on each human to do their best. It is far easier to remain in your morass of hate, fear, being led by a clergy who tells you that all will be well, just not in this lifetime.