Howard doesn’t hate brown people. Howard hates stupid people.

So why the full-force assault on Obama, who has gained more global attention because he might be the first black presient of the United States than because of his stance on the Iraq War?

Hay Johnnie, don’t you realize that Obama’s announcement of his candidacy highlights his antiwar stance, or is that concept too difficult for you to understand?

many prominent Democrats — including figures such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter

Prominent Democrats? Three losers. I’m surprised he didn’t include Al Gore.

Carter, he lost his reelection bid. L-O-S-E-R!
Kerry, he lost his bid for President. L-O-S-E-R!
Kennedy, he didn’t even win the nomination! L-O-S-E-R!

I’m sure some of the resident liberals will be happy to point out all the Republican losers throughout history. I also hope they explain why Bill Clinton is no longer a prominent Democrat as he actually was a winner, two times over.

2. He thought he was Irish (h/t Kevin43).

3. He had heard Illinois politics needs “cleaning up”.

4. Howard has figured out — all by himself — that the only Democrat without a vote in favor of military action in Iraq must be cast as a pansy without serious national security and anti-terrorism credentials.

Good on ya, John Howard.

The premise of Markus’ book is that racial issues have become disturbingly prominent in Australian public life during the Howard years.

1. Because left-wingers keep demanding government gimmes for the Aborigines.
2. Because Australia is a magnet for immigration, including illegal immigration.

None of which is John Howard’s fault, but liberals never let logic keep them from smearing anybody who opposes them. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

So why the full-force assault on Obama, who has gained more global attention because he might be the first black presient of the United States than because of his stance on the Iraq War?

It’s called the race card – or perhaps it’s race-baiting. Either way, let’s make Obama look like the victim of a right-wing attack by mentioning the very thing those of African-American persuasion identify him as not-having, i.e.: blackness. But leave it to the elite MSM (no doubt mostly white people) to actually defend his blackness. More liberal apologists using minorities for political gain. Nothing new here.

John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter,

As for your exist question (rhetorical, I know), none of these guys is potentially the next American commander in chief.

So why the full-force assault on Obama, who has gained more global attention because he might be the first black presient of the United States than because of his stance on the Iraq War?

Let’s see how Obama would fair in a hypothetical Kenyan election:
“But, more pertinent, why the reluctance for 2/3 of eligible Kenyan voters to vote for a Luo man? Isn’t it time that Kenyan society moves beyond the old fashioned notions that a man must circumcised to be a viable candidate? Why do circumcised tribes like the Kikuyu or the Luhya look down on the Luo for this reason only? Well, except the Kikuyu who cannot abide anyone who eats fish. Isn’t it time to move on from these archaic notions that limit who can be a nationally appealing candidate and who can’t be?”
(not making this up).
And the Nation is all a twitter that people are actually analyzing the man’s politics and commenting on them, not whether his privates pass muster with the community elders.

My the Aussies meant Osama…NBC can do it. Fox, anyone could confuse them. Hope army dorm doesn’t grow a beard.

Sharpton to Obama: “Just because you’re our color doesn’t make you our kind”

Absolves Mr. Howard of the futile racist accusations and makes the writers’ questions mute.

However, this w/b more accurate:

So why the full-force assault on Obama, who has gained more global attention because he might be the first black smooth, though inexperienced, socialist and U.N.-accommodating pesident of the United States, in this century, than because of his stance on the Iraq War?

Any idea why John Howard, in an interview on Saturday night, would have zeroed in on a guy who made worldwide headlines earlier that same day by announcing his candidacy for the presidency?

Because he was specifically asked about the bill to withdraw troops from Iraq proposed by Obama in an interview. But never let the facts get in the way of hysterical accusations of racism, we all know that is one of the lefts primary tools for attempting to gain political leverage.

Didn’t his wife say something about all other Black American men being lost to self service? Did I misunderstand her point on 60 Minutes?

So why the full-force assault on Obama, who has gained more global attention because he might be the first black presient of the United States than because of his stance on the Iraq War?

LoL… Obama hasn’t even been close to a primary and they’re already trying to paint him as a probable presidential candidate.

A possible long long long shot, yeah, but considering him a probably candidate? Hardly.

But his stance on Iraq? Absolutely a world opinion issue.