May 19, 2008, 1:55 pm
BILLINGS, Mont. – Less than a week after his state went for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by 41 points, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, endorsed Senator Barack Obama.
Mr. Byrd, the longest-serving member of the Senate, had purposefully steered clear of showing a preference in the presidential nominating battle between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton ahead of his state’s primary last Tuesday. But today he announced his support for Mr. Obama, saying, “The stakes this November could not be higher.”
“After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for President,” Mr. Byrd said in a statement. “Both Senators Clinton and Obama are extraordinary individuals, whose integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect.”
“I believe Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history,” added Mr. Byrd, who voted against giving President Bush the authorization to go to war in Iraq in 2002 and has been a vociferous opponent of the war. “Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support.”
“I believe Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history,” added Mr. Byrd, who voted against giving President Bush the authorization to go to war in Iraq in 2002 and has been a vociferous opponent of the war. “Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support.”
Two words worth noting in that statement: “Humble Christian.” In the post-mortem of his overwhelming defeat, aides to Mr. Obama suspect many voters believed the misdirected rumors that he was Muslim.
So will the sentiment of Mr. Byrd -– an iconic figure in West Virginia who has served in the Senate since 1958, before Mr. Obama was born -– help allay concerns of some Democrats in a general election? Can Mr. Obama still be competitive in states that he lost by significant margins to Mrs. Clinton?
Above all, that is the question on the minds of Democrats this week.
With the endorsement, Mr. Byrd joins West Virginia’s other senator, John D. Rockefeller IV, in supporting Mr. Obama.
The endorsement also makes three more superdelegates for Mr. Obama on Monday, on the eve of the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. The Kansas Democratic Party chairman, Larry Gates, and the Washington State Democratic Party chairman, Dwight Pelz, also announced their support for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton has been courting Mr. Byrd for some time, and openly did so on Mother’s Day, when she was campaigning in West Virginia in advance of its primary.
She told a small gathering that when she first began serving in the Senate, in 2001, her mother used to watch CSpan to try to catch a glimpse of her daughter. And during her TV-watching, she became familiar with Mr. Byrd, regarded by his colleagues as the chief expert on Senate history and procedure.
Mrs. Clinton said that her mother came to admire Mr. Byrd and hoped one day to meet him. Eventually she brought her mother to lunch with Mr. Byrd and they had a fine time.
But apparently the personal connection was not strong enough to sway Mr. Byrd to her side, as her hopes dwindle for the nomination.
Mr. Byrd’s endorsement of Mr. Obama is all the more interesting considering that as the senator once opposed integrating the military, filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and, as a young man, was briefly a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He has frequently expressed regret for his past actions.
(Article courtesy of The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Byrd endorsing Obama. A so-called former Klansman, racist terrorist, and anti-black humanity Christian.
Who’s next?
Stormfront?
Then again, this does not surprise me. Many white men (hell, LOTS of men) would rather vote for a man, any man, over voting for a woman as president of the United States, be that woman black, red, brown or white. Many men would rather vote for an inept, third-rate politician with a third-grade education (no matter what that man’s race or ethnicity), before they would vote for a woman candidate armed with a PH.D.
White men from the South, especially. In addition to many white men in the South being racist, there are many white men who are sexist against all women. Some (black women) more so than others (white women).
As for Byrd supposedly regretting his KKK past, oh, I am sure he does. I am sure he has erased the Blu-Ray/Tivo/DVD memory bank of his brain of all the atrocities he condoned and sanctioned in the name of white supremacy against defenseless black Americans, in his lifetime. Sen. Byrd, you may regret the vicious depravities you committed, overtly and covertly, against innocent black citizens under the hooded cloak of the KKK, but there are many who do not forgive your hypocrisy.
“Both Senators Clinton and Obama are extraordinary individuals, whose integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect.”
Since when did you of all people have any kind of deep respect for the Constitution, the way you shit and pissed on it by denying millions of black citizens the right to vote, and your attacks upon civil rights, eh?
“Mr. Byrd’s endorsement of Mr. Obama is all the more interesting considering that as the senator once opposed integrating the military, filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and, as a young man, was briefly a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He has frequently expressed regret for his past actions.”
“I believe Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history,” added Mr. Byrd, who voted against giving President Bush the authorization to go to war in Iraq in 2002 and has been a vociferous opponent of the war. “Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support.”
Yes, now that those pesky fears of Obama being considered a Muslim have finally been laid to rest,eh? (Yeah, right.)
Now he is a fine, up-standing Christian in your eyes, eh?
And that Clinton won your state only last week, doesn’t count in your scheme of things? (Yes, you have the right to endorse whomever you want, but, for crying out loud, the woman did win your state, but of course, she’s only a woman, eh, Sen. Byrd, right? She’s not a member of the Boys Club, eh?)
“Less than a week after his state went for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by 41 points, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, endorsed Senator Barack Obama.”
Bros before hos, ain’t that right, Sen. Byrd, eh?
Hey, Sen. Byrd:
“Iron my blouse!”
2 Comments
June 8, 2008 at 10:00+00:00Jun
Hi!
There seems to be something wrong with your logic.
Both Clinton and Obama campaigned for the endorsement of a man who, by his own admission, in 1982, at age 65, started to wonder if Black people just might be human beings.
You might be less upset if you admit to yourself that both Obama and Clinton are reprehensible creatures.
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/obama-endorsed-by-kkks-most-successful-leader/#comment-502
June 8, 2008 at 10:00+00:00Jun
There is nothing wrong with my logic.
Byrd endorsed Obama.
Byrd did not endorse Clinton.
Duh….what part of my post did you not comprehend?
A white racist male (and yes, he is still a racist, since you had difficulty picking that up from my post), standing with a black man is nothing new. White males sided with freed ex-slave black men during Reconstruction, thereby giving black men the right to vote, before giving WOMEN (no matter their race) the right to vote.
That was not the first time racist white men stood against even their own white women, and as seen with Byrd’s endorsement of Obama, it will not be the last time.
No, my logic is working perfectly fine.
“Bros before Hos”.
Whether the “Bros” are white, black, red, yellow, brown, or whatever…..they will side against women before siding against their own kind (men)…..most of the time.
Even the racist white men, can overlook their incessant racist hatred against black men and in the case of racist Byrd, throw their support behind a man——-ANY MAN——as long as it is not a WOMAN.
Even if that woman is white. Even if that woman curried favor so desparately to get endorsement.
I simply pointed out in my post that this behaviour does not surprise me.
Men will (mostly) choose those who have a tail swinging between their legs (no matter how incompetent or stupid that male may be) even if it means not voting for a woman candidate or standing with a woman period, as so happens in everyday life.
As so often happens, the WEAK always band together to fight against the STRONG.
And many men have shown that type of behaviour for the last 40,000+ years.
So, nothing to get upset about. I stated the obvious.
Many white racist males would rather chose the black man they hate, rather than vote for the white woman, in this case, Clinton, to keep a woman out of the White House.
Many white men, have been racists and cowards towards black women for so long that they would slit their throats (most of them, not all of them) before they would do right by many black American women.
So, why should a white man (in this case, Byrd) side with a white woman, even if she is running for the highest office in the land?
And as for Byrd’s not considering black people human beings…….
…..he is not the only one who harbors such thoughts.
Millions of white citizens think that way about their fellow black citizens, even when those same white people’s race has a brutal history of being ANYTHING BUT HUMANS towards their fellow black citizens.
As for “reprehensible creatures”, MANY politicians are reprehensible creatures. The things that many of them do to become elected is enough to sicken and turn the stomach.
Only some politicians (white males) have a much longer history of being “reprehensible creatures”.