Racism changing sides???

Before, it was the white people, who were blamed to be racist, when they favor a white person, mainly because of their skin color.

Now, sadly, it is the blacks, who force their ideal based solely on "skin color".

Below, you will read, a neo-racist* Sharpton's thoughts, regarding the possibility of allowing the unrepresented delegates from Michigan and Florida to have a final say on whom to send as the final Democratic party candidate to the Presidential elections.

As you know, both states were won by Clinton. Now, you can ignore Michigan if you want. But, what about Florida? Florida, with its huge Latino and small Black population giving Californian support will be a huge blow for the Blacks' candidate Obama, as you know without the presence of his racial supporters who are currently blinded by their race, it will not be easy for him to win in Florida.

When I say a blinded racial supporter, I am actually referring to people like the so-called woman rights defender Oprah and her decision to support Obama. Of course, you cannot say anything regarding her decision, other than that she acts on her racial instincts, which is actually something she and people like her have blamed the white people for doing not so long ago. And, neo-racist Sharpton is honoring that by using the same principle for his own agenda.

Isn't it interesting? I think that it actually is...

That also makes me think that the white people favoring white people over blacks should be completely allowed. And, honestly, Sharpton, and other neo-racists would have no say in this matter. So, that means, if you are White and you are voting for Obama to cover the past mistakes of your race, don't. Don't do that. Do what your instincts tell you, and go for Clinton? Of course, at the end, with the support coming from latte-liberals (like the kind of people who were criticising heavily Bush-opposers (who are against the war) even from the beginning, based on national security principle, but now seeing the change of winds, changing the sides accordingly), and his racial supporters, Obama might win. Even though as a non-American I don't give a damn who becomes the leader of USA, I would have preferred Clinton over Obama, as you would get in addition to Hillary, who according to most observers, not much different from Obama, Bill and his experience.

Obama is the kind of person, who would not even vote against the war clearly with his "not present your honor" votes.

The Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday said the Democratic Party would commit a “grave injustice” if it seated delegates from Florida and Michigan at the party’s national convention - and he threatened a march on the party’s Washington headquarters…

Sharpton wrote: “I firmly believe that changing the rules now and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice.”

He added that protestations about being disenfranchised, a point made by [NAACP head Julian] Bond in a separate letter to Dean Tuesday, “should have been made many months ago, before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates…

He said his National Action Network is discussing a possible march on DNC headquarters, adding, “This smacks of the same stuff we accused the Republicans of in Florida in 2000 . . . changing the rules.”

[Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver] said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him “if it comes down to the last day and you’re the only superdelegate. … Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

“I told him I’d think about it,” Cleaver concluded.

(* The way I define it)