Ralph Nader comments hit the mark.

Original story at Ralph Nader Partial Transcript from Rocky Mountain News

It was sad watching MSNBC trash Ralph Nader and his comments about Barack Obama's candidacy. MSNBC and its "pundits" called Ralph Nader "out of touch", "craving attention", "comments from an old guy" "out of it", and that the comments were racist.

What Ralph Nader said, in my opinion, was that Barack Obama has been bought by George Soros and Company. Barack will avoid confrontation with anybody that supports or is supported by Soros. Of course MSNBC will be all over Nader and trash him since they are part of the Soros led media takeover.

Rather than being a very popular, maverick candidate with a shining star future in the democratic party whose grass roots candidacy barely lost to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama chose to be owned by George Soros in exchange for the over the top help it gave him against Hillary Clinton. Ralph Nader saw exactly what has happened and how it has compromised Barack Obama and hit a bullseye with his comments.

I believe that the level of media collusion backing George Soros and subsequently supporting each other already exists. Ralph Nader's comments may have been attention getting, but they were right on the mark, Barack Obama is beholden to too many other interests.

George Soros, Huffington Post, MSNBC, MoveOn, Media Matters, Newsweek, and CNN have played favorites politically while claiming to be news oriented non biased media. This is the kind of fraud that needs to be investigated by the FBI.

Here is the transcript of what Nader said from the Rocky Mountain News.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: "Do you see Barack Obama as qualitatively different than Al Gore or any other Democrats. He talks about taking on lobbyists, not taking money directly from lobbyists ... People portray him as being different. Do you see him as being any better than Al Gore or any of the other Democrats that you've opposed over the years?"

Nader: "No. I mean, he's deceiving people. He takes, he takes ... In this very building he would take money from corporate lawyers who are not registered lobbyists but whose desks are across the aisle from corporate lawyers who are registered lobbyists in the same law firm. That has been reported more than once in the mainstream press ... Six out of seven industries, as of a month ago, have given more money to Obama than they have to McCain, only the transportation industry is more equal opportunity corruption.

"Look at the health care industry. It has poured money into his campaign. The securities industry, the defense industry. No.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

"I think his main problem is that he censors himself. He knows exactly who has power, who has too much, who has too little, what needs to be done right down to the community level. But he has bought the advice that if you want to win the election, you better take it easy on the corporate abuses and do X, Y, Z. When I hear that I say, 'Oh, I see. So he's doing all this to win the election, and then he'll be different.

"Well let's see if it worked. Did it work for Mondale? Did it work for Dukakis? Did it work for Clinton? Yes, but only because of Perot? Did it work for Gore? Did it work for Kerry ... ?"

Q: "Do you think he's trying to, what was your term, 'talk white?'"

NADER: "Of course. I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law. Haven't heard a thing.

"I mean, the amount of economic exploitation in the ghettos is shocking. You'd think he'd propose a task force to at least study it. I mean, these people are eroded every day. The kids, bodies are asbestos and lead, municipal services discriminate against them because it's the poor area, including fire and police protection and building code enforcement. And then the lenders, the loan sharks get at them, and the dirty food ends up in the ghettos, like the contaminated meat. It's a dumping ground for shoddy merchandise. You don't see many credit unions there. You don't see many libraries there. You don't see many health clinics there. This is, we're talking 40-50 million Americans who are predominantly African-Americans and Latinos. Anybody see that kind of campaigning? Have you seen him campaign in real poor areas of the city very frequently? No, he doesn't campaign there."

Q: "What do you think the purpose of that is?"

NADER: "He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a political threatening, another politically-threatening African-American politician.

"He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as a black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

The Mirage behind Barack Obama's Caucus Delegate "Victories".

The Mirage behind Barack Obama's Caucus Delegate "Victories".

The democratic caucus races held in 14 states plus 2 overseas resulted in approximately 333 caucus delegates going to Barrack Obama. Hillary Clinton received 142 caucus delegates, a net gain for Barrack Obama of 191 delegates. No exact caucus popular vote totals exist because 4 caucus states don't release official vote totals, however it appears that approximately 1 million democrats (perhaps slightly more) voted in all of the caucus contests.

In California, approximately 4.2 million voters voted. When all 16 caucus vote totals are added together along with the state of California's vote totals, Hillary Clinton had more total votes than Barrack Obama. I mention this because even though Hillary Clinton had more total votes when California and all the caucus votes are added together, Barrack Obama still received 499 delegates while Hillary Clinton received only 363 delegates. Hillary Clinton received 136 less delegates even though Hillary led in total votes cast from all the caucuses and California vote totals combined.

More startling facts about caucuses. Barrack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages are in caucus states! 13 of Obama's 16 highest winning percentages are in caucus states! It's important to let that statistic sink in. The mathematical odds that Barrack Obama's 11 highest winning percentage margins would ALL be in caucus states would practically be infinitesimal IF caucus state voting was as fair as primary voting.

More proof is available that caucus states have unfairly skewed delegates to Obama's side. In Washington state, Barrack Obama won the caucus vote by a stunning 68% to 31% margin. 10 days later, Washington state held a non-binding primary. The much higher voter turnout resulted in a virtual tie between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. From 68%/31% to 51%/46%, yet Barrack Obama received 53 delegates, Hillary Clinton only 25 delegates.

The evidence is overwhelming that Barrack Obama's success is largely pinioned on his exaggerated wins in the caucus states that require approximately 88% less votes per selected delegate. That's right, caucus states require approximately 88% less voters to select each delegate. Since a disportionately small amount of caucus voters get to select delegates, shouldn't these caucus delegates at the very least not be allowed to sway the super-delegates nor be used as some type of mandate that the super delegates must follow? It is incumbent upon Dean and Pelosi to make it known that the superdelegates CAN vote however they want without retribution.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton is the more popular democratic candidate when voters vote "primary style", in a voting booth and having all day to vote, which is exactly the way voters will vote this upcoming November in the Presidential election.

Perhaps you Miss Imus and don't even know it.

June 6th, 2007 and the Arizona Wildcats have just defeated the Tennessee Lady Volunteers in female mud wrestling, er, in the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Championship Game. When at least one member of the NCAA's Rutgers Womens basketball team claimed they were scarred for life by comments Don Imus made about their team, Mr. Imus was unceremoniously "retired" by the political correctness crowd. Fast forward a few months and there is no big bad Imus to bring some much needed attention to the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Championship game.

Now more than ever the NCAA Women's Sports Community needed the Imus Touch to help promote The NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Championship tournament games. ESPN did their part as they really went all out and interviewed all the young women athletes up close and personal. ESPN then created sound bites from each of their interviews and periodically played them throughout the games. ESPN did such a fine job interviewing these young women it kind of made me wish I was 20 years old again and a women's fast pitch softball groupie.

Now Imagine Don Imus still has his job on the radio and he mentions how much he really likes the Arizona's pitcher's ability to "bring it" to the plate. Perhaps Mr. Imus might have then pontificated about how he'd never look at swinging in quite the same light after seeing these ladies pull that bat handle until the ball exploded for a home run.

Whether it was salacious soliloquy, controversial curtness, or off the cuff inappropriate banter on his gone and perhaps forgotten radio/television show, Don Imus would have drawn the ire of the national association of political correctness groups, along with every feminists group on the planet, real and imagined. More importantly, a Don Imus on air inappropriate Spittle fest would have most probably brought some well deserved publicity for NCAA Women's fast pitch softball. Dare I ask, would that have been so bad?

But once again political correctness has reared it's unisex head and shunted Mr. Imus just when he was needed the most. The way I see it the Rutgers women's basketball team did not learn how to hand off the publicity football after they had already run for a touchdown and kicked the extra point. When it's all said and done, the outcry over Mr. Imus's diatribe about the Rutgers female basketball team allowed the Rutgers team to hog all of the "woe is me" attention for themselves while simultaneously incapacitating any future NCAA women's championship event from receiving the Imus Touch.

Did we see or hear about any of the Rutgers girls basketball team members taking their new found victimhood celebrity status and using it to help publicize other women's sports teams? Perhaps the Rutgers girls basketball team was too busy trying to recover from being scarred for life to try and shine any of their new found celebrityhood onto anyone else.

When it's all said and done, the real victims of Mr. Imus's diatribe from a few months ago may have finally been discovered, and it wasn't Rutgers college or it's female basketball team. The real victims of Mr. Imus's Rutgers on air imbroglio wear NCAA baseball caps, swing with all their might, dive for every ball, and run hard to first base each and everytime, but you probably don't care about any of that because nobody took these girls seriously enough to say anything derogatory about them.

Hopefully by now you realize how much you should miss Don Imus and his ability to draw attention to sporting events that otherwise would just melt into the night, making very little sound and no fury as they just fade away. Do you really believe you will see any more mention of the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Tournament baseball now that the event is over with? We have the political correctness crowd to thank for that.

I sincerely hope that all the advertisers who pulled out of the Don Imus radio and television talk show put their money where their mouths are and supported the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Tournament by purchasing commerical advertising time.

Now that Don Imus has been minused did anyone else step up to the plate and properly indoctrinate the world of NCAA fast pitch softball to the public? Did the political correctness crowd ultimately damage the baseball tournament's visibility by vanquishing the one person who would have helped the sport become more noticed? When Don Imus takes the time to care enough to say something ill-conceived and in bad taste, people listen.

Once the political correctness crowd minused Imus, did they do enough to promote the NCAA Women's Fast Pitch Softball Tournament to the public? If the answer is no, then you should be missing Don Imus right about now.