Obama stumps in Manning
Candidate focused on education system
By Yvonne Wenger
Candidate focused on education system
MANNING — Robert Levy wanted more for himself and the family he'd eventually start than a future in cotton and tobacco, so he left his hometown and moved to Baltimore.
Thirty-eight years later, Levy came home to this small town to find South Carolina still waiting on some of the changes its leaders started when he was a boy.
Levy, 63, stood in the back of a crowd nearly 1,000 strong Friday to hear a man who promises hope.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, tried to sell the crowd, gathered at the Clarendon County Courthouse in the shadow of a monument to Confederate soldiers, on his White House bid.
"I'm not just asking you to take a chance on me," Obama said. "I am also asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations, and your own sense of possibility, your own imagination about what America might be."
The crowd responded throughout Obama's speech like a Baptist church, but Levy stood, smiling a few times, with his arms across his chest.
Levy knows the way some folks struggle without health insurance. He graduated
from segregated schools. And the Vietnam veteran remembers seeing young men die while fighting a war.
Levy wants change, and he decided Obama's the one he'll put his faith in.
"He came from a poor background," Levy said. "He knows about the small people and the things they have to go through. He knows because he's been down that road."
Before Obama's speech, Ernest Finney, the state's first black Supreme Court justice since the late 1800s, told the crowd of Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago's South Side and his path to the U.S. Senate as explanation for his endorsement of Obama.
Finney said it was fitting for Obama to come to a place he called the "cradle" of the Civil Rights movement, speaking of the lawsuit Briggs v. Elliot filed in South Carolina by black parents and community leaders. The suit later became part of the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education that put an end to segregation in schools.
"We will cast our vote in the memory of those who have troubled to get us this far and in the belief that together we can go on to a higher place," Finney said.
Obama spoke in broad brushstrokes about his goals for the presidency but focused his speech on education by calling on those gathered there to help fix the system.
He noted the state's high dropout rate and highlighted its "Corridor of Shame," an area along Interstate 95 that many believe is home to substandard schools.
Obama asked the members of the crowd, who were mostly black, to join him in a partnership to push for change.
"I don't want to wait any longer," he said. "We've been waiting too long."
Reach Yvonne M. Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com or 803-799-9051.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
Diamondhead (anonymous) says...
Be careful of what you hope for, if the poor black community decides to pull themselves up from their boot straps, stayed together in marriage, provide a structure life for their children, get an education, work hard, save money, plan for their future, purchase a house, pay taxes, bring value to the community and become middleclass you run the risk of them turning republicans. We don't want that: do we?
November 3, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Timber4hire (anonymous) says...
Obama did not grow up in a poor environment. By his own account, he grew up in a white, middle class environment courtesy of his white mother. I hope that people do not vote for him simply because he is black. I have lived in the South for a very long time and I think Obama's childhood was VERY different from that of blacks growing up around here. Vote for him if you believe in his politics not because you think he is the next MLK. He is not! He doesn't even feel like he should put his hand over heart for the Pledge of Allegience or the Star Spangled Banner. That makes me think twice about electing him as the next leader of the USA!
November 3, 2007 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Viva_La_Revolution (anonymous) says...
No way will the american people vote for someone who's middle name is "Hussein"
Barrack Hussein Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_...
November 3, 2007 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
I think that someone who is as anti-American as Hussein-Obama has no business holding public office in this country. Besides, how can anybody vote for someone who would vote against a law to outlaw partial birth abortion. In this procedure, they partially deliver the baby, then drive a large needle into the base of the babies skull, then suck out the babies brain until the skull colapses. He AND Hillary support this Nazi death camp procedure. These people are no better than Hitler, Goering and Josef Mengele.
November 3, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
draftdot (anonymous) says...
VIVA-you're worried about Obama's middle name?
(what about the current president's middle name-"DUMB *SS")
Also, it's ironic that the only REAL Republican running is Ron Paul-think about it...
November 3, 2007 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
draftdot (anonymous) says...
SJMEHLHOSE-Agreed, I detest abortion too; so let's promote birth control & sex education to eliminate the 'need'.
Nazi's were very pro-German (Obama is "anti-American")-so you may want to be more careful with your analogies to the past.
November 3, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shawnee (anonymous) says...
Obama isn't anti- american!I thank god to be an american and for the right to speak freely within reason.Just because someone speaks the truth about our current goverment administation and all their failures,doesn't mean their anti-american.Obama represents a badly needed change in american goverment and we should at least take time to listen to all the positive messages he is sending to americans.I will vote for Obama not because he's black,but because the message he is sending to americans is clear, we as americans need and are ready for change!
November 4, 2007 at 1:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shawnee (anonymous) says...
I'm thankful for the right to be pro-choice!I don't want goverment or pro-lifers to tell me what to do with my body!
November 4, 2007 at 1:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
Murdering babies in the womb is wrong (your rights end where their rights begin). Nobody has an unlimited right to control their bodies. a good example would be laws against illegal drugs (drug use causes the decay of society as a whole).
We need to get back to where our children are taught that immorality is wrong (that would be a first step in curing the problem since most abortions are because of immorality), and back to a time where people will stand up and declare right from wrong. It's horrible that we as a society think that out of wedlock pregnancy is ok.
Just because the supreme court in 1973 said that it was ok to kill these children doesn't make it right. Remember, the supreme court was the same court that upheld the right to own slaves before the civil war (Dred Scott in 1856).
November 4, 2007 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smithhasaname (anonymous) says...
But sjmehlhose, what do YOU think? You are either pulling this stuff straight off of the pamphlets or you are the person who writes them. And your comparing abortionists with Nazis---that's just disturbingly misled.
Abortion isn't the cause of anything. It's an effect of poverty.
IF (and it's a strecth) there is comparison there, it's because abortion is a form of eliminating out the poor. And let's face facts: most people on your side of the debate care about unborn babies and that's it. After they are born, it's not like US churches produce phalanx after phalanx of volunteers to help educate, feed, and clothe them. And, using your jargon, which is worse: killing a child before he is born or letting that child be born, only to bleed him to death over the next 55 years (if he lives that long) by perpetuating a society which refuses to educate, give healthcare, job opportunities, etc. to its neediest members? Just because you have your hair on fire about the former doesn't mean you have washed you hands of the latter. You would be morally culpable either way.
All of that said, I'd imagine Obama would be your man. He's the only candidate with a plan to combat poverty in this country. Less poverty=fewer abortions. That and, well...in terms of morality, he stands up pretty well to any of the womanizing suits on the other side.
November 4, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
So, you are saying that it's better to murder a baby than to take care of it? And that if the child is poor, than kill him or her? That is no different than what the Nazi's did to Jews, Christians and people who didn't agree with them. That kind of mindset is evil. Yes, the comparison between abortionists and Nazi's is valid.
November 4, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smithhasaname (anonymous) says...
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. It is, however, how actual abortions play out. People do things like that because they are afraid they can't take care of the child. It is a stark, stark world beyond the walls of your church. If everyone who was anti-abortion came out to support single mothers and struggling families, I dare say they're be a precipitious drop in abortions.
You are against abortion on principle and nothing more, and don't seem inclined, at least from your posts, to change a system which leaves people with the equally terrifying choices of 1) having a child they can't take care of or 2) aborting that pregnancy. The consequences of the system bother you, but you seem content with the system itself. Again, Obama would work to change the system, which would in theory please people like yourself.
The anti-abortion position just wants to take away option #2. To repeat: it doesn't even scratch the surface of the larger social issues which lead people to confront such choices. Children photograph a lot better than homeless adults who, because they grew up without opportunities in poor neighborhoods barely stood a chance at life. Making symptoms of social problems, like abortion, key political issues just keeps people from focusing on the causes.
It's a choice I, thank God, have never had to confront, and that's as much due to my financial standing as anything else. I'd prefer to not judge others who find themselves in desparate straights. The Bible says something about that, I think...
Here in the US we kill poor people every day, we just don't have it in our faces. If you don't believe me, check out the places where your clothing and a lot of your food come from. Or the oil in your car. Why doesn't it bother you that some of the clothes, in your closet, were made by women chained to sewing machines? Or that the people who shipped in your bananas paid protection money to Columbian terrorist groups responsible for torturing and killing thousands? The mindset that overlooks these is no less evil, wouldn't you agree? Other people's decision to abort/not to abort a pregnancy should be the least of the weight you feel on your soul.
Lastly: Nazis=abortionists distorts the absolute horror of Nazi Germany and intends to twist the meaning of the Holocaust for political gain. Rhetorically speaking, it's a fairly cheap trick. The Nazis had a systematic program in place to eliminate people; no group of abortion doctors in the US could claim that. By comparison, there is a real genocide currently going on in Sudan. What government militias have done to Darfur---that is approaching legitimate comparison to the Nazis. So, how do you feel about Darfur and this administration's refusal to do anything about it?
Also, Nazis weren't anti-Christian, look it up. Putting them next to the Jews as if they were also systematically put into ghettos and killed---again, a fairly cheap trick.
November 4, 2007 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
I believe in choice, but choice starts before the decision to become pregnant. You can choose not to engage in activity which will produce another life. After that, the baby has the right to live and not be murdered in his or her mothers womb.
For those who can't take care of their children when they are born, there is the option of adoption. There are thousands, maybe millions of people in stable loving homes that would love to adopt and raise more children.
It is heartlessness and selfishness to the extreme to say that you'd rather murder a child instead of placing him or her in a loving home.
These other issues, while important, are a red herring to the discussion.
When you say that abortion isn't as bad as the holocost, what about the estimated 45 million people who have been killed by abortion since 1973? That number would make the Nazi's or Stalin proud.
Also, true, born again Christians (not Catholics or Lutherans) WERE sent to concentration camps for their beliefs. Corrie ten Boom lost her whole family and spent years in a Nazi concentration camp. She and her family were born again Christians.
November 4, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smithhasaname (anonymous) says...
Sjmehlhose, you have proven my point in spades.
For you abortion is a social ill which trumps all others. My point is that abortion is a symptom of larger social issues. The 'red herrings' as you call them are the cause of abortions, whether here in the US or abroad. You have no problem with the 'why' of abortion, just the act in and of itself. That is bad. You just think abortion is terrible. Admirable point, maybe, but tragically misguided. There were plenty of illegal abortions pre-Roe, so I think we can safely say they will exist even if Roe is overturned.
"Choice?" Sounds like you know a lot of perfect people who have free access to perfect contraception. Must be a thrilling place to live.
Again, if you hate abortion, then fight for social justice. End poverty. Your issue, abortion, will solve itself as a consequence. Volunteer to help pregnant women in crisis. Don't go around condemning those who face realities you seem to know little about. You've said nothing about the reasons abortion exists. Understand the cause and you'll see how to solve the issue. Telling people who are already struggling how bad they are...as they say, WWJD?
As for your Holocaust comparison, you can't change your analogies mid-stream. Pick one and go with it. In my first post I gave you the only semi-valid version of that argument (genocide of the poor). Coming back with a hard numbers comparison, again, cheap trick. That sort of argument can be used to say anything about anything.
And now it's born again Christians? The term wasn't even in common usage till the 1960's (look it up). Moreover, lots of people were sent to the camps. Gypsies, people with disabilities, and many others were way up the list before Christians.
That, and Corrie Ten Boom and her family went to the camps because they fought for social justice by hiding Jews from the Nazis. They weren't randomly scooped up for being Christians. They acted on their beliefs.
I suggest that, instead of playing the role of the law keeper, you go out and start doing likewise. A person with your kind of passion could do a lot of good for people.
It's been real!
November 4, 2007 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjmehlhose (anonymous) says...
The term "born again" comes from John 3:1-3 "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
This was written almost 2000 years ago, NOT the 1960's.
November 4, 2007 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
smithhasaname: it's very interesting when you offer cogent thoughts those who wish to vehemently disagree with you veer off course in order to hide their inability to respond likewise. i'm not saying i agree or disagree with you or the other, but i like to see those who thump the bible exhort not only "the word" but solutions to problems.
adoption: there are hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system. out of those one hundred thousand(at any given time) are available for adoption yet families who can afford to adopt go out of the country to do so. i.e. china, russia, equador, etc. So to say that adoption is a panacea for abortion is flawed reasoning.
born again Christians: though mentioned in scripture, the term in of itself was not prevalently used until the 1950's. so the assertion that 'born-again Christians' were sent to the ovens is incorrect. Nazi's sent Christians of all types to concentration camps to include some Catholics & Lutherans. as well as disabled, gypsies and others. (as a student of history i actually READ/STUDIED about the atrocities of WW2.
I hear the 'anti-abortion' crowd decry abortion but many couldn't tell you where the local orphanage is or can even tell you how much they or their church has truly done for children without homes or families. they put a few dollars in the collection plate, hold a bake sale or two and buy a pack of socks or a cheap toy for their office "angel tree". however they will take off from work, spend their own money to make picket signs/pamphlets, in order to scream at young women who are making one of the most painful decisions in their lifetime.
is it better to kill? no
but the hypocrisy espoused on this board is so palpable that i think i can taste it.
November 5, 2007 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
diamondhead: "Be careful of what you hope for, if the poor black community decides to pull themselves up from their boot straps, stayed together in marriage, provide a structure life for their children, get an education, work hard, save money, plan for their future, purchase a house, pay taxes, bring value to the community and become middleclass you run the risk of them turning republicans. We don't want that: do we?"
there are many of us out there that do and aren't republicans. LOLOL but your point was well taken. but let's not forget, having had lived in tennessee and kentucky, white folk need to do the exact same thing. poverty runs far more rampant with whites than with blacks in that area. and for the same reasons you wrote about.
obama needs to be very careful about how and why he courts for votes. he doesn't want to become like Hilary and change who he is just to get blacks to vote for him. (hilary speaks with a southern twang and a preacher's tempo when she's in front of blacks. talk about being racist!)
and for the blatantly ignorant who appeal to voters not to vote for someone because of their last or middle name, PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF AND TRY NOT TO BE AN INFLUENCE TO CHILDREN. YOU WILL CORRUPT OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS WITH YOUR STUPIDITY!
I guess you would never vote for a Gonzalez, Wong or Mandela either.
November 5, 2007 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
misfit (anonymous) says...
I am against abortion, but I think many people use the issue to justify voting for their own wallet. They can't win arguments about socio-economic issues, so they use the abortion issue. How convenient it is for them, and what a shame the other party can't allow abortion to be illegal.
November 5, 2007 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
My_50Cents_Worth (anonymous) says...
EYFIGUEROA,
You said EVERYTHING that needed to be and should have been said in response to many of the posts here.
Your second post, in particular, was "spot on." Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 6, 2007 at 3:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
de nada...
November 6, 2007 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- New drug may hold promise for lupus sufferers
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
