Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? [Archive] - Page 7

View Full Version : Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13

JPhillips

03-18-2008, 10:43 AM

Let me get this straight. Did you see the movie JFK? If so, you must believe in conspiracies. That is exactly what you are saying here.

Just because some one reads a book does not mean that they subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Just because I meet some one once does not mean that I am a close advisor. If you attend a church for 20 years and this same person is very influential in the writing of your book, that person is a big influence over your life.

If a lifelong catholic runs for the White House, I can understand abortion advocates being concerned with abortion legislation being passed, regarless of the candidate's actual statements regarding his position. This is the same thing.

The problem that Obama has, and will have is that he cannot let the debate devolve into issues. He will be seen as a fringe liberal, and that will scare many voters away. As long as he keeps the debate about his cult of personality, he will attract the mindless mob.

You bring up a very good point though. There are many conspiracy theories out there that many people have not heard or have not given any credence to. But, you're going to tell me that a close spiritual advisor of a candidate for president, one who attended this church for 20 years, has no belief in any of this at all. Even though, he credits this same person as being a huge influence on his life. But, that's ok because these are mainstream beliefs?

Sorry, I can't buy that.

Let me explain this carefully, so you won't completely miss what I'm saying again.

1) I'm not saying reading a book means you believe in a conspiracy. I am saying reading a book and saying "I believe that" means you believe in a conspiracy.

2) I'm not at all saying any particular conspiracy theory is mainstream, but that belief in conspiracies in general likely is.

3) I'm not saying Wright should be excused because people believe in conspiracies, but that the discussion should at least pay attention to the fact that lots of people including prominent politicians of all ideologies believe in things equally as crazy as what Wright said.

4) You can believe whatever you want, but I believe it's at least reasonable to look at what the person has said and done and to put at minimum equal weight on that.

5) You have had numerous reasons to be opposed to Obama before any of this and I'd argue that your concern about Wright has less to do with a genuine fear of his influence and more to do with playing into biases you already had.

Ksyrup

03-18-2008, 10:45 AM

Great speech.

I guess this is where I say that I wish he was a community leader or preacher, and not a candidate whose policies and political philosophy I largely do not agree with.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 10:46 AM

Great speech.

I guess this is where I say that I wish he was a community leader or preacher, and not a candidate whose policies and political philosophy I largely do not agree with.

He knows a preacher. You should check him out.

Ksyrup

03-18-2008, 10:53 AM

He knows a preacher. You should check him out.

Do you have a link to some video of him I can check out?

flere-imsaho

03-18-2008, 10:54 AM

I suspect all of our regular priests, ministers and/or rabbis say stuff in their speeches with which we disagree.

Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Barack Obama stole my post!!!

:eek:

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 10:54 AM

Do you have a link to some video of him I can check out?

I call Oprah and see if she can hook me up.

Noop

03-18-2008, 11:19 AM

Great Speech.

Vegas Vic

03-18-2008, 11:30 AM

And by that I mean, you don't attend his church, and you certainly don't have him as a part of the most significant moments of your life. That is very troubling to me.

Well, not all of the most significant moments.

Remember, at the last minute, Obama decided not to have Wright at his announcement to run for the presidency last year, even though Obama said last week he wasn't aware of Wright's vitriolic sermons.

SirFozzie

03-18-2008, 11:30 AM

The reaction I'm seeing elsewhere, is not Home Run.. it's grand slam.

Arles

03-18-2008, 11:43 AM

James Inhofe has said that 9/11 was punishment by God for America's sins.
The best parallel I can think of is if John McCain had Inhofe as his "family preacher" for 20 years with Inhofe baptizing his kids and marrying him to his wife. If that were the case, I think you would see 10-times more outrage from the mainstream media than we have seen on the Wright issue.

In the end, I think Obama has handled it fairly well (esp yesterday's speech), but the nature of his campaign will open him up for similar criticisms moving forward. It's no different that if W (while running as a uniter of Dems and Reps in 2000) had a bunch of stories come out about how he was a very obstructionist governor. Once you set the tone/goals of your campaign, you open the door for those items to be criticized if your history doesn't support them.

Young Drachma

03-18-2008, 11:44 AM

The reaction I'm seeing elsewhere, is not Home Run.. it's grand slam.

Has there been a more direct speech confronting race in this country by a mainstream political leader in at least the past thirty years? Or more?

CamEdwards

03-18-2008, 12:00 PM

Has there been a more direct speech confronting race in this country by a mainstream political leader in at least the past thirty years? Or more?

Would Obama have given this speech had his pastor of 20+ years not been caught on tape referring to the U-S of K-K-K-A?

There's a reason why Obama had to be direct. And frankly, when you strip out the high-falutin' rhetoric, this is what the speech comes down to re: Wright (which again, is WHY he's having to give the speech to begin with).

"Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

And again, Obama's defense is that this is only a portion of Wright the person, and the sum of the man is greater than the hate-filled vitriolic pastor who's preaching racial divisiveness and screwy conspiracy theories. That's Obama's line in the sand, and no amount of silver-tongued oratory can change that.

He sat in a pew for 20+ years and listened to this crap on at least a semi-regular basis, and does not believe that it's offensive enough to change churches. I think he will find that many Americans disagree.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 12:05 PM

"Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

I've never heard remarks like those of Rev Wright from my pastor or any priest I've listened to. And if I had I'd be heading for the hills.

It's like the Rev said something about hating vanilla ice cream or denouncing fast food if you listen to Obama.

JPhillips

03-18-2008, 12:29 PM

He sat in a pew for 20+ years and listened to this crap on at least a semi-regular basis, and does not believe that it's offensive enough to change churches. I think he will find that many Americans disagree.

And yet some of those same people will go to church or sit in front of their television and listen thoughtfully as a preacher tells them HIV is God's curse on homosexuals or the USA was created to destroy Islam or Catholicism is an apostate religion.

I'm sure Obama will lose a lot of votes over this, but do we really want to go down a road where we condemn people who go to church and hear messages we find offensive? Or will we just limit our outrage to one presidential candidate?

CamEdwards

03-18-2008, 12:32 PM

And yet some of those same people will go to church or sit in front of their television and listen thoughtfully as a preacher tells them HIV is God's curse on homosexuals or the USA was created to destroy Islam or Catholicism is an apostate religion.

I'm sure Obama will lose a lot of votes over this, but do we really want to go down a road where we condemn people who go to church and hear messages we find offensive? Or will we just limit our outrage to one presidential candidate?

Let me put it this way. I don't believe I'd be voting for a candidate that attended Fred Phelps' church.

Do we want to go down a road where we condemn people for sitting idly by for 20+ years and not confronting hate speech UNTIL it threatens their presidential campaign? Sure. I have no problem going down that road, no matter what candidate we're speaking about.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 12:34 PM

And yet some of those same people will go to church or sit in front of their television and listen thoughtfully as a preacher tells them HIV is God's curse on homosexuals or the USA was created to destroy Islam or Catholicism is an apostate religion.

I'm sure Obama will lose a lot of votes over this, but do we really want to go down a road where we condemn people who go to church and hear messages we find offensive? Or will we just limit our outrage to one presidential candidate?

I think a good place to start is outrage over someone potentially the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And yes I condem him for hearing this stuff and going back for 20 years considering he could be leading the entire country.

Let's get Rev Wright on the ticket while we are at it. He didn't really mean those things he was preaching about.

cartman

03-18-2008, 12:38 PM

Let's get Rev Wright on the ticket while we are at it. He didn't really mean those things he was preaching about.

That's the crux of this thing. Rev. Wright isn't on the ticket. People are making this out to be that Obama = Wright when that is clearly not the case.

JPhillips

03-18-2008, 12:38 PM

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 12:41 PM

That's the crux of this thing. Rev. Wright isn't on the ticket. People are making this out to be that Obama = Wright when that is clearly not the case.

Clearly Obama hated the message of the Rev. I'm mean who wouldn't see right through that into the good of the man.

Please. People have gone insane.

Noop

03-18-2008, 12:43 PM

Transparent. That is the word.

cartman

03-18-2008, 12:44 PM

Do we want to go down a road where we condemn people for sitting idly by for 20+ years and not confronting hate speech UNTIL it threatens their presidential campaign? Sure. I have no problem going down that road, no matter what candidate we're speaking about.

Since he didn't fall flat on his face with this speech, like it appears you were convinced was going to happen with your "color me unimpressed" posts from yesterday, I guess you have to keep plugging away.

How do you know that Obama didn't bring this up some of these instances to Wright in private in the past? You make is sound like Wright was preaching hate from the pulpit and in public 24/7, like a Phelps, when by all accounts that isn't the case. Yes he went way over the line in many instances, but it doesn't seem to be the core of what he was preaching.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 12:44 PM

I'm not just talking about presidential candidates. What about the tens of thousands of folks that watch the 700 Club regularly? I'm fine with you not voting for Obama, although I'm sure your decision was made before this erupted. Not voting for him, though, isn't where these condemnations end. Almost all of you vocally opposed to Wright have been demanding that Obama should have left his church and the fact that he didn't impunes his character.

My question is whether that obvious character fault you see applies to the millions of people of all ideologies that go to churches or follow a television ministry where things equally as crazy and offensive are said. If not, why?

I would think it would apply. Those people aren't running for office.

I would submit that if you knew about people's crazy affiliations like that then they would have a hard time getting voted into many leadership positions outside of their belief structure.

although I'm sure your decision was made before this erupted

see, this is where people are cucko. it's almost like how dare you not see the brilliance of this man. no way you are enlightened if you let this rev stuff bother you.

cartman

03-18-2008, 12:46 PM

Clearly Obama hated the message of the Rev. I'm mean who wouldn't see right through that into the good of the man.

You, obviously, as someone whose only exposure to the Reverend has been the clips shown on the news and YouTube. I have no more exposure to the man than you do, so I'd more likely believe those who know the man, rather than those who pass judgement on him based on 30 second clips.

Butter

03-18-2008, 12:48 PM

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 12:50 PM

You, obviously, as someone whose only exposure to the Reverend has been the clips shown on the news and YouTube. I have no more exposure to the man than you do, so I'd more likely believe those who know the man, rather than those who pass judgement on him based on 30 second clips.

So if that's the case and he's filled with all this good, how do those thoughts and words ever come out of his mouth?

Please.

CamEdwards

03-18-2008, 12:50 PM

I'm not just talking about presidential candidates. What about the tens of thousands of folks that watch the 700 Club regularly? I'm fine with you not voting for Obama, although I'm sure your decision was made before this erupted. Not voting for him, though, isn't where these condemnations end. Almost all of you vocally opposed to Wright have been demanding that Obama should have left his church and the fact that he didn't impunes his character.

My question is whether that obvious character fault you see applies to the millions of people of all ideologies that go to churches or follow a television ministry where things equally as crazy and offensive are said. If not, why?

Gee, do I believe that you're judged in part by the company you keep, and that applies to people who aren't running for president? Yes. Yes I do. I don't think it's inexplicable or even unfair to hold those that are running for the highest office in the country to a higher standard than Joe Average, however. The president promotes and can guide social policy in a way that the average viewer of the 700 Club cannot, and it's ludicrous to ignore that.

JPhillips

03-18-2008, 12:52 PM

cartman

03-18-2008, 12:53 PM

So if that's the case and he's filled with all this good, how do those thoughts and words ever come out of his mouth?

Please.

Since when has anyone said he is made of sugar and gumdrops and farts rainbows? He's human, and humans have a long history of going way over the line with things they say. Good humans and bad humans alike.

Noop

03-18-2008, 12:54 PM

Gee, do I believe that you're judged in part by the company you keep, and that applies to people who aren't running for president? Yes. Yes I do. I don't think it's inexplicable or even unfair to hold those that are running for the highest office in the country to a higher standard than Joe Average, however. The president promotes and can guide social policy in a way that the average viewer of the 700 Club cannot, and it's ludicrous to ignore that.

You mean like our current president whom you voted for?

JPhillips

03-18-2008, 12:54 PM

So if that's the case and he's filled with all this good, how do those thoughts and words ever come out of his mouth?

Please.

People are complicated. Wright can be an angry man and a loving man all at the same time. Rarely is anyone as good or bad as they may appear.

Scoobz0202

03-18-2008, 12:57 PM

Obama pretty much said that Wright was totally in the wrong, and that if what Wright said was the only thing he knew about him, he would run for the hills.

I don't think Obama is simplifying what Wright says at all.

Wright is like a brother to Barack. In my personal opinion, I would frown upon Barack if he were to just totally denounce Wright and move on. No matter what Wright says, Barack can not simply walk away from him. That would scream of political correctness, and that would scream that Barack is just any other politician. Which he so strongly has been trying to prove he is not.

I don't agree with everything Barack said. Fuck, he spoke for over a half an hour. He spoke about racial problems in America for over a half an hour. I am a white college student. How the hell do I know how Barack feels. I commend him for not cutting off Wright and running from him.

JPhillips

03-18-2008, 12:58 PM

Cam: It's not about higher standards. Like I said, you can vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish. You go a lot farther than that, however. Your condemnation of him for not leaving his church, condemnation of the man, not the presidential candidate, is what I'm asking about. Does that same condemnation apply to the millions of folks that follow pastors that some find objectionable?

Vince

03-18-2008, 12:58 PM

I want to be able to fart rainbows.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:00 PM

rkmsuf: No, I've actually read things Cam has said and no full well he was opposed to Obama well before last week. And like I sadi, for most of the critics hear this goes farther than worrying about leadership. Look at how many folks are saying that Obama should have left the church and not doing so is a clear moral failure. All I'm asking is whether this same moral failing can be observed in in the millions of others who follow pastors that a lot of people object to.

I can only speak for myself and I would feel the same way about others that subscribe to messages of hate through their church or following.

Clearly I don't get why a man would go to this church for so long, feel so close to this Rev while the messages we see from this preacher are horrible IMO.

What bothers me too is how supporters kind of brush it off as "isolated" or well Obama didn't believe those things. For me there is a disconnect there in spite of any spin or speeches going on.

I've been pretty neutral regarding hillary vs obama but this turns me off to him.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:02 PM

Since when has anyone said he is made of sugar and gumdrops and farts rainbows? He's human, and humans have a long history of going way over the line with things they say. Good humans and bad humans alike.

pick anyone you know or any church you been too and tell me you've heard these statements or anything of the like

and if you had are you repeatingly seeking out these people.

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:02 PM

I can only speak for myself and I would feel the same way about others that subscribe to messages of hate through their church or following.

Clearly I don't get why a man would go to this church for so long, feel so close to this Rev while the messages we see from this preacher are horrible IMO.

What bothers me too is how supporters kind of brush it off as "isolated" or well Obama didn't believe those things. For me there is a disconnect there in spite of any spin or speeches going on.

I've been pretty neutral regarding hillary vs obama but this turns me off to him.

:rolleyes:

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:03 PM

:rolleyes:

does than mean you'd care to make this about race or something?

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:06 PM

does than mean you'd care to make this about race or something?

I love how people have a holier then thou attitude to this whole thing. Looking from the outside in I can see why you feel that way but everything is not as easy as it looks.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:07 PM

I love how people have a holier then thou attitude to this whole thing. Looking from the outside in I can see why you feel that way but everything is not as easy as it looks.

so make a point then.

cartman

03-18-2008, 01:07 PM

pick anyone you know or any church you been too and tell me you've heard these statements or anything of the like

and if you had are you repeatingly seeking out these people.

I have heard priests make statements like these, focused on homosexuality and pre-marital sex mainly. But it wasn't every week, maybe a few times a year. Can you say how often Rev. Wright went over the line in his sermons? If it was all the time, I'd think there would be more than the same 4 or 5 instances that seem to keep coming up.

Scoobz0202

03-18-2008, 01:08 PM

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:09 PM

so make a point then.

My point is things are not as easy as it seems to those involved in any situation.

Fighter of Foo

03-18-2008, 01:09 PM

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:10 PM

rkmsuf if I may ask where do you lean politically. Left or Right?

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:11 PM

I have heard priests make statements like these, focused on homosexuality and pre-marital sex mainly. But it wasn't every week, maybe a few times a year. Can you say how often Rev. Wright went over the line in his sermons? If it was all the time, I'd think there would be more than the same 4 or 5 instances that seem to keep coming up.

For me, that doesn't make me feel better about the man at all.

Whatever, there are excuses to be made for everything.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:12 PM

rkmsuf if I may ask where do you lean politically. Left or Right?

make an arguement if I'm so unenlighened. Help me understand. seriously.

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:15 PM

make an arguement if I'm so unenlighened. Help me understand. seriously.

I just asked where do you lean. Would help me understand where your coming from alot better. As for you understanding I am not sure I can help with that someone mentioned reading his speech would help I will echo that statement.

IMetTrentGreen

03-18-2008, 01:15 PM

There's a reason why Obama had to be direct. And frankly, when you strip out the high-falutin' rhetoric, this is what the speech comes down to re: Wright (which again, is WHY he's having to give the speech to begin with).

Actually, the Obama campaign is fixing to come out swinging at Hillary's secretive ways, i.e. refusing to release tax returns, earmarks, library donations, etc.

First he has to come clean on his own dirty laundry, which is why he sat down with the Time and the Tribune the other day to talk frankly about Rezko. Today he did the Wright speech. He may have had to do this anyway, and I'm glad he did, but the reason I think for it is that he can't have anything of his own he's dodging before coming at Hillary.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:18 PM

I just asked where do you lean. Would help me understand where your coming from alot better. As for you understanding I am not sure I can help with that someone mentioned reading his speech would help I will echo that statement.

What difference does it make. I'm on no team here.

Consider me neutral. Right smack dab in the middle.

This is what I'm talking about. It's almost impossible to fathom I've read the speech and in fact feel the way I've said I do. Amazing.

Ksyrup

03-18-2008, 01:21 PM

If it was all the time, I'd think there would be more than the same 4 or 5 instances that seem to keep coming up.

If only I'd thought to bring my cell phone to church in 1986 so I could record him!

I thought Obama's speech, as discourse on the history and state of race relations, was great. As far as the specifics relating to Wright, I accept Obama's explanation, but I still have reservations about his judgment because, from my own perspective, there is no way I would tolerate listening to those kinds of statements - in a church, no less - without walking out and never coming back, let alone embracing the person and sharing my most personal moments with him. That bothers the hell out of me.

And that's about where I end up on this issue. He didn't convince he of anything regarding Wright, but he impressed me with his willingness and ability to be direct on the big picture issue of race. If he goes all the way to the White House, I just hope the message becomes more than a political slogan left in the dust of the 2008 campaign. And I mean that not directed to him or Democrats, but the nation as a whole.

miked

03-18-2008, 01:25 PM

Clearly I don't get why a man would go to this church for so long, feel so close to this Rev while the messages we see from this preacher are horrible IMO.

What bothers me too is how supporters kind of brush it off as "isolated" or well Obama didn't believe those things. For me there is a disconnect there in spite of any spin or speeches going on.

The person with average intelligence might be able to consider that perhaps these clips and snippets being thrust in our faces 24/7 for the past week may not actually represent the sum.

I don't really care as much any more who wins, I just want it to be over, but to say you know it all based on your very brief exposure to his 20 year career is beyond silly.

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:26 PM

What difference does it make. I'm on no team here.

Consider me neutral. Right smack dab in the middle.

This is what I'm talking about. It's almost impossible to fathom I've read the speech and in fact feel the way I've said I do. Amazing.

So you honestly believe he should have left the man he has known for twenty years? Even if he didn't agree with what Wright said Obama would be between a rock and a hard place.

If he leaves the church then he loses the black vote in Illinois meaning he would likely not get re-elected to the senate. He would also be turning on his friend of twenty years to appease what the church would call the white media.

If he stands by his friend and spiritual leader then reactions like yours and others will continue and he would lose the nomination and would likely never be a viable candidate for president again.

Deattribution

03-18-2008, 01:27 PM

It's amazing what kind of sheep people have become. The only reason he suddenly condemns what Wright has to say is because it's come to public light and it's going to damage his campaign. Anyone who believes someone who would spew things that insane and it would only be an isolated event is a fool and probably thinks they're going to get a unbiased opinion from Jerry Falwell too. Cause the stuff he says on tv is isolated from his regular every day opinion.

:rolleyes:

Wright preached hate, Obama may not agree with it (and I don't believe he does, especially not to the same extent Wright does) but Obama shows himself to be just like any other crooked politician, staying apart of that church because it helped further his career, and his status in the black community, just like his speech means to do. It has nothing to do with integrity, personal beliefs or vision, and unfortunately for Obama that was the main things he had going for him. Atleast it's good to see he can still round up his sheep to get them to holler home run and grandslam! for a speech that amounts to nothing other than trying to save face and have no actual impact on anything that'll actually help america. It'll create some great soundbites though, and that is what america needs more of from a president.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:29 PM

The person with average intelligence might be able to consider that perhaps these clips and snippets being thrust in our faces 24/7 for the past week may not actually represent the sum.

I don't really care as much any more who wins, I just want it to be over, but to say you know it all based on your very brief exposure to his 20 year career is beyond silly.

True, it's entirely possible that stuff about 911 was when he picked up the wrong serman one sunday. Probably never mentioned it again.

Ksyrup

03-18-2008, 01:29 PM

So you honestly believe he should have left the man he has known for twenty years? Even if he didn't agree with what Wright said Obama would be between a rock and a hard place.

If he leaves the church then he loses the black vote in Illinois meaning he would likely not get re-elected to the senate. He would also be turning on his friend of twenty years to appease what the church would call the white media.

If he stands by his friend and spiritual leader then reactions like yours and others will continue and he would lose the nomination and would likely never be a viable candidate for president again.

I think he should have left him before running for office was ever a realistic thought in his mind.

Also, the thought process here of what is "right" in the context of how it plays for votes seems diametrically opposed to Obama's entire campaign theme. But I digress.

rkmsuf

03-18-2008, 01:31 PM

So you honestly believe he should have left the man he has known for twenty years? Even if he didn't agree with what Wright said Obama would be between a rock and a hard place.

If he leaves the church then he loses the black vote in Illinois meaning he would likely not get re-elected to the senate. He would also be turning on his friend of twenty years to appease what the church would call the white media.

If he stands by his friend and spiritual leader then reactions like yours and others will continue and he would lose the nomination and would likely never be a viable candidate for president again.

No, my point is he should have left that church 15 years ago.

his friend and spiritual leader

that really is the point isn't it? not whether he bails now. only a fool would bail now.

Noop

03-18-2008, 01:32 PM

I think he should have left him before running for office was ever a realistic thought in his mind.

Also, the thought process here of what is "right" in the context of how it plays for votes seems diametrically opposed to Obama's entire campaign theme. But I digress.

Actually I was going to write that but decided against it. If leaves before being a presidential candidate do you think he ever gets elected to the senate? I don't think so and that's way I said he is between a rock and a hard place.

Scoobz0202

03-18-2008, 01:34 PM

Not help America? What the hell did he say that could not possibly help America?

It's a fucking speech. Of course it's supposed to create soundbites. He's good at giving speeches. Plain and simple.

First, people can't stand Bush because he can not give a speech to save his life.

Now, Barack is catching flack because supposedly all he can do is give good speeches.

If people are so cynical to not believe anything a candidate says, then what do you vote based upon? Because everything we know about the cadidates is based upon what they say they will do.

I guess just go look at their voting records and go vote and hope for the best.

CamEdwards

03-18-2008, 01:34 PM

Since he didn't fall flat on his face with this speech, like it appears you were convinced was going to happen with your "color me unimpressed" posts from yesterday, I guess you have to keep plugging away.

How do you know that Obama didn't bring this up some of these instances to Wright in private in the past? You make is sound like Wright was preaching hate from the pulpit and in public 24/7, like a Phelps, when by all accounts that isn't the case. Yes he went way over the line in many instances, but it doesn't seem to be the core of what he was preaching.

No, Obama didn't fall flat on his face. But that wasn't what I suggested would happen. What I said yesterday was this:

I'm at a loss as to what Obama says next. He's clearly NOT disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, all the while suggesting that Wright's comments have nothing to do with his [Obama's] political beliefs. Well, what about personal ideology? Much of Obama's support comes from people who don't know a thing about his record. They're basing their support on the feelings he inspires in them. So what can he say to reassure those folks that, despite attending the church for more than 20 years and having a close spiritual relationship with this man, they don't reflect his personal views and in fact he finds them abhorrent? I'm waiting to see him pull a rabbit out of his hat, but I'll be darned if I can see a way for him to "win" with this issue.

I think I'm consistent in believing that Obama's speech today ultimately did not solve his problem. He was amazingly blunt in discussing racial issues in society today, but only to obfuscate his own problems with his close association for decades with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And I confess to being a little confused by your statement that "he went way over the line in many instances, but it doesn't seem to be the core of what he was preaching."

If someone's view is that the U.S. government is out to imprison you, out to decimate your community through the release of the AIDS virus, that blacks like Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are somehow less black than the people sitting in your pews, that the country we live in is the U-S of K-K-K-A, that God should damn this country, that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, but that we also should love our neighbor and ourselves... I'm not sure that you can disassociate the two.

Rev. Wright's theology is one that he describes as "black liberation theology". Well, if liberation theology in general can be described as Christian Socialism, then black liberation theology could best be described as Christian Socialism with a specific emphasis on social equality for blacks. I don't believe this is a "black seperatist" or a "black supremacist" movement. But when the basis of your church is that every act or thought must be viewed through a racial prism, it's kind of hard for me to accept that Obama's going to be the guy to bridge the racial divide in this country.

A quick comparison.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
...
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

compared to:

It just came to me with -- within the past few weeks, you all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white. He ain't rich. And he ain't privileged.

Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.

I guess one of my biggest problems isn't necessarily JUST with the comments we've seen from Rev. Wright. It is that Rev. Wright's comments don't seem out of line with liberation theology in general, and black liberation theology in particular. And I'm having a hard time seeing how black liberation theology is anything but a perversion of Martin Luther King's vision of a society in which we are judged by the content of our character, rather than the color of our skin.

I'm sure if you look through Rev. Wright's sermons, you'll see a lot of talk of hope, and love, and charity. But if he is, as he says he is, a proponent of black liberation theology, then it will always be about the racial division, not the common ground we all share. It seems to me the message of Rev. Wright is completely different than the message Barack Obama has been expressing, which makes me wonder how he could have attended this church for 20+ years.

For the record, yes, my mind is made up on who I will vote for. But my mind is NOT made up as to who Barack Obama is and what he would mean for this country.

Ksyrup

03-18-2008, 01:39 PM

Actually I was going to write that but decided against it. If leaves before being a presidential candidate do you think he ever gets elected to the senate? I don't think so and that's way I said he is between a rock and a hard place.

I refuse to believe that one church, and one man, held the key to whether Obama would have made it in politics. I think you're painting his either/or choices way too simply.

cartman

03-18-2008, 01:59 PM

No, Obama didn't fall flat on his face. But that wasn't what I suggested would happen. What I said yesterday was this:

Okay, seriously... if that's the major focus of the speech then I'm just about willing to pronounce the Obama campaign over.

As a sneak preview, color me unimpressed.

I'm finding Obama's responses amazingly pedestrian (for lack of a better word). I thought he was supposed to be a rhetorical genius.

Sounds like you weren't expecting much, based on these bits.

CamEdwards

03-18-2008, 02:12 PM

Sounds like you weren't expecting much, based on these bits.

Actually sounds like I wasn't impressed by his interview with Gwen Ifill and thought "boy, if that's from his speech I'm not impressed."

Frankly, I didn't know what to expect, which is why I also expressed my curiousity as to WHAT Obama would say today. And ultimately, yes, I'm less than impressed with Obama the candidate's answers, though he sure does talk pretty.

Radii

03-18-2008, 03:41 PM

I'm sure if you look through Rev. Wright's sermons, you'll see a lot of talk of hope, and love, and charity. But if he is, as he says he is, a proponent of black liberation theology, then it will always be about the racial division, not the common ground we all share. It seems to me the message of Rev. Wright is completely different than the message Barack Obama has been expressing, which makes me wonder how he could have attended this church for 20+ years.

For the record, yes, my mind is made up on who I will vote for. But my mind is NOT made up as to who Barack Obama is and what he would mean for this country.

I think this, and pretty much all of your post, is extremely well put and mostly matches my feelings about all of this.

Last week I planned to vote for Obama in the North Carolina primary. Today I still plan to vote for Obama in the North Carolina primary. It would probably take quite a bit for that to change. But I don't feel nearly as strongly now as I did a week ago.

Toddzilla

03-18-2008, 04:10 PM

Goddammit, Cam, you're like a big right-wing teddy bear: Can't agree with you, way too hard to argue with you, and impossible to dislike. My DFH card ought to be revoked :)

CamEdwards

03-18-2008, 04:42 PM

Goddammit, Cam, you're like a big right-wing teddy bear: Can't agree with you, way too hard to argue with you, and impossible to dislike. My DFH card ought to be revoked :)

LOL. That's the best compliment ever. Seriously, thank you. :D

Vegas Vic

03-18-2008, 06:07 PM

I haven't yet had a chance to listen to Obama's speech, but did he give a reason for the decision to cancel Rev. Wright's appearance at his announcement to run for president last year?

Young Drachma

03-18-2008, 06:10 PM

cartman

03-18-2008, 06:36 PM

I haven't yet had a chance to listen to Obama's speech, but did he give a reason for the decision to cancel Rev. Wright's appearance at his announcement to run for president last year?

He couldn't make it to the announcement because he was out organizing caucuses and trying to get super-delegates switch to Obama against their will.

Vegas Vic

03-18-2008, 07:13 PM

Please stop causing problems.

For closure, I think it's the one puzzling item that hasn't been addressed.

On the one hand, Obama says that Wright has been his spiritual mentor for the past 20 years. A few days ago, Obama said that he was shocked and appalled when he saw the video clips of Wright's hate speeches, and this was the first that he had heard about it. Yet, in February 2007 (13 months ago), when Obama announced his candidacy, a last minute decision was made by him and his staff to exclude Wright from appearing on stage with him. Instead, Wright and Obama prayed privately before the announcement.

So, something doesn't add up here, and Obama needs to address this if he wants to leave this issue behind.

Buccaneer

03-18-2008, 07:30 PM

You know, I was thinking about this thread today. While I have been involved in POL discussions for years here, I find this thread to be a good debate. I think the main reason is that the participants, for the most part, have been civil and respectful, unlike any of the threads in the past where we had Biggle and Ewiak in it. Here we have to put up with Toddzilla going off once in a while (not to mention ignoring noop). :p Even though I vote for gridlock and less (not more) crap coming out of Washington, I forward to reading what Cam, JPhillips, Vic and others have to say.

SirFozzie

03-18-2008, 07:31 PM

Wow, I think we've found the only few skeptics around.

I'm seeing the National Review, and a lot of the conservative (centre-right, not hard right) blogs, and even the folks behind the 700 club admit that Obama hit one out of the park on this one, with the caveat that it might have needed more soundbites to get a full run off of it with the press.

rowech

03-18-2008, 09:21 PM

I did not see him give the speech but having read the text, I can tell you he nailed it. I have no doubt he gave the speech with passion as you can see it just in the words.

Coffee Warlord

03-18-2008, 09:59 PM

He's an excellent orator. It's always been his greatest strength.

....still not voting for him due to his politics, but damn, he can talk. :)

Arles

03-18-2008, 11:41 PM

This probably won't help Obama much:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4464194&page=1

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have the subject of this controversy," Obama said, s[B]aying that he'd never heard any of them personally.

"One of them I had heard about after I had started running for president and I put out a statement at that time condemning them," he continued.

But more than a year ago, Obama disinvited Wright from speaking at his candidacy announcement. Wright told The New York Times then that Obama told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons. … It's best for you not to be out there in public."
This is where politicians always get nabbed - trying to cover up and feign ignorance. Obama just needed to come out and say that he had heard a few of these sermons, vehemently disagreed with them and move on. Acting like he never heard any of them in 20+ years (until he ran for pres last year) is a little ridiculous. It's just going to be a matter of time before some Clinton agent shows a video with Obama clapping while Wright gives one of these sermons.

SirFozzie

03-19-2008, 12:15 AM

Kinda like this, Arlie? (from today's speech)

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Mac Howard

03-19-2008, 12:27 AM

I refuse to believe that one church, and one man, held the key to whether Obama would have made it in politics. I think you're painting his either/or choices way too simply.

It's not the church or Wright that will make or break Obama. It is the implied hypocrisy of a man presenting himself as a force for unity while refusing to walk away over 20 years from the rhetoric of anti-American hatred that would split the community in two. At worst Obama has some concealed sympathy for these views, at best he has turned a blind eye to them.

I think only those who already see no wrong in Obama are convinced this speech has put the matter to bed. Should he make it to the Presidential contest the Republicans will tear him to shreds with this.

Arles

03-19-2008, 12:27 AM

COOPER: (AUDIO GAP) ... was created by the government to kill black people. He's called America the number-one killer around the world. He's said that black people shouldn't sing "God Bless America," but say God damn America.

There's a lot of folks in America right now who have heard that. And I want to ask you why you have been listening to this pastor and close to him for nearly 20 years?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, Anderson, you know, I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape.

I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church.

COOPER: Did you not know, though, that, I mean, a couple days after 9/11, he said, you know, this was America's chickens coming home to roost, a result of what he called American terrorism around the world? I mean, you may not have been there, but have you -- you must have heard that he had said these things.

OBAMA: You know, I confess that I did not hear about this until -- until I started running for president.
...
OBAMA: And, as I said, Anderson, if I had heard any of those statements, I probably would have walked up, and I probably would have told Reverend Wright that they were wrong.

But they were not statements that I heard when I was in church.

COOPER: So, no one in the church ever said to you, man, last week, you missed this sermon; Reverend Wright said this; or...

OBAMA: No.

COOPER: I mean, I think I read in your books that you listened to tapes of Reverend Wright when you were at Harvard Law School.

OBAMA: I did.

COOPER: So, you had no idea?

OBAMA: I did not.

That interview was done on March 14. On March 18, Obama says:

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.
This is "out-Clintoning" the Clintons on double talk. Maybe this is all clear to you, but I don't see that he's doing himself any favors over the past week with his comments.

Vegas Vic

03-19-2008, 12:44 AM

I'm seeing the National Review, and a lot of the conservative (centre-right, not hard right) blogs, and even the folks behind the 700 club admit that Obama hit one out of the park on this one, with the caveat that it might have needed more soundbites to get a full run off of it with the press.

National Review Column on Obama's Speech: "An Elegant Farce" (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWVkMThjN2RjNDU2N2EzODE1YWRmZmQwMTE0YWFkMzg=)

Groundhog

03-19-2008, 12:59 AM

Saying "you can get rough" does not equal "you might say those things I've heard you say that I denied having heard".

No doubt he probably did hear him say it a few times, but I don't see that particular quote as shooting himself in the foot. This church dude sounds like he'd be the type to say a lot of off-the-wall kind of crap.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-19-2008, 01:25 AM

pick anyone you know or any church you been too and tell me you've heard these statements or anything of the like

and if you had are you repeatingly seeking out these people.

You miss the point. Have you ever heard derogatory comments filled with hate from a friend, a family member, etc. Did you run for the hills when they did it? Why do people standby a friend who may have committed a crime, beat somebody up unprovoked, etc. There is more to someone than a couple of minutes on youtube -- 20 years worth for Obama and Wright. Apparently 20 years, and probably a lifetime, of helping poor disadvantaged people. More than I personally will ever do for such people. I can forgive a guy for that. I am more concerned with actions than words. You maybe part of the problem Obama speaks about, retreating to your corner. Finally, let me ask you this. Did you live as a black man in the 50s and 60s? I am guessing you did not, and have no idea what he went through and where some of his hate is coming from. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

But, awshucks, I am just a sheep, bedeviled by that silver tongued Obama.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-19-2008, 01:35 AM

That interview was done on March 14. On March 18, Obama says:

This is "out-Clintoning" the Clintons on double talk. Maybe this is all clear to you, but I don't see that he's doing himself any favors over the past week with his comments.

Don't quite get you there. He said he didn't personally hear the things that were on youtube. Then he later says he did hear other controversial stuff. You may not believe him, but it is entirely consistent.

Mac Howard

03-19-2008, 02:07 AM

Don't quite get you there. He said he didn't personally hear the things that were on youtube. Then he later says he did hear other controversial stuff. You may not believe him, but it is entirely consistent.

"out Clintoning the Clintons" is certainly overstating it but you do seem to be guilty of an equal level of spin on this.

But, awshucks, I am just a sheep, bedeviled by that silver tongued Obama.

There does seem to be a degree of gullibility here.

Obama clearly denied knowing about the Wright's hate rhetoric until this speech. Accusing him of inconsistency is not unreasonable :)

Some commentators seem to want to treat Wright's words as if they stand on their own with no significant meaning outside the words themselves. But they express an opinion, an attitude even a philosophy - a rabid anti-American philosophy. For a man with ambitions to become the President of the USA such a philosophy has to be seriously objectionable. For him there is no reasonable way that these ideas can be ignored. They surely are (should be) against everything this man stands for. But, until it came to affect his candidature, it seems that Obamo didn't object, didn't remove himself from the arena of their expression, didn't try to counter them in any way (had he done so it would surely have made far more sense to include as them justification in his speech).

Even from a pragmatic point of view, as a senator, Obama should have removed himself from the sphere of this rhetoric. Are there so few black churches or well-meaning pastors that Obama cannot find one to associate with? Of course not.

Add this episode to his wife's "the first time I've felt proud ...." and Obama is in trouble.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-19-2008, 03:25 AM

Obama clearly denied knowing about the Wright's hate rhetoric until this speech.

I just disagree. As I said before, he denied hearing those specific topics discussed by Wright. And he did not in his speech admit hearing about those topics, just other controversial topics. Again, you can disbelieve him, but he is consistent.

Mac Howard

03-19-2008, 05:37 AM

I just disagree. As I said before, he denied hearing those specific topics discussed by Wright. And he did not in his speech admit hearing about those topics, just other controversial topics. Again, you can disbelieve him, but he is consistent.

I am neither for or against Obama, would probably end up voting for him if he gets the Democratic nomination and I were an American, but that interpretation of his behaviour here is head in the sand, Vinatien for Prez. He choses his words so as not to directly contradict himself - as politicians will - but he contradicts himself nevertheless.

TroyF

03-19-2008, 07:27 AM

You miss the point. Have you ever heard derogatory comments filled with hate from a friend, a family member, etc. Did you run for the hills when they did it? Why do people standby a friend who may have committed a crime, beat somebody up unprovoked, etc. There is more to someone than a couple of minutes on youtube -- 20 years worth for Obama and Wright. Apparently 20 years, and probably a lifetime, of helping poor disadvantaged people. More than I personally will ever do for such people. I can forgive a guy for that. I am more concerned with actions than words. You maybe part of the problem Obama speaks about, retreating to your corner. Finally, let me ask you this. Did you live as a black man in the 50s and 60s? I am guessing you did not, and have no idea what he went through and where some of his hate is coming from. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

But, awshucks, I am just a sheep, bedeviled by that silver tongued Obama.

Cam and Ksyrup are closest to the feelings I have on the issue. It's tough for me to listen to the comments by Rev. Wright and then deal with Obama being a close, personal friend of the same individual for 20+ years.

Understanding the hate and accepting it are two different things. I mean, there is a difference between saying America has made mistakes in dealing with race issues and then stating that the AIDS virus was put out by the government as a way to kill black people or that it's the USofKKKA.

What's tough for me to believe is that these tapes by Rev. Wright were put up for sale. I find it hard to believe that this is some isolated instance. I also find it hard to believe a "spiritual advisor" with those types of hateful views doesn't push a political agenda in those advisory sessions.

I guess, what it comes down to, is a few simple questions for me. Would I have my children in the church listening to that man speak on a Sunday morning? I wouldn't. Would I go back into that church? No, I wouldn't. Would I allow the man who said those words to be a part of my team in a run for The White House? No. I wouldn't.

Obama does. That simple fact makes me have serious reservations about him as a political candidate.

Shifting off of Obama for a second. . . let me just say that Rev. Wright is the type of scumbage that causes people to hate religion. He's a black Jerry Falwell. His words to nothing to fix the racial divide in this country and inspire hate in the youths he preaches(d) to. He should be ashamed of himself.

JonInMiddleGA

03-19-2008, 07:36 AM

Wow, I think we've found the only few skeptics around.

Heard a pretty good one on local radio this morning, not a political commentator but just a regular guest commentator on a music format station. I thought he summed it up pretty well when he said he had to leave during the speech & run to the mirror. He wanted to see if he really looked as stupid as Obama apparently believes everyone is.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 07:51 AM

You miss the point. Have you ever heard derogatory comments filled with hate from a friend, a family member, etc. Did you run for the hills when they did it?

First, I'd separate family from friends/acquaintances. Not only is that not the case here, but I'd argue there's a bit more going on that clouds the issue when a family member is involved (at least a close family member, not necessarily every person you are related to). Second, yes, I've heard comments that go beyond just a fleeting attempt at a joke that was based on some sort of racial or other derogatory aspect, and I consciously chose to lessen or outright cease contact with that person.

I can think of one instance, in particular, that stands out. In college, there was a group of us (a few sets of dorm roommates) who used to hang out quite often. One of those was a good friend of mine, and his roommate. Over time, I noticed a distinct pattern of racial slurs from the roommate that seemed to be used as a matter of course, and I told my friend that his roommate was not welcome in my dormroom because I was uncomfortable with his continuing use of racial slurs as part of his everyday talk. And I told my friend that I would not hang out with him with that guy around. And then I had a very direct confrontation with that person over the issue, and we basically agreed to not hang around each other. The easy thing to do would have been to just endure it for the sake of "the group," but there was no way I could do that. And truthfully, my friendship with the other guy ended up fading away pretty quickly after that, too, which was OK with me because it bothered me that he didn't react the same way I did to what he heard.

Again, this is my perspective on the issue. Maybe you'd just continue to abide by someone like that and ignore it, but I don't see how anyone could or would do that. I understand the race issue clouds things for Obama here, but when things clearly go beyond expressing anger and resentment over the historical treatment of blacks, and head into outright lies/conspiracy theories attempting to feed that anger among the black community...it's time to disassociate yourself from those positions. Obama can feel strongly about certain racial issues and seek to honor those who sacrificed in the past in other, more productive ways. That he chose to bring this man closer to him, and not reject him (or at least attempt a personal dialogue with him about the harm that such statements cause)...how can that NOT be a legitimate concern for the public when you're talking about someone who is a candidate for US President?

Passacaglia

03-19-2008, 08:15 AM

I am neither for or against Obama, would probably end up voting for him if he gets the Democratic nomination and I were an American, but that interpretation of his behaviour here is head in the sand, Vinatien for Prez. He choses his words so as not to directly contradict himself - as politicians will - but he contradicts himself nevertheless.

So you're saying he did and did not contradict himself? :)

Young Drachma

03-19-2008, 08:29 AM

Mike Huckabee on Morning Joe this morning:

HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.

Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."

JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDs...

HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though, for a lot of people...Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?

HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.

HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.

And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head going "boy, there is some deep resentment there."

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 08:36 AM

Huckabee's point is well-taken, but I think that only covers a portion of what Wright has said. It does not cover the more outrageous statements. Those go beyond cutting someone slack over how the race issue has personally affected them and the black community.

flere-imsaho

03-19-2008, 09:23 AM

From the NYT editorial:

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama drew a bright line between his religious connection with Mr. Wright, which should be none of the voters’ business, and having a political connection, which would be very much their business. The distinction seems especially urgent after seven years of a president who has worked to blur the line between church and state.

Chicago Public Radio did a bit on Trinity Church this morning. The gist of the report was that these excerpts from Wright's sermons greatly mischaracterizes what Trinity is all about. Additionally, those who attended Wright's sermons are pretty bemused, saying the majority of his sermons didn't have this kind of "speech".

Noop

03-19-2008, 09:28 AM

JonInMiddleGA

03-19-2008, 09:28 AM

Additionally, those who attended Wright's sermons are pretty bemused, saying the majority of his sermons didn't have this kind of "speech".

So as long as he doesn't spew this stuff every week it's okay?
*(not with you, with them)

{grabs popcorn}
Kind of fun in a voyeuristic sort of way watching people (metaphorically) shoot Obama's toes off one at a time.

I will now retract my previous statement about Hillary having no chance to beat Obama decisively in Pennsylvania. Now there's at least a chance.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 09:33 AM

GFUS.

G-File User System?

Gauge Fishing Units?

Mizzou B-ball fan

03-19-2008, 09:40 AM

From the NYT editorial:

Chicago Public Radio did a bit on Trinity Church this morning. The gist of the report was that these excerpts from Wright's sermons greatly mischaracterizes what Trinity is all about. Additionally, those who attended Wright's sermons are pretty bemused, saying the majority of his sermons didn't have this kind of "speech".

Even more 'bemusing' is the fact that people would defend this behavior because it doesn't happen in 'every' sermon. It reminds me of people who defend a person who gets a DUI/DWI by saying, "He's a good kid. He just made a mistake."

That's not a mistake. That's a conscious decision against better judgement.

Noop

03-19-2008, 09:47 AM

G-File User System?

Gauge Fishing Units?

Starts with Go

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 10:01 AM

Starts with Go

Oh. I think you mean GFY. Or better yet, to avoid confusion - FU. :)

Fidatelo

03-19-2008, 10:04 AM

I still don't get it.

albionmoonlight

03-19-2008, 10:38 AM

-apoc-

03-19-2008, 11:12 AM

Fighter of Foo

03-19-2008, 11:12 AM

That's not a mistake. That's a conscious decision against better judgement.

I suppose you've never made one of those? :confused:

Mizzou B-ball fan

03-19-2008, 11:32 AM

I suppose you've never made one of those? :confused:

Certainly not anywhere near the level of a crime, infidelity, or making inflammatory public statements. But I guess I'm the rare minority...........

Deattribution

03-19-2008, 11:48 AM

Certainly not anywhere near the level of a crime, infidelity, or making inflammatory public statements. But I guess I'm the rare minority...........

Apparently as long as you only do it once in a while (which I assume could be a few times a year) for 20+ years, it's okay.

As if his church is going to come out and say, yes we do this kinda stuff ALL the time and it's what we're all about. Where are these arguments when Jerry Falwell says something outrageous? Think it might have anything to do with the fact he doesn't have an important political figure tied to him at the moment and Wright does?

Fighter of Foo

03-19-2008, 11:49 AM

Certainly not anywhere near the level of a crime, infidelity, or making inflammatory public statements. But I guess I'm the rare minority...........

Any crime? I'd certainly say so.

If you've never made a conscious decision against better judgement, then I'd say you're the second coming of Christ. If not that, maybe a cyborg. Definitely not a human. :p

Young Drachma

03-19-2008, 11:52 AM

Some of the buzz on Obama's speech. (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/day_after_reactions.html)

JPhillips

03-19-2008, 11:55 AM

Apparently as long as you only do it once in a while (which I assume could be a few times a year) for 20+ years, it's okay.

As if his church is going to come out and say, yes we do this kinda stuff ALL the time and it's what we're all about. Where are these arguments when Jerry Falwell says something outrageous? Think it might have anything to do with the fact he doesn't have an important political figure tied to him at the moment and Wright does?

Who, exactly is defending Wright? There are plenty of people defending Obama, but I haven't seen anyone here argue that Wright's statements aren't deplorable.

Deattribution

03-19-2008, 12:01 PM

Who, exactly is defending Wright? There are plenty of people defending Obama, but I haven't seen anyone here argue that Wright's statements aren't deplorable.

There are plenty of people in this thread defending him by saying he's only done it a few times, he's just an angry black man from the segregation period, 'everyone has done it' or a few other arguments. Have you read the thread, or even Obama's words which amount to saying almost everyone knows someone who said similiar things? (which isn't true either)

albionmoonlight

03-19-2008, 12:05 PM

Certainly not anywhere near the level of a crime, infidelity, or making inflammatory public statements. But I guess I'm the rare minority...........

Bill Clinton has you beat. He managed to do all three at once ;)

Mizzou B-ball fan

03-19-2008, 12:10 PM

If you've never made a conscious decision against better judgement, then I'd say you're the second coming of Christ. If not that, maybe a cyborg. Definitely not a human. :p

Well, I certainly rented and played Madden '07 for the PS3, but that's not nearly as bad as a DWI.

Mizzou B-ball fan

03-19-2008, 12:14 PM

Apparently as long as you only do it once in a while (which I assume could be a few times a year) for 20+ years, it's okay.

As if his church is going to come out and say, yes we do this kinda stuff ALL the time and it's what we're all about. Where are these arguments when Jerry Falwell says something outrageous? Think it might have anything to do with the fact he doesn't have an important political figure tied to him at the moment and Wright does?

People like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jesse Jackson are just as bad. The difference is that none of these men have a presidential candidate citing them as an influencial person in their lives for 20+ years.

cartman

03-19-2008, 12:16 PM

People like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jesse Jackson are just as bad. The difference is that none of these men have a presidential candidate citing them as an influencial person in their lives for 20+ years.

Pat Robertson or Jesse Jackson didn't claim they were influential to themselves when they were running for President? :confused:

:D

Mizzou B-ball fan

03-19-2008, 12:36 PM

Pat Robertson or Jesse Jackson didn't claim they were influential to themselves when they were running for President? :confused:

:D

Good point. I think Jesse Jackson actually endorsed himself at a press conference.

SuperGrover

03-19-2008, 12:49 PM

It's not the church or Wright that will make or break Obama. It is the implied hypocrisy of a man presenting himself as a force for unity while refusing to walk away over 20 years from the rhetoric of anti-American hatred that would split the community in two. At worst Obama has some concealed sympathy for these views, at best he has turned a blind eye to them.

I think only those who already see no wrong in Obama are convinced this speech has put the matter to bed. Should he make it to the Presidential contest the Republicans will tear him to shreds with this.

Well said. The pastor would be a minor issue if Obama had run a campaign based upon something other that unity.

Fighter of Foo

03-19-2008, 12:50 PM

People like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Jesse Jackson are just as bad. The difference is that none of these men have a presidential candidate citing them as an influencial person in their lives for 20+ years.

And I ask, again, how is this different from McCain and Hagee? McCain actiuvely sought Hagee's endorsement and has appeared with him publicly.

McCain is saying, I accept Hagee's endorsement but don't agree with everything he's said.

Obama is saying, I accept Wright as my pastor and friend but don't agree with everything he's said.

What is the damn difference?

SuperGrover

03-19-2008, 12:55 PM

Supergrover: But there's no evidence that Obama believes any of the most offensive things that Wright has said. I still want to know how Wright's statements change Obama's positions. In the end what's truly important is what Obama will or won't do. Wright's words in and of themselves don't mean anything to me.

Because Obama has no positions. His ENTIRE fucking campaign is based upon unifying the nation. Yet, he's associated himself for 20 years with a man that is preaching racially divisive rhetoric. This undermines his message of unity at its core, don't you think?

If Obama was about anything other than unity, it wouldn't be an issue.

SuperGrover

03-19-2008, 12:56 PM

And I ask, again, how is this different from McCain and Hagee? McCain actiuvely sought Hagee's endorsement and has appeared with him publicly.

McCain is saying, I accept Hagee's endorsement but don't agree with everything he's said.

Obama is saying, I accept Wright as my pastor and friend but don't agree with everything he's said.

What is the damn difference?

God dammit, because Obama's campaign is about unity. McCain's isn't. Clinton's isn't. No other candidate's campaign was. Obama, OTOH, has always been about a movement of fundamental change, not policies. THAT is why it matters.

Fighter of Foo

03-19-2008, 01:03 PM

God dammit, because Obama's campaign is about unity. McCain's isn't. Clinton's isn't. No other candidate's campaign was. Obama, OTOH, has always been about a movement of fundamental change, not policies. THAT is why it matters.

If you're running a campaign with UNITY as the theme doesn't that mean by definition you'd have to include people who you disagree with?

albionmoonlight

03-19-2008, 01:10 PM

God dammit, because Obama's campaign is about unity. McCain's isn't. Clinton's isn't. No other candidate's campaign was. Obama, OTOH, has always been about a movement of fundamental change, not policies. THAT is why it matters.

But isn't a campaign built on nothing more than "hope" and "unity" and a "post-political landscape" doomed to fail? Every election cycle, we have some maverick candidate who promises to "re-invent Washington." They get some people excited; they get the New York Times to fill some column inches in the months before Iowa; and then they lose elections and fade away.

I would like to think that the leader of the free world has more than "hope" in his bag. It is a sorry state of affairs indeed if the presidental election is nothing more than a popularity contest.

Basically, I think that a good rule of thumb when deciding who to support for political office is (1) do I agree with this candidate's policies, and (2) how likely are they to actually implement those policies.

Sure, the president is also the Head of State. And charisma matters there. And part of politics is getting the people behind you. And charisma matters there. But, at the end of the day, it is a complex job with real consequences. We should demand that the people elected to that job can actually do it--and not just talk pretty.

So, I guess if one beleives that Obama is just about "sunshine and bunnies" then the Wright thing is a deal breaker. But why the hell was someone supporting Obama based on that in the first place? What a silly thing to do. If the man fails on a "policy" level, then Wright is the least of his problems as a candidate.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 01:12 PM

So, I guess if one beleives that Obama is just about "sunshine and bunnies" then the Wright thing is a deal breaker. But why the hell was someone supporting Obama based on that in the first place? What a silly thing to do. If the man fails on a "policy" level, then Wright is the least of his problems as a candidate.

Is there where someone posts (or reposts) the Sarandon quote?

CamEdwards

03-19-2008, 01:12 PM

If you're running a campaign with UNITY as the theme doesn't that mean by definition you'd have to include people who you disagree with?

Uh, no. If you're running a campaign with unity as the theme you surround include people who believe in unity. Not people who use racial division as the basis for their theology.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 01:22 PM

I wonder how many people will listen to the speech via youtube, etc. This seems like the first major political speech in which people have the opportunity to hear it firsthand. I don't know if people will take the opportunity or not. But it seems like it is only good for Democracy if they do. Whether you agree with it or not, you are actually engaging it--instead of just listening to someone's snarky or praise-filled description of it.

Still, I am skeptical that any significant number of people are willing to take a half-hour to listen to a political speech. Patience is not in America's DNA.

OBAMA'S SPEECH MAKES YOUTUBE HISTORY..."

Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech is the most popular video in the world today, drawing an unusual 1.2 million full views in its first 24 hours on YouTube – double the views of the next most popular clips. YouTube only counts visitors who watch an entire video, so hundreds of thousands of additional visitors probably watched part of the 37-minute address.

While commentators and Democratic leaders predict that "A More Perfect Union" will ultimately be seen as a historic contribution to American race relations, it is already making history in YouTube politics. At this pace, it will be the most watched contemporary political speech in Internet history. In about a day, it is already the second most viewed item on Obama's innovative YouTube channel, which boasts 810 videos and 13 million channel views. (For comparison, that is nine times the views the Clinton channel and 21 times the views for McCain's channel.)

Obama's all-time top video, a 4-minute response to President Bush's State of the Union recorded exclusively for YouTube, ultimately drew 1.3 million views. An Obama aide tells The Nation that video took about two weeks to reach one million views -- this longer Philadelphia address broke one million views in a single day, with visitors voting it the top rated and most "favorited" video on YouTube. And over at MSNBC.com, an excerpt of Obama's speech was also the most popular clip, drawing over 360,000 views.

Obama has staked his campaign on the premise that we cannot solve the country's problems through the old, broken model of divisive politics and scandal-driven, never-ending media battles. From improving race relations to ending the war responsibly, he is offering voters honest and nuanced ideas over soundbites. And a record-breaking number of people continue to embrace this unusual political proposal -- often routing around the media filter to hear from Obama directly. "

Grammaticus

03-19-2008, 02:15 PM

Some of the buzz on Obama's speech. (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/day_after_reactions.html)

This one probably sums it up the best:

John Dickerson says that though it wasn't without its problems, the speech was cool, reasoned, and likely impressive to Democratic viewers.

I tend to agree that if you were already a staunch Obama supporter, you think he hit a home run. If you were already not an Obama supporter, you think the speech only raises more issues. Albeit it was well written and delivered with less skill than many of his other speechs.

Young Drachma

03-19-2008, 02:52 PM

JPhillips

03-19-2008, 03:00 PM

Because Obama has no positions. His ENTIRE fucking campaign is based upon unifying the nation. Yet, he's associated himself for 20 years with a man that is preaching racially divisive rhetoric. This undermines his message of unity at its core, don't you think?

If Obama was about anything other than unity, it wouldn't be an issue.

So does McCain not knowing who's allied with whom in Iraq disqualify him because his whole campaign is about Iraq? What other positions does he have?

Obama has plenty of positions on Iraq, healthcare, NAFTA, etc. You may not agree with them, but it's disingenuous to say he has no positions. I still argue that most of the people most vocal about the Wright issue had no intention of voting for Obama anyway. This wasn't something that changed those minds, but an opening to destroy a rival politician.

As I've said over and over, vote for whomever you wish. Obama ideology won't work for a lot of you just as Bush's doesn't work for me. However, I would hope that we can at least respect that Obama is trying to discuss a very important issue, one that may get farther if he isn't the President, but one that shouldn't be tossed aside in favor of the easy partisan attack.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 03:01 PM

If this doesn't convince you to vote for Obama, nothing will:

<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kPLtotzqH0M&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT> (http://<object width=)</P>

Deattribution

03-19-2008, 03:49 PM

As I've said over and over, vote for whomever you wish. Obama ideology won't work for a lot of you just as Bush's doesn't work for me. However, I would hope that we can at least respect that Obama is trying to discuss a very important issue, one that may get farther if he isn't the President, but one that shouldn't be tossed aside in favor of the easy partisan attack.

My problem isn't with him taking on racism with his speech, it's that the only reason he's doing it now is because he's been associated with a racist for the last 20+ years. If this whole youtube/Wright stuff never comes to light, Obama's speech never happens.

He's lecturing america for his own mistakes, the problems are no worse today than they were three or four weeks ago before any of this happened. It's just that now it helps further his agenda to talk about it and avoid explaining why he is still associated with Wright and has been for so long.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 04:00 PM

Obama has plenty of positions on Iraq, healthcare, NAFTA, etc. You may not agree with them, but it's disingenuous to say he has no positions.

I think Obama has taken general positions on most of the issues he needs to. What he hasn't done is talk about nearly any of them at any level of specificity, or at all. But you're right...I don't agree with him philosophically, so it's not going to change my opinion of him even if/when he starts talking about the issues. But that's what I hear when I listen to his speeches - nothing but "pie in the sky" optimism. That's mainly what people are reacting to. I know that I've heard more specifics about Obama's policies on Iraq and healthcare, for example, in Clinton speeches talking about their differences, than in all of Obama's speeches combined.

Ksyrup

03-19-2008, 04:02 PM

It's just that now it helps further his agenda to talk about it and avoid explaining why he is still associated with Wright and has been for so long.

I think he has explained it. It's now up to each of us to decide what we think of his explanation. He may not have explained it to your satisfaction (or mine), but he gave an explanation.

Young Drachma

03-19-2008, 04:20 PM

He clearly doesn't have the policy background that Clinton does with her 8-year internship in the White House or McCain after having been in Washington since Adams. I don't know that it'd ever be a requirement for me to elect someone would be them having an acute awareness of detailed foreign policy issues. I'd prefer someone who knew how to delegate and could bring smart, effective, talented people in the fold.

What's more troubling about Obama isn't that he doesn't get into specifics, because he does. But no one on the stump wants to hear him get specific, just pundits, the media and folks who aren't voting for him want that. People like me are going to fundamentally opposed to him no matter how specific he gets. Because I already know he wants to create a federal health care system, without fixing the one we have. He wants to raise the capital gains tax back to the level it was during the Clinton era. All the specificity in the world wouldn't somehow make me want to vote for him.

But on face, it would be more troubling to me to have a President who is so sure of their own knowledge and understanding of the issues that they cannot defer to those who they've entrusted in key cabinet roles to serve them effectively and diligently.

No matter how smart or experienced the CINC is, if the people under him or her are dolts...we're just as screwed. Obama seems to defer a lot to academic and egghead types and my wonder is whether his team will just get stalled in the gridlock of Washington if he does what a lot of administrations do and get rid of the experienced types and put their own people in.

With the other two, it'd probably be what we saw in the 90s or more of the same with the lower staff.

cartman

03-19-2008, 04:25 PM

But, DC, I'm confused. As someone who says it was a great speech, you MUST be a sheep, or loyal Obamist...

;)

st.cronin

03-19-2008, 04:47 PM

I still think the revwright thing will be much ado about nothing. The bigger problem for Obama/Clinton is the status of the Michigan & Florida delegates. That goes right to their legitimacy as a candidate.

GrantDawg

03-19-2008, 06:09 PM

If this doesn't convince you to vote for Obama, nothing will:

You must die now.

Buccaneer

03-19-2008, 06:27 PM

Glad to see no one is feeding the racist troll.

As far this latest controversy, I believe it will hurt Obama, much like scandals that hit Guliani. It's all about perception and most people now, right or wrong or indifferent, have in mind that Obama is truly a black candidate, not simply a candidate who happens to be black. That will not play well with some Latino voters, most of the Asian voters and a sizable segment of white voters, esp. women. Will it cause enough a difference in the "impossible" delegates math? I don't know, I don't think so but it will cause the voters and delegates to get more entrenched.

Noop

03-19-2008, 07:03 PM

Groundhog

03-19-2008, 07:14 PM

Buccaneer

03-19-2008, 07:21 PM

I think what someone said earlier is right, that this is a good time for it to happen. The perceptions have been solidified and will remain but Clinton's negatives have not gone down. I predict that while she is likely to win Penn. in the same manner as Ohio, the delegates count will not make up the difference, esp. with NC following.

JPhillips

03-19-2008, 08:10 PM

My problem isn't with him taking on racism with his speech, it's that the only reason he's doing it now is because he's been associated with a racist for the last 20+ years. If this whole youtube/Wright stuff never comes to light, Obama's speech never happens.

He's lecturing america for his own mistakes, the problems are no worse today than they were three or four weeks ago before any of this happened. It's just that now it helps further his agenda to talk about it and avoid explaining why he is still associated with Wright and has been for so long.

I'm sorry, but I find the timing argument to generally be tedious, not just about this but any scandal, revelation, apology, whatever. When is the timing right? Should Obama have given this speech to announce his candidacy? Wouldn't that have just been about running for President? Maybe after Iowa, but why wait until he's won a primary? Maybe when he was a state senator, but why did he have to wait until he was an elected official? When exactly would it have been acceptable to make this speech? The same people that have problem with it now would have found a problem with it at any time.

bhlloy

03-19-2008, 08:20 PM

I'm sorry, but I find the timing argument to generally be tedious, not just about this but any scandal, revelation, apology, whatever. When is the timing right? Should Obama have given this speech to announce his candidacy? Wouldn't that have just been about running for President? Maybe after Iowa, but why wait until he's won a primary? Maybe when he was a state senator, but why did he have to wait until he was an elected official? When exactly would it have been acceptable to make this speech? The same people that have problem with it now would have found a problem with it at any time.

In fact, he'd have been ripped for trying to make race an issue. Shrug. I don't see why you can't just give him points for the content of the speech without trying to make a judgement on why he needed to make it.

cartman

03-19-2008, 08:28 PM

In fact, he'd have been ripped for trying to make race an issue. Shrug. I don't see why you can't just give him points for the content of the speech without trying to make a judgement on why he needed to make it.

I agree. This was a speech to address a current event, much like Bush's speech he made at the National Cathedral the weekend after 9/11. Some of the lines of discussion in this thread would seem make it valid to ask if Bush would have given that same speech if 9/11 never happened.

Grammaticus

03-19-2008, 10:53 PM

I agree. This was a speech to address a current event, much like Bush's speech he made at the National Cathedral the weekend after 9/11. Some of the lines of discussion in this thread would seem make it valid to ask if Bush would have given that same speech if 9/11 never happened.

Sure, neither one would have made a speech if the event(s) never occurred. But that does not say much. Obama made a speech based on the need for political survival about an event or events (Wright association) of which he had active control. Bush made a speech about uniting a nation after an attack by foreign interests, of which he did not have active control.

Obama was smoked out and had to give the speech. The way things are shaping up, this will surge again in the general (if it is Obama) as the opposition party uses it to question his judgment as a potential leader of the United States.

I think another down side for Obama is the fact that so many Democrats and black Americans are urging to make this "open" discussion of race in America an ongoing topic during the campaign. For Obama, it is probably best in the general election to not be perceived as a black man that is lecturing about racial problems in America. He wants to be president of all the people. Talk about racial troubles always leads to divisiveness. Whether that is right or wrong is not the point.

His best bet would be to leave that heavy discussion until after he is elected president.

I also think he should have taken a page from Sun Tzu and fought the Wright battle on a field of his own choosing. For example, if he had issued a statement about Wright at the time he dis-invited him from the announcement he was running for President, he would have greatly mitigated the effect. Much like he did with his Cocaine use. He put that out in his book and it has been a non starter.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-20-2008, 12:17 AM

There are plenty of people in this thread defending him by saying he's only done it a few times, he's just an angry black man from the segregation period, 'everyone has done it' or a few other arguments. Have you read the thread, or even Obama's words which amount to saying almost everyone knows someone who said similiar things? (which isn't true either)

Not surprisingly, a complete misrepresentation of what was stated in the thread and by Obama.

Nobody defended Wright. Those you speak of plainly stated they disagreed with the comments and found them deplorable. People defended Obama for not utterly abandoning a dear friend for things he said, when over 20 years he saw a lot of good in the man. The comparisons were drawn to show that Obama did not throw Wright under the bus, just like others who had heard similar racist statements from family/friends had not abandoned those family members and friends. The topic was Obama, not Wright. Obama is running for president. Wright is not. All that was stated was it was understandable to see where the hate in Wright's speech was coming from, not that it was logical or made any sense.

However, go along and hear what you want to hear, even when it isn't what was spoken.

Mac Howard

03-20-2008, 10:51 AM

Well said. The pastor would be a minor issue if Obama had run a campaign based upon something other that unity.

Or if he'd distanced himself from Wright or had shown that he had fiercely opposed Wright over his views.

Wright has not been arguing with a couple of mates in a bar about a football match. He's making rabid anti-American speeches, in public, to an audience that hangs on his every word. He equates the US with the evil Al Quaeda. He accuses America of attempted genocide by introducing aids into the black community. He says America deserved 9/11. And so on.

This is rabid anti-American rhetoric that most Americans find obnoxious.

Any politician that has any political ambition at all, let alone put himself up for President (of Wright's hated state) on the basis of bringing unity, would sensibly get as far away from Wright as he can. It has been naive of Obama to continue his relationship with Wright, it is ludicrous to describe him as his "spiritual mentor" with all the approval that that entails. His loyalty may be admirable but severely misplaced and reveals very poor political judgement.

It may have been a great speech as speeches go but it does not justify Obama's continued association and approval of Wright and the polls are now showing that only those who have previously supported Obama see his speech as justifying his position. They continue their "see no evil" stance. But the independants are joining the opposers and moving away from him as quickly as they can.

I personally think the writing is on the wall for Obama. Clinton may well now cut into his delegate lead and make it easier for the super-delegates to go for the candidate with less chance of further skeletons being unearthed in the Presidential campaign. Obama, whose background hasn't yet been significantly investigated, was always going to be a risk. That risk just took on a more solid form.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 11:16 AM

Of National Lies and Racial Amnesia:
Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and the Unacceptability of Truth

By Tim Wise (http://www.timwise.org/)

March 18, 2008

For most white folks, indignation just doesn't wear well. Once affected or conjured up, it reminds one of a pudgy man, wearing a tie that may well have fit him when he was fifty pounds lighter, but which now cuts off somewhere above his navel and makes him look like an idiot.

Indignation doesn't work for most whites, because having remained sanguine about, silent during, indeed often supportive of so much injustice over the years in this country--the theft of native land and genocide of indigenous persons, and the enslavement of Africans being only two of the best examples--we are just a bit late to get into the game of moral rectitude. And once we enter it, our efforts at righteousness tend to fail the test of sincerity.

But here we are, in 2008, fuming at the words of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago--occasionally Barack Obama's pastor, and the man whom Obama credits with having brought him to Christianity--for merely reminding us of those evils about which we have remained so quiet, so dismissive, so unconcerned. It is not the crime that bothers us, but the remembrance of it, the unwillingness to let it go--these last words being the first ones uttered by most whites it seems whenever anyone, least of all an "angry black man" like Jeremiah Wright, foists upon us the bill of particulars for several centuries of white supremacy.

But our collective indignation, no matter how loudly we announce it, cannot drown out the truth. And as much as white America may not be able to hear it (and as much as politics may require Obama to condemn it) let us be clear, Jeremiah Wright fundamentally told the truth.

Oh I know that for some such a comment will seem shocking. After all, didn't he say that America "got what it deserved" on 9/11? And didn't he say that black people should be singing "God Damn America" because of its treatment of the African American community throughout the years?

Well actually, no he didn't.

Wright said not that the attacks of September 11th were justified, but that they were, in effect, predictable. Deploying the imagery of chickens coming home to roost is not to give thanks for the return of the poultry or to endorse such feathered homecoming as a positive good; rather, it is merely to note two things: first, that what goes around, indeed, comes around--a notion with longstanding theological grounding--and secondly, that the U.S. has indeed engaged in more than enough violence against innocent people to make it just a tad bit hypocritical for us to then evince shock and outrage about an attack on ourselves, as if the latter were unprecedented.

He noted that we killed far more people, far more innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were killed on 9/11 and "never batted an eye." That this statement is true is inarguable, at least amongst sane people. He is correct on the math, he is correct on the innocence of the dead (neither city was a military target), and he is most definitely correct on the lack of remorse or even self-doubt about the act: sixty-plus years later most Americans still believe those attacks were justified, that they were needed to end the war and "save American lives."

But not only does such a calculus suggest that American lives are inherently worth more than the lives of Japanese civilians (or, one supposes, Vietnamese, Iraqi or Afghan civilians too), but it also ignores the long-declassified documents, and President Truman's own war diaries, all of which indicate clearly that Japan had already signaled its desire to end the war, and that we knew they were going to surrender, even without the dropping of atomic weapons. The conclusion to which these truths then attest is simple, both in its basic veracity and it monstrousness: namely, that in those places we committed premeditated and deliberate mass murder, with no justification whatsoever; and yet for saying that I will receive more hate mail, more hostility, more dismissive and contemptuous responses than will those who suggest that no body count is too high when we're the ones doing the killing. Jeremiah Wright becomes a pariah, because, you see, we much prefer the logic of George Bush the First, who once said that as President he would "never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are."

And Wright didn't say blacks should be singing "God Damn America." He was suggesting that blacks owe little moral allegiance to a nation that has treated so many of them for so long as animals, as persons undeserving of dignity and respect, and which even now locks up hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders (especially for drug possession), even while whites who do the same crimes (and according to the data, when it comes to drugs, more often in fact), are walking around free. His reference to God in that sermon was more about what God will do to such a nation, than it was about what should or shouldn't happen. It was a comment derived from, and fully in keeping with, the black prophetic tradition, and although one can surely disagree with the theology (I do, actually, and don't believe that any God either blesses or condemns nation states for their actions), the statement itself was no call for blacks to turn on America. If anything, it was a demand that America earn the respect of black people, something the evidence and history suggests it has yet to do.

Finally, although one can certainly disagree with Wright about his suggestion that the government created AIDS to get rid of black folks--and I do, for instance--it is worth pointing out that Wright isn't the only one who has said this. In fact, none other than Bill Cosby (oh yes, that Bill Cosby, the one white folks love because of his recent moral crusade against the black poor) proffered his belief in the very same thing back in the early '90s in an interview on CNN, when he said that AIDS may well have been created to get rid of people whom the government deemed "undesirable" including gays and racial minorities.

So that's the truth of the matter: Wright made one comment that is highly arguable, but which has also been voiced by white America's favorite black man, another that was horribly misinterpreted and stripped of all context, and then another that was demonstrably accurate. And for this, he is pilloried and made into a virtual enemy of the state; for this, Barack Obama may lose the support of just enough white folks to cost him the Democratic nomination, and/or the Presidency; all of it, because Jeremiah Wright, unlike most preachers opted for truth. If he had been one of those "prosperity ministers" who says Jesus wants nothing so much as for you to be rich, like Joel Osteen, that would have been fine. Had he been a retread bigot like Falwell was, or Pat Robertson is, he might have been criticized, but he would have remained in good standing and surely not have damaged a Presidential candidate in this way. But unlike Osteen, and Falwell, and Robertson, Jeremiah Wright refused to feed his parishioners lies.

What Jeremiah Wright knows, and told his flock--though make no mistake, they already knew it--is that 9/11 was neither the first, nor worst act of terrorism on American soil. The history of this nation for folks of color, was for generations, nothing less than an intergenerational hate crime, one in which 9/11s were woven into the fabric of everyday life: hundreds of thousands of the enslaved who died from the conditions of their bondage; thousands more who were lynched (as many as 10,000 in the first few years after the Civil War, according to testimony in the Congressional Record at the time); millions of indigenous persons wiped off the face of the Earth. No, to some, the horror of 9/11 was not new. To some it was not on that day that "everything changed." To some, everything changed four hundred years ago, when that first ship landed at what would become Jamestown. To some, everything changed when their ancestors were forced into the hulls of slave ships at Goree Island and brought to a strange land as chattel. To some, everything changed when they were run out of Northern Mexico, only to watch it become the Southwest United States, thanks to a war of annihilation initiated by the U.S. government. To some, being on the receiving end of terrorism has been a way of life. Until recently it was absolutely normal in fact.

But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality. Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so, having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally shared by our darker-skinned compatriots.

This is what James Baldwin was talking about in his classic 1972 work, No Name in the Street, wherein he noted:

"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac."

And so we were shocked in 1987, when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall declined to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution, because, as he noted, most of that history had been one of overt racism and injustice, and to his way of thinking, the only history worth celebrating had been that of the past three or four decades.

We were shocked to learn that black people actually believed that a white cop who was a documented racist might frame a black man; and we're shocked to learn that lots of black folks still perceive the U.S. as a racist nation--we're literally stunned that people who say they experience discrimination regularly (and who have the social science research to back them up) actually think that those experiences and that data might actually say something about the nation in which they reside. Imagine.

Whites are easily shocked by what we see and hear from Pastor Wright and Trinity Church, because what we see and hear so thoroughly challenges our understanding of who we are as a nation. But black people have never, for the most part, believed in the imagery of the "shining city on a hill," for they have never had the option of looking at their nation and ignoring the mountain-sized warts still dotting its face when it comes to race. Black people do not, in the main, get misty eyed at the sight of the flag the way white people do--and this is true even for millions of black veterans--for they understand that the nation for whom that flag waves is still not fully committed to their own equality. They have a harder time singing those tunes that white people seem so eager to belt out, like "God Bless America," for they know that whites sang those words loudly and proudly even as they were enforcing Jim Crow segregation, rioting against blacks who dared move into previously white neighborhoods, throwing rocks at Dr. King and then cheering, as so many did, when they heard the news that he had been assassinated.

Whites refuse to remember (or perhaps have never learned) that which black folks cannot afford to forget. I've seen white people stunned to the point of paralysis when they learn the truth about lynchings in this country--when they discover that such events were not just a couple of good old boys with a truck and a rope hauling some black guy out to the tree, hanging him, and letting him swing there. They were never told the truth: that lynchings were often community events, advertised in papers as "Negro Barbecues," involving hundreds or even thousands of whites, who would join in the fun, eat chicken salad and drink sweet tea, all while the black victims of their depravity were being hung, then shot, then burned, and then having their body parts cut off, to be handed out to onlookers. They are stunned to learn that postcards of the events were traded as souvenirs, and that very few whites, including members of their own families did or said anything to stop it.

Rather than knowing about and confronting the ugliness of our past, whites take steps to excise the less flattering aspects of our history so that we need not be bothered with them. So, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, site of an orgy of violence against the black community in 1921, city officials literally went into the town library and removed all reference to the mass killings in the Greenwood district from the papers with a razor blade--an excising of truth and an assault on memory that would remain unchanged for over seventy years.

Most white people desire, or perhaps even require the propagation of lies when it comes to our history. Surely we prefer the lies to anything resembling, even remotely, the truth. Our version of history, of our national past, simply cannot allow for the intrusion of fact into a worldview so thoroughly identified with fiction. But that white version of America is not only extraordinarily incomplete, in that it so favors the white experience to the exclusion of others; it is more than that; it is actually a slap in the face to people of color, a re-injury, a reminder that they are essentially irrelevant, their concerns trivial, their lives unworthy of being taken seriously. In that sense, and what few if any white Americans appear capable of grasping at present, is that "Leave it Beaver" and "Father Knows Best," portray an America so divorced from the reality of the times in which they were produced, as to raise serious questions about the sanity of those who found them so moving, so accurate, so real. These iconographic representations of life in the U.S. are worse than selective, worse than false, they are assaults to the humanity and memory of black people, who were being savagely oppressed even as June Cleaver did housework in heels and laughed about the hilarious hijinks of Beaver and Larry Mondello.

These portraits of America are certifiable evidence of how disconnected white folks were--and to the extent we still love them and view them as representations of the "good old days" to which we wish we could return, still are--from those men and women of color with whom we have long shared a nation. Just two months before "Leave it to Beaver" debuted, proposed civil rights legislation was killed thanks to Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. One month prior, Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus called out the National Guard to block black students from entering Little Rock Central High; and nine days before America was introduced to the Cleavers, and the comforting image of national life they represented, those black students were finally allowed to enter, amid the screams of enraged, unhinged, viciously bigoted white people, who saw nothing wrong with calling children niggers in front of cameras. That was America of the 1950s: not the sanitized version into which so many escape thanks to the miracle of syndication, which merely allows white people to relive a lie, year after year after year.

No, it is not the pastor who distorts history; Nick at Nite and your teenager's textbooks do that. It is not he who casts aspersions upon "this great country" as Barack Obama put it in his public denunciations of him; it is the historic leadership of the nation that has cast aspersions upon it; it is they who have cheapened it, who have made gaudy and vile the promise of American democracy by defiling it with lies. They engage in a patriotism that is pathological in its implications, that asks of those who adhere to it not merely a love of country but the turning of one's nation into an idol to be worshipped, it not literally, then at least in terms of consequence.

It is they--the flag-lapel-pin wearing leaders of this land--who bring shame to the country with their nonsensical suggestions that we are always noble in warfare, always well-intended, and although we occasionally make mistakes, we are never the ones to blame for anything. Nothing that happens to us has anything to do with us at all. It is always about them. They are evil, crazy, fanatical, hate our freedoms, and are jealous of our prosperity. When individuals prattle on in this manner we diagnose them as narcissistic, as deluded. When nations do it--when our nation does--we celebrate it as though it were the very model of rational and informed citizenship.

So what can we say about a nation that values lies more than it loves truth? A place where adherence to sincerely believed and internalized fictions allows one to rise to the highest offices in the land, and to earn the respect of millions, while a willingness to challenge those fictions and offer a more accurate counter-narrative earns one nothing but contempt, derision, indeed outright hatred? What we can say is that such a place is signing its own death warrant. What we can say is that such a place is missing the only and last opportunity it may ever have to make things right, to live up to its professed ideals. What we can say is that such a place can never move forward, because we have yet to fully address and come to terms with that which lay behind.

What can we say about a nation where white preachers can lie every week from their pulpits without so much as having to worry that their lies might be noticed by the shiny white faces in their pews, while black preachers who tell one after another essential truth are demonized, not only for the stridency of their tone--which needless to say scares white folks, who have long preferred a style of praise and worship resembling nothing so much as a coma--but for merely calling bullshit on those whose lies are swallowed whole?

And oh yes, I said it: white preachers lie. In fact, they lie with a skill, fluidity, and precision unparalleled in the history of either preaching or lying, both of which histories stretch back a ways and have often overlapped. They lie every Sunday, as they talk about a Savior they have chosen to represent dishonestly as a white man, in every picture to be found of him in their tabernacles, every children's story book in their Sunday Schools, every Christmas card they'll send to relatives and friends this December. But to lie about Jesus, about the one they consider God--to bear false witness as to who this man was and what he looked like--is no cause for concern.

Nor is it a problem for these preachers to teach and preach that those who don't believe as they believe are going to hell. Despite the fact that such a belief casts aspersions upon God that are so profound as to defy belief--after all, they imply that God is so fundamentally evil that he would burn non-believers in a lake of eternal fire--many of the white folks who now condemn Jeremiah Wright welcome that theology of hate. Indeed, back when President Bush was the Governor of Texas, he endorsed this kind of thinking, responding to a question about whether Jews were going to go to hell, by saying that unless one accepted Jesus as one's personal savior, the Bible made it pretty clear that indeed, hell was where you'd be heading.

So you can curse God in this way--and to imply such hate on God's part is surely to curse him--and in effect, curse those who aren't Christians, and no one says anything. That isn't considered bigoted. That isn't considered beyond the pale of polite society. One is not disqualified from becoming President in the minds of millions because they go to a church that says that shit every single week, or because they believe it themselves. And millions do believe it, and see nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Meanwhile, those same white folks, and their ministers and priests, every week put forth a false image of the God Jeremiah Wright serves, and yet it is whites who feel we have the right to be offended.

Pardon me, but something is wrong here, and whatever it is, is not to be found at Trinity United Church of Christ.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 11:28 AM

But, DC, I'm confused. As someone who says it was a great speech, you MUST be a sheep, or loyal Obamist...

;)

Or one of those Obamacans he speaks of. ;)

If the Clinton camp didn't manage to kill him off by now, it's not like they're just going to be able to blot him out of the landscape. He's a neophyte politically, but they're still running a very good campaign and given the margin of error for them to be able to lose this whole deal, have taken their hand and played it pretty well.

Oh and they still raise an insane sum of money.

The Clintons were the juggernaut team with the money, the team and the experience and his team was a scrappy squad of inexperienced kids who have heart, backed by an athletic department and alumni who believe in the program.

For this to even be a contest at this point, signals the fact that the Clintons have lost. Blame it on the media all you want and delude yourselves into believing that McCain will somehow wipe the floor with him -- the same John McCain that couldn't beat George Bush eight years ago -- and you clearly prove why America is in the shape it's in. Because too many of her people are clearly missing the point and are too delusional to wake up and smell the reality.

And nope, still not sipping on the Kool-Aid of hope.

Toddzilla

03-20-2008, 12:12 PM

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/britt-cartoon-3-19.jpg

Vegas Vic

03-20-2008, 12:51 PM

For this to even be a contest at this point, signals the fact that the Clintons have lost. Blame it on the media all you want and delude yourselves into believing that McCain will somehow wipe the floor with him -- the same John McCain that couldn't beat George Bush eight years ago -- and you clearly prove why America is in the shape it's in.

You're right. The fact that this is even a contest at this point is truly amazing. Historically, (Plug in name of democratic candidate) should be 10 to 15 points ahead of John McCain at this point in the election cycle, but it's a dead heat. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

JPhillips

03-20-2008, 12:51 PM

Fighter of Foo

03-20-2008, 01:12 PM

Who, exactly is defending Wright? There are plenty of people defending Obama, but I haven't seen anyone here argue that Wright's statements aren't deplorable.

Mike Huckabee ;)

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/03/huckabee_defends_obamas_pastor.aspx

"And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."

CamEdwards

03-20-2008, 01:15 PM

Kinda looks like Tim Wise is defending Wright as well. And frankly, I think this campaign season needs more lectures about white privilege. THAT'S sure to unite the Democrat party!

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Kinda looks like Tim Wise is defending Wright as well. And frankly, I think this campaign season needs more lectures about white privilege. THAT'S sure to unite the Democrat party!

Well Tim Wise has been doing that for ages, that's his shtick. Nothing to do with the election season. He spends his time preaching to the choir who believe in what he's talking about more than anything.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 01:36 PM

You're right. The fact that this is even a contest at this point is truly amazing. Historically, (Plug in name of democratic candidate) should be 10 to 15 points ahead of John McCain at this point in the election cycle, but it's a dead heat. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

Polls this far from November mean nothing. It's been said a million times before. If they were, President Kerry's term would be almost over.

ISiddiqui

03-20-2008, 01:51 PM

Polls this far from November mean nothing. It's been said a million times before. If they were, President Kerry's term would be almost over.

The second part of your statement is his exact point. The Democrat always seems to have a massive lead in the polls at this point in the race. During the summer they close down and then things start getting interesting. The fact that the Dems are this close is something different and may potentially mean something.

albionmoonlight

03-20-2008, 01:58 PM

The fact that the Dems are this close is something different and may potentially mean something.

It might just mean that the typical 15% is "soft support" that isn't there this year because the Dems have yet to pick a nominee. If the Dems had settled on Clinton or Obama, they would be leading by 15% right now, but the underlying reality would actually be the same as it is now--close to a tie.

Or, it might mean that McCain is poised to kick ass Regan Style.

Vegas Vic

03-20-2008, 02:36 PM

Polls this far from November mean nothing. It's been said a million times before. If they were, President Kerry's term would be almost over.

They don't mean "nothing."

Historically in an incumbent republican administration, the democratic candidate peaks in the spring/early summer. Jimmy Carter had a 25 point lead on Gerald Ford, and he narrowly won in November by 2 points. Mondale was ahead of Ronald Reagan by 6 points, and he lost by 18 points. Dukakis was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he lost by 8 points. Clinton was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he won by 4 points. Kerry was ahead of GWB by 5 points, and he lost by 3.

The fact that McCain is in a dead heat at this time is very significant. Also, the fact that McCain is running even in democratic strongholds like Michigan (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html) and Minnesota (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mn/minnesota_mccain_vs_obama-550.html), (which means that the democrats are going to have to spend resources to defend them) is problematic.

This is shaping up to be an electoral college landslide for McCain in November.

Malificent

03-20-2008, 02:48 PM

They don't mean "nothing."

Historically in an incumbent republican administration, the democratic candidate peaks in the spring/early summer. Jimmy Carter had a 25 point lead on Gerald Ford, and he narrowly won in November by 2 points. Mondale was ahead of Ronald Reagan by 6 points, and he lost by 18 points. Dukakis was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he lost by 8 points. Clinton was 17 points ahead of GHWB, and he won by 4 points. Kerry was ahead of GWB by 5 points, and he lost by 3.

The fact that McCain is in a dead heat at this time is very significant. Also, the fact that McCain is running even in democratic strongholds like Michigan (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html) and Minnesota (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mn/minnesota_mccain_vs_obama-550.html), (which means that the democrats are going to have to spend resources to defend them) is problematic.

This is shaping up to be an electoral college landslide for McCain in November.

If the Democrats manage to screw up what should have been an easy win for them, it will be a fuck up of historic proportions.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 02:54 PM

JPhillips

03-20-2008, 02:57 PM

But the fact that the nominee isn't decided has to mean something. It's also different in that every instance you cite had a Republican incumbent or in GHWB's case a previous VP. The fact that there is no incumbent on either side as to mean something. There's also been a trend over the past two decades of fewer and fewer truly independent voters which ma be shown in your numbers as well. They go from 23 points change to 24 to 25 to 13 to 8. How much of the current margin is due to fewer votes being up for grabs?

McCain may win and may win by a lot, but the numbers now aren't particularly relevant other than they would seem to suggest a close race.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 03:06 PM

The second part of your statement is his exact point. The Democrat always seems to have a massive lead in the polls at this point in the race. During the summer they close down and then things start getting interesting. The fact that the Dems are this close is something different and may potentially mean something.

May potentially mean something and landslide of Reaganesque proportions are two completely different things. What you said makes sense and I have 1) no dog in the hunt and 2) willing to admit that the GOP has a shot at this, running the most modern liberal non-Yankee Republican in history for national office.

But that doesn't distort the facts on the ground, nor does it obscure the fact that if you go back a few pages, there were more than a few folks swearing when national polls showed Obama and Hillary beating McCain soundly a month ago, that "OMG it's too early?!"

But now all of a sudden, things are even and it's the fat lady singing?

To me, it's just a lot of shape shifting to try to change the landscape to fit one's own view of the world. In my estimation, we're screwed no matter who wins and the only thing that McCain will do that Clinton or Obama won't do is appoint conservative judges to make the Christian Right happy.

Rush Limbaugh today was talking about how Iowa Republicans are notorious for saying that because ethanol is their cash cow, that GOPers need to support it. But Limbaugh's point was roughly, "at the point the Republican party needs to support something fundamentally unsound to ensure that a particular group will vote for them, they're no better the Democratic party."

And he's dead on. That's the reason why none of this shit matters at all. Call Obama a liberal all you want, ignore the fact that Hillary has more skeletons in her closet than a cemetery does in the ground and that no amount of "leading on Day 1" will solve that. Obscure the fact that McCain's idea of economic policy is "I know Jack Kemp" and understand that no matter who wins this race, we're screwed and more of the same will continue to come out of Washington.

The only thing that Obama offers that the other two don't -- and it's not enough for me to vote for him as I've continually stated -- is that he's from a completely different generation and has a far more contemporary and nuanced view of the world as it is, than either of the two candidates in the race. If you appreciate the American Presidency for being something of a bully pulpit to the world at large, having him in that office sets us further along than either of the other two.

But I don't expect the boomer and post-boomers among us who are naysayers to have any interest in them apples. What's annoying, though wholly unsurprising, is their lack of stating any substantive case rather than experience for why either of the others will actually do something positive to set the country ahead.

The unmitigated disaster of the current administration was developed solely by policy wonks and hacks who used him and his father's connection to get themselves back into power and leveraged the trust they had from GWB and the puppetmaster Dick Cheney to ensure their will was carried out. If that's standard continues, I'd rather the guy who doesn't have all of the nasty connections and links to past blunders, than the two who have deeper roots than a forest there.

But that's just one view of many, many others...

Vegas Vic

03-20-2008, 03:11 PM

willing to admit that the GOP has a shot at this, running the most modern liberal non-Yankee Republican in history for national office.

Depending on your definition of modern, Eisenhower, Nixon and Gerald Ford would all be considered more "liberal" than John McCain.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 03:15 PM

Depending on your definition of modern, Eisenhower, Nixon and Gerald Ford would all be considered more "liberal" than John McCain.

Well that's before the parties shifted. Even the interpretation of liberal back then was different. I mean, black folks were still voting for Republicans at that point. So we're talking post-1960s modern liberal.

Vegas Vic

03-20-2008, 03:19 PM

Well that's before the parties shifted. Even the interpretation of liberal back then was different. I mean, black folks were still voting for Republicans at that point. So we're talking post-1960s modern liberal.

Point taken.

Interestingly, JFK would probably be considered a moderate republican in this era. Tax cuts, a strong national defense and smaller federal government were three of his largest priorities. Brother Ted's philosophy would probably be alien to JFK at this point.

JPhillips

03-20-2008, 04:02 PM

This is a little off track, but let's not play the Kennedy would be a Republican game. Given some of the things he tried to pass as President he wouldn't be nearly as alienated from his brother as you'd like. Remember he pushed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a domestic program called the New Frontier that included massive spending for education, medical care and recession relief. He started a massive new government program to get to the moon. He sent federal marshals to Ole Miss. Proposed an overhaul of immigration to let in more immigrants from Latin America. In fact, most of his domestic policies would be seen as heretical in the modern Republican party.

st.cronin

03-20-2008, 05:59 PM

Depending on your definition of modern, Eisenhower, Nixon and Gerald Ford would all be considered more "liberal" than John McCain.

Bush the Elder, too.

Mac Howard

03-20-2008, 07:46 PM

Mac: On the 9/11 stuff, it's fairly common to hear conservative evangelicals blame 9/11 on America's lack of morals and/or faith. Why is that not out of bounds but drawing ties between foriegn policy and 9/11 is?

Whether the statement comes from Wright or the conservative evangelicals it is equally offensive to most Americans particularly when expressed in the soaring, rhetorical manner of Wright rather than as foreign policy debate.

Wright is occasionally making speeches that would not be out of place from Osama bin Laden. That a man who would be President of the US refuses to disassociate himself from him and even calls him his "spiritual mentor" is political suicide. If Obama gets away with this I look forward to see him walk on water ;)

In another context Obama's speech may well have been a great one but in this context much of it is a smoke screen. His delineation of America's race problem, again in another context would be excellent, but in this context it's a thinly disguised attempt to give some credibility to Wright's rhetoric. His supporters may not see it that way - hell some of them would have been happy with a recitation of Three Blind Mice - but others less inclined to allow him so much rope see it as yet another politician who refuses to admit he got something wrong. It's bad judgement, bad politics and stubborn insistence on righteousness.

Young Drachma

03-20-2008, 08:00 PM

Whether the statement comes from Wright or the conservative evangelicals it is equally offensive to most Americans particularly when expressed in the soaring, rhetorical manner of Wright rather than as foreign policy debate.

Wright is occasionally making speeches that would not be out of place from Osama bin Laden. That a man who would be President of the US refuses to disassociate himself from him and even calls him his "spiritual mentor" is political suicide. If Obama gets away with this I look forward to see him walk on water ;)

John Howard on Line 1.

It's not political suicide, the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

Buccaneer

03-20-2008, 08:47 PM

Regarding the polls for the general, why don't they do it by electoral votes?

Buccaneer

03-20-2008, 08:51 PM

I read in Time.com (I think) recently about the demographics of the voters (always a favorite topic of mine). They talked about the impact that they White Male voters will have and said that the 25% that makes up that demographics is more than the combined black and latino voters. Ok, if we add 30% for White Female, that still leaves about 20-25% for something. What am I missing? Were they just talking about a segment of the White Male voters since the article was focusing on the OH-PA blue-collar voters?

Vegas Vic

03-20-2008, 08:52 PM

Regarding the polls for the general, why don't they do it by electoral votes?

They don't do it implicitly, but if you break down the state polls, McCain has a substantial lead in the electoral college right now.

JonInMiddleGA

03-20-2008, 08:52 PM

It's not political suicide, the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

Umm ... wouldn't that be "apparently isn't a big deal to those who were planning to or will vote for him"?

Point being, just because it doesn't bother some doesn't mean that it isn't a serious concern for others.

Warhammer

03-20-2008, 08:55 PM

Remember he pushed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a domestic program called the New Frontier that included massive spending for education, medical care and recession relief. He started a massive new government program to get to the moon. He sent federal marshals to Ole Miss. Proposed an overhaul of immigration to let in more immigrants from Latin America.

The only thing heretical to the Republican Party is the medical care part. Other than that, Republicans have espoused at different times.

I am a die hard Republican and my big thing with immigration is that none of the current laws on the books are enforced. If we aren't going to enforce the law, why pass new ones?

Also, Nixon was for the SALT II treaty I believe.

Buccaneer

03-20-2008, 08:58 PM

If we aren't going to enforce the law, why pass new ones?

Because 1) you have to keep the politicians busy so they can get re-elected and 2) you have the keep the bureacrats busy so you can justify non-zero-based budgeting.

Mac Howard

03-20-2008, 09:37 PM

John Howard on Line 1.

You should worry because:

1) I voted against John Howard just a few months ago
2) I would be voting Democrat at the next Presidential election if I were American

ie I am politically and temperamentally on Obama's side.

It's not political suicide, the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

That is astonishingly self delusional. It's not going away - McCain is recording every minute of this ;)

What Obama needs from his supporters now is not blind sycophancy but wise counsel about really putting this to bed before it finishes him.

Vegas Vic

03-20-2008, 09:50 PM

What Obama needs from his supporters now is not blind sycophancy but wise counsel about really putting this to bed before it finishes him.

Well, he certainly didn't help his cause today in Philadelphia:

Obama Helpfully Clarifies That His Grandmother Is a "Typical White Person"

In Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama confronted the remains of the Jeremiah Wright brushfire, the smoldering embers of this anecdote of his grandmother using racial stereotypes that made him cringe... and promptly spilled gasoline on those embers.

610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

National Review Online (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg1MTk0YjQ2YjI1ZDBhNDYzMTA4Y2NhMDA4ZWRlOWU=)

JPhillips

03-20-2008, 09:50 PM

Buc: They don't do electoral college polls because the error in many states would be so high as to invalidate the results. The most recent pol I saw was a Fox poll released today that had a polling size of 900. If they divided it by fifty you'd get 18 per state. Doing a nationwide state by state poll would be much more expensive and time consuming.

Survey USA released one of these a couple of weeks ago, and while interesting, there were a lot of head scratchers like ND going to Obama that are products of a very small sample size.

Vic: Where are these state polls that show McCain with a substantial electorl college lead? There are plenty of states that haven't been polled in weeks or months outside of the previously mentioned SUSA poll and that poll showed both Obama and Clinton beating McCain.

JPhillips

03-20-2008, 10:00 PM

Buccaneer

03-20-2008, 10:07 PM

And it is over. Her only chance for a massive victory is in PA in 6 weeks. She's not going to get anything more than a 5-7 point victory there. And the other primaries look bleak for her. NC? Nope. OR? Not a chance. KY? Forget it.

I've even given up on her having a chance with the supers. The dem supers aren't that dumb, they aren't going to piss off a huge voter base to swing the popular, total state and regular delegate vote. Not happening.

Her only hope now is a major Obama scandal. Maybe Michelle will make some idiotic quotes. I dunno. The way he loses is if he goes off of the deep end at this point.

When you said this, I thought that thankfully it wasn't too likely. Now I am not sure.

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 07:21 AM

Bill Richardson is going to endorse Obama today at a rally in Oregon. He needed this bad. I wonder what John Edwards is doing. Maybe he's getting a haircut. Will Hillary get Edwards to combat this pick? Or will Edwards put the nail in the coffin in a week or three with moving towards Obama too? Or is he going to continue to sit on the fence and wait for the best deal?

Story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1206101926-VIgQDROwjs4Cf/Zl0yOsQg)

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 07:37 AM

Well I'm sure this is nothing at all.

Two State Department employees have been fired and one more disciplined for illegally accessing Obama's passport file. Once the day after the NH primary. Once the day after the Texas debate and once the day after Wright broke. I'm sure we'll find out this was innocent just like when the exact same thing happened to Clinton in 1992.

Honestly, I have no idea what kind of information is in these files and why they would be helpful to someone. What is the significance, apart from people who shouldn't have had access being able ot view them?

albionmoonlight

03-21-2008, 07:47 AM

Honestly, I have no idea what kind of information is in these files and why they would be helpful to someone. What is the significance, apart from people who shouldn't have had access being able ot view them?

At a minimum, it has his application for a passport, so that will contain personal information. I honestly forget how much in on that application--but it will contain his SS#, etc., which might make it easier to find out other stuff about him. Otherwise, I am not really sure.

Fighter of Foo

03-21-2008, 07:49 AM

Whether the statement comes from Wright or the conservative evangelicals it is equally offensive to most Americans particularly when expressed in the soaring, rhetorical manner of Wright rather than as foreign policy debate.

Um, that's what preachers do....

Mildly related, considering I haven't heard or read anyone refute what Huckabee had to say that I quoted above, he must be right.

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 07:56 AM

Um, that's what preachers do....

I have never heard a preacher discuss their views on politics or government at all, much less in "soaring rhetoric" from the pulpit.

miked

03-21-2008, 08:03 AM

Man, on the way to work I was listening to V103 here in the A and they had a clip from a sermon in Harlem somewhere where the preacher basically called Obama a piece of trash and a lot of other bad things. Basically saying he wasn't really calling Obama a piece of trash, because Obama was born trash having a white mother and all. All this and he was praising Bill Clinton because of all the money he put in to rebuilding Harlem. He said he wasn't "for" the Clintons, but it was silly for all the black people to turn their backs on him considering all he had done, and openly embrace Obama considering he had done nothing for his people. It was sort of surreal if you took it in the context of a church sermon.

miked

03-21-2008, 08:07 AM

Dola...link to the speech is here:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&feature=related

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 08:08 AM

That's the Mac Daddy sermon. He said two things I can guarantee I've never heard in a church - '54 double-D' and 'tits.'

Joking aside, though, it saddens me to see that something like that is the norm for certain churches. How that guy has any credibility to preach the word of God after calling someone a pimp and piece of trash, is beyond me. And why people would sit there and listen to it, too. Again, that goes back to the Obama thing. If the next Obama is sitting in that guy's congregation, how does he explain sitting there and listening to that 10-20 years from now? I don't care how much good that guy does in the community, there's no justification for using the pulpit to say things, in the name of God, that would probably get someone boxed on a messageboard.

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 08:27 AM

Dola...link to the speech is here:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&feature=related

That guy isn't a real preacher. The reason you never see his congregation is because he doesn't really have one. He's one of those internet inventions who create sermons and post them on the internet for one reason or another, for reasons that one can't quite put a finger on. He's not the only one, there are lots of them out there.

It's not anything to take seriously anymore than you'd take a Pauly Shore movie as indicative of the average person's life.
This is some guy who decided to call himself a pastor and be done with it. He's not a scholar, he's never been to school to study nary a thing and it'd be no different if we made our own YouTube video doing the same thing.

Fighter of Foo

03-21-2008, 08:30 AM

I have never heard a preacher discuss their views on politics or government at all, much less in "soaring rhetoric" from the pulpit.

How boring is your pastor/religious leader? I can't believe the subject of politics or government has NEVER come up at any church. That's ridiculous.

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 08:48 AM

How boring is your pastor/religious leader? I can't believe the subject of politics or government has NEVER come up at any church. That's ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous that it would. It's not like I've been to one church my entire life. I've lived in 6 states and been to numerous churches. Never once have I heard a discussion of politics or anything specific about government (I'm talking current events/opinons, etc., since many things can indirectly relate to "government" in general). What kind of preacher offers opinions/sermons on politics? It's an exceedingly rare occasion when a politician/candidate/elected official's name is specifically mentioned, much less discussion of politics or government actions in general.

If that's considered boring to you, then it sounds like we've got differing views on what a church service is supposed to focus on. I don't want or care about a minister's opinions on who I should or shouldn't vote for, or what legislation is or is not proper, or whether a war is or is not justified. I go to church to worship, not be told how God thinks I should vote.

Mizzou B-ball fan

03-21-2008, 09:02 AM

How boring is your pastor/religious leader? I can't believe the subject of politics or government has NEVER come up at any church. That's ridiculous.

It's actually quite dangerous to do that from a financial standpoint. A church leader could ruin his church's tax exempt status if he were to go too far in a political diatribe.

Fighter of Foo

03-21-2008, 09:31 AM

I find it ridiculous that it would. It's not like I've been to one church my entire life. I've lived in 6 states and been to numerous churches. Never once have I heard a discussion of politics or anything specific about government (I'm talking current events/opinons, etc., since many things can indirectly relate to "government" in general). What kind of preacher offers opinions/sermons on politics? It's an exceedingly rare occasion when a politician/candidate/elected official's name is specifically mentioned, much less discussion of politics or government actions in general.

If that's considered boring to you, then it sounds like we've got differing views on what a church service is supposed to focus on. I don't want or care about a minister's opinions on who I should or shouldn't vote for, or what legislation is or is not proper, or whether a war is or is not justified. I go to church to worship, not be told how God thinks I should vote.

And I'm not talking current events per se. You can't have a conversation about say, the book of Romans without delving into the proper role of government. Not possible.

In my experience, the stories are never so specific like the examples you cite. It's like every other church; you should live this way, here's why. The difference is, our esteemed politicians will get name dropped here and there and sometimes offered the chance to say a few words to the congregation. :) At least in the south, that's common throughout the larger churches, black and white alike.

TroyF

03-21-2008, 09:41 AM

When you said this, I thought that thankfully it wasn't too likely. Now I am not sure.

Yup, he's going off the dep end. That said, I'm not sure it's enough. I don't think it's enough to sway OR or NC voters at all. Which means my end game scenario still exists. Obama will win the popular vote, the state vote and the standard delegate vote. If Hillary takes it from him by the supers, many african american voters will feel they have been wronged. At best they'll stay home and not vote. At worst they'll cast a vote for Nader, Green Party or even McCain.

On the other side, I'm not sure I'd put five bucks on Obama winning the GE. This is an issue that will fester and won't go away. McCain is going to hammer home the experience card. He won't even have to work this story in because the media and right wingers will not let it go. That means Obama has to run the PERFECT campaign to win. No more scandals. He can't afford anymore stupid comments (ummm, Mr. Obama, I strongly suggest you keep your mouth shut about "typical white people")

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the day that we are looking at president McCain.

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 09:43 AM

And I'm not talking current events per se. You can't have a conversation about say, the book of Romans without delving into the proper role of government. Not possible.

In my experience, the stories are never so specific like the examples you cite. It's like every other church; you should live this way, here's why. The difference is, our esteemed politicians will get name dropped here and there and sometimes offered the chance to say a few words to the congregation. :) At least in the south, that's common throughout the larger churches, black and white alike.

That's why I specifically mentioned government in the general sense as opposed to specifics. The examples I cite are relevant because that's what we're talking about here. Wright, the Mac Daddy dude, and others apparently think it is appropriate to discuss these things. I do not.

I've lived most of my life in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and now Kentucky. Rarely, if ever, (I can't think of any, but I'm only waffling because I don't know for sure), has a politician's name ever come up at a church function I have attended, let alone in the preacher's sermon.

Malificent

03-21-2008, 10:10 AM

Yup, he's going off the dep end. That said, I'm not sure it's enough. I don't think it's enough to sway OR or NC voters at all. Which means my end game scenario still exists. Obama will win the popular vote, the state vote and the standard delegate vote. If Hillary takes it from him by the supers, many african american voters will feel they have been wronged. At best they'll stay home and not vote. At worst they'll cast a vote for Nader, Green Party or even McCain.

On the other side, I'm not sure I'd put five bucks on Obama winning the GE. This is an issue that will fester and won't go away. McCain is going to hammer home the experience card. He won't even have to work this story in because the media and right wingers will not let it go. That means Obama has to run the PERFECT campaign to win. No more scandals. He can't afford anymore stupid comments (ummm, Mr. Obama, I strongly suggest you keep your mouth shut about "typical white people")

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the day that we are looking at president McCain.

In the general, Obama gets the benefit of getting to bring the war back into focus again. It has been pushed aside as the two democrats fight it out. But in the general, Obama (or Hillary) gets to remind everyone of how much they hate the Bush administration and how much McCain should remind them of the Bush administration, especially when it comes to the war. That will balance things out.

Fighter of Foo

03-21-2008, 10:12 AM

I'm becoming more and more convinced by the day that we are looking at president McCain.

I'd be happy to take any bet on that that you'd like to place :)

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 10:14 AM

Well I'm sure this is nothing at all.

Two State Department employees have been fired and one more disciplined for illegally accessing Obama's passport file. Once the day after the NH primary. Once the day after the Texas debate and once the day after Wright broke. I'm sure we'll find out this was innocent just like when the exact same thing happened to Clinton in 1992.

I wouldn't be too shocked to learn the people involved are actually Hillary supporters. It's certainly possible that these were Republicans, but I don't think you can automatically assume that at this point.

Arles

03-21-2008, 10:33 AM

I find it ridiculous that it would. It's not like I've been to one church my entire life. I've lived in 6 states and been to numerous churches. Never once have I heard a discussion of politics or anything specific about government (I'm talking current events/opinons, etc., since many things can indirectly relate to "government" in general). What kind of preacher offers opinions/sermons on politics? It's an exceedingly rare occasion when a politician/candidate/elected official's name is specifically mentioned, much less discussion of politics or government actions in general.
I'm in the same boat. I attend church less than I did a while back, but I've been to churches in the "Bible belt", other areas of the midwest and a number out here in Arizona. Never once have I heard a political leader mentioned, voting preferences, ballot initiatives or even comments on abortion. It seems to me that the quickest way to have congregations walk out on you and go to the church down the street would be to expound heavy political ideology in your sermons. Most non-angry people don't want to go to church to be told how terrible everyone else is, they want to go to hear better ways to live their lives and improve upon the lives of their children.

JPhillips

03-21-2008, 10:35 AM

Cam: I'd agree that it could be Hillary supporters. My guess is that it was generally independent folks hoping to find something embarassing or catch Obama in a lie that they could post about. It's just very hard for me to trust this admin given the multitude of incidences where they've used the apparatuses of the government for partisan advantage.

In the end what's probably more worrisome is how it wasn't reported properly.

Arles

03-21-2008, 10:36 AM

I wouldn't be too shocked to learn the people involved are actually Hillary supporters. It's certainly possible that these were Republicans, but I don't think you can automatically assume that at this point.
I agree here. If you look at a vast majority of "anti-Bush" leaks, they come from the state department. Of all the areas within the administration to see a republican-based spying effort, the state department would be the last place I would look.

Grammaticus

03-21-2008, 10:37 AM

Apparently, the two that got fired were contractors.

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 10:40 AM

Not to mention, if it was some sort of organized effort, why would they need to go back multiple times?

JPhillips

03-21-2008, 10:41 AM

Ksyrup and Arles: I'm in no way doubting your experiences, but you have to know that pastors both left and right are talking politics every Sunday. The Christian Coalition has been using churches for a couple of decades. Black churches have been mixing in politics prominently since at least the civil rights era. A lot of megachurches with TV minitries attached, Hagee, World Harvest, etc. mix in politics and they have millions of attendees/viewers.

Glengoyne

03-21-2008, 10:42 AM

... the issue is done and it wasn't that big a deal to begin with, no matter how many folks who can't, weren't planning to or won't vote for him refuse to admit it.

Done? I was hearing about this on NPR on my way home last night. In fact they quit merely saying that Wright had made inflamatory statements, and finally started playing the sound bytes.

This isn't over. If NPR has gotten off of the fence on that side of the issue. I don't think it is off of the radar today.

JonInMiddleGA

03-21-2008, 10:47 AM

Rarely, if ever, (I can't think of any, but I'm only waffling because I don't know for sure), has a politician's name ever come up at a church function I have attended, let alone in the preacher's sermon.

+1

And I'm even more confident about the "never" part.

larrymcg421

03-21-2008, 10:54 AM

Breaking news from CNN: Hillary Clinton's passport file was breached in 2007.

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 11:05 AM

I agree here. If you look at a vast majority of "anti-Bush" leaks, they come from the state department. Of all the areas within the administration to see a republican-based spying effort, the state department would be the last place I would look.

Well, we DID see it back in 1992, but that was a Republican political appointee as opposed to contract employees like we have here.

I know they're out there, but I have yet to meet a Republican civil servant or bureaucrat since I moved here. And considering I run in largely conservative social circles, that's kinda surprising.

Cringer

03-21-2008, 11:06 AM

Not going to church makes sure you are not taken down by your own preacher. :D

st.cronin

03-21-2008, 11:10 AM

Michigan apparently won't be re-doing their primary, either.

Grammaticus

03-21-2008, 11:13 AM

Now they are reporting that Mcain's passport file was breached too.

st.cronin

03-21-2008, 11:18 AM

Clearly, agents of Ralph Nader are behind this.

Vegas Vic

03-21-2008, 11:20 AM

I wouldn't be too shocked to learn the people involved are actually Hillary supporters. It's certainly possible that these were Republicans, but I don't think you can automatically assume that at this point.

All three presidential candidates had their passport files breached. The conspiracy theorists need to move on to something else.

Passacaglia

03-21-2008, 11:23 AM

So I'm assuming it's just some curious folks passing the time. When I was a freshman at Michigan I worked for the Admissions office, and I looked up information on just about everyone I knew -- so I can understand.

Cringer

03-21-2008, 11:24 AM

Maybe it's Ron Paul and Nader teaming up to form a super secret alliance. It happens on Big Brother.

rkmsuf

03-21-2008, 11:26 AM

Maybe this is from the brilliant mind of Aston Kutcher and they are getting punked.

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 11:29 AM

All three presidential candidates had their passport files breached. The conspiracy theorists need to move on to something else.

No, I just read a post elsewhere that the McCain thing was either made up or purposely done to make it LOOK like it wasn't targeting the Dems. :rolleyes:

Arles

03-21-2008, 11:41 AM

My money's on a secret coalition between Mitt Romney and John Edwards to retake the presidency as the real "dream ticket". ;)

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 01:38 PM

Roland Martin makes some good points here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/roland.martin/index.html).

miked

03-21-2008, 01:43 PM

I think he also posted somewhere the entire 9/11 speech given by the Pastor just to show how out of context everything was, and how the speech was basically about violence breeding violence (our violence towards Native Americans, Mexicans, Japanese-nuke, etc). But, some people want to make it a straw man and bring the focus away from a never ending war and sagging economy. Not that any of the candidates has really gone in to detail on anything...

cartman

03-21-2008, 01:47 PM

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 02:06 PM

The 9/11 speech doesn't contain any of the comments I've been reading about or specifically objected to. It doesn't even have the GD America comment, which is what I thought started this whole thing. How does this speech become the focal point on Wright?

rkmsuf

03-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Ksyrup

03-21-2008, 02:20 PM

The only AIDS-related comment I recall from that speech was something about how little money the government is spending on AIDS research, education, and healthcare, yet they just paid out $40B to rebuild NY.

Galaril

03-21-2008, 02:32 PM

Well, Richardson's endorsement of Obama is helpful but maybe not as much in PA as Edwards would.

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 02:38 PM

Well, Richardson's endorsement of Obama is helpful but maybe not as much in PA as Edwards would.

I sorta see it at this point to being likened to a situation where you sign a player so your opponent can't. The rumor on the street is Edwards to Clinton, but conventional wisdom was Richardson to Clinton due to the ties. Maybe he's waiting until after the primary there? Who knows what he's doing. Maybe he's changing his chameleon outfit again.

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 03:40 PM

Interesting story on the black liberation theology I mentioned earlier. Frankly, I'm glad to see a newspaper talk about this rather than comb through more sermons from Rev. Wright or Rev. Moss. It'll be interesting to see how many of the McClatchy papers run this and how many other press entities use it as a springboard for stories of their own.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/31079.html

WASHINGTON — Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church.

Obama's speech Tuesday on race in America was hailed as a masterful handling of the controversy over divisive sermons by the longtime pastor of Trinity United, the recently retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

Today, Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stands by that view, but also makes clear that he doesn't believe that whites individually are the Antichrist.

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there.

He and other Chicagoans have praised Trinity's role as a melting pot that brings together blacks and some whites from all levels of wealth and education, boasts a joyous and energetic choir, and is deeply involved in community work, such as helping the homeless, the incarcerated and those touched by HIV and AIDS.

But Trinity has a history. Its affiliation with the United Church of Christ makes it part of a liberal, mostly white denomination that was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.

Trinity goes further, embracing black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces.

In that and related doctrines, the church and some of its guiding thinkers at times have been socially ahead of the curve and other times outside the mainstream of American religious and political thought.

For example, the 8,000-member congregation embraces the idea that Jesus was black. It's historically supported left-wing social and foreign policies, from South Africa to Latin America to the Middle East.

Wright, who hasn't been giving interviews since the controversy broke, told conservative TV talk-show host Sean Hannity last year that Trinity's black value system also had parallels to the liberation theology of laypeople in Nicaragua three decades ago. There, liberation theology became associated with Marxist revolution and the Sandinistas, and split the Roman Catholic Church.

White America today embraces Nelson Mandela, and he won the Nobel peace prize. But in the early 1980s, when the U.S. government considered Mandela's anti-Apartheid African National Congress a terrorist organization because of its support from communists and use of violence, Trinity became one of the first U.S. churches to support the group.

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology. Trinity officials also didn't respond to requests.

Obama's Illinois state and U.S. Senate voting records and his speeches suggest that, if elected president, he'd take a liberal but mainstream line and seek partisan bridge-building rather than agitation as his style.

It's possible that Obama joined Trinity as much because it gave him credibility as a newcomer to south side Chicago's black community as for its particular theological teachings.

"As a community organizer, would people join Trinity? Yes!" said Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago's divinity school. (He said he'd contributed $25 to Obama's campaign.)

However, "someone who wanted to run for public office would think twice about intentionally using Trinity as a leverage," Hopkins said. "When it's Election Day, all the politicians come to Trinity. But not every day."

Cone, the Union professor, said he didn't know Obama personally. He supports his candidacy and considers the senator's worldview as set out in books and speeches "certainly not alien to black theology.

"But it doesn't have as much of a radical edge to it," Cone said of Obama's view. "He couldn't succeed with my message. He speaks less of the hurt and the pain of African-American history. I think his own life has been less of that."

But Cone stands by his message, and sometimes Obama echoes it.

Consider this passage: "Hope is the expectation of that which is not. It is the belief that the impossible is possible, the 'not yet' is coming in history."

Those words sound as if they were pulled from Obama's latest campaign speech. Instead, they're from a memoir Cone wrote in the 1980s. In it, Cone said blacks shouldn't limit their hope to what the Republican and Democratic parties stand for. Then he posited a thought that voters are unlikely to hear from Obama:

"Together, black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society."

Asked about that, Cone said: "I'm not a Marxist. . . . I'm a theologian, and I want to change society. I was searching for my way forward. I want a society in which people have the distribution of wealth, but I don't know how quite to do that institutionally."

He said that the idea of a black Jesus didn't mean Jesus necessarily looked like a black African, but it did rule out Jesus being a white European. More importantly, he said it meant that Jesus "made a solidarity with the (oppressed) people of the land."

Black liberation theology doesn't hold that Africans or black Americans are superior to others. Cone said its concern for the oppressed often allied it with conventional liberal goals.

He argued early on the imperative of supporting women's rights and gay rights. He's said that environmentalism and fighting racism should go hand in hand, as minorities and Third World nations are affected disproportionately by pollution and the environmental costs of capitalism. Civil rights, black liberation and helping the oppressed all share the same values, he said.

"When the Berlin Wall came down, they were saying, 'We shall overcome.' In Tiananmen Square, they were saying, 'We shall overcome.' "

Liberation theology's stance on the rights of Palestinians likewise is informed by its emphasis on seeing God's mission through the lens of oppressed people.

"Black theological liberation is not anti-Israel. It's never been that Zionism is racism," theologian Hopkins said. "It's more for a truly two-state solution."

Still, Hopkins believes, "black theology liberation is to the left of Obama."

On Middle East policy, Obama is strongly pro-Israel. He's rejected an argument voiced by Wright that U.S. support of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians helped fuel the 9-11 attacks.

sterlingice

03-21-2008, 04:33 PM

Clearly, agents of Ralph Nader are behind this.

The dastards!

SI

Noop

03-21-2008, 04:37 PM

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/clintonwright2.jpeg

Means nothing I know but I thought it was worth posting.

cartman

03-21-2008, 05:11 PM

Is this the thread where we mention that Reagan seriously consulted with astrologers?

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 05:42 PM

Is this the thread where we mention that Reagan seriously consulted with astrologers?

Only if we can mention that at the time that was seen as awfully controversial, right?

cartman

03-21-2008, 05:47 PM

Only if we can mention that at the time that was seen as awfully controversial, right?

and then ultimately overlooked, right?

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 06:11 PM

It didn't become a controversy until 1988. Were you expecting a third term?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19880516,00.html

Besides which, astrology, while kooky, doesn't claim that the Libra is keeping the Scorpio down, nor does it proclaim that rich white Aries are creating deadly viruses and addictive drugs to give to the Virgos. But I believe the basic point of "I don't find this to be a big deal" vs. "I do find this to be a big deal" has kind of been beaten into the ground. I don't think you can rationally make the statement that "most people don't believe this is a big deal". Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day.

cartman

03-21-2008, 06:15 PM

Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day.

Like the polls from today that showed a marginal tick up for Obama? Not the free-fall that was expected.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

Vinatieri for Prez

03-21-2008, 06:24 PM

I don't think you can rationally make the statement that "most people don't believe this is a big deal". Obama's poll numbers over the past couple of days indicate it IS a story people are interested in, regardless of how big an issue it will be on Election Day.

I think you can rationalize this because "most people" in the U.S. right now are paying attention to politics in March, and couldn't care less what's going on in the primaries.

It will be all but forgotten or explained away by November.

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 06:40 PM

I haven't heard this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html) discussed anywhere, so I figured to post it anyway.

Politico talks about The Clinton Myth (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html).

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 07:25 PM

Cartman,

I was actually thinking about the Survey USA polls when I wrote that, but hell, even Gallup notes that Obama's support has fallen from 50% a week ago to a low of 42% (and now back up to 45%). Yes, Obama's taken a hit in his public support no matter how you slice it.

I think you can rationalize this because "most people" in the U.S. right now are paying attention to politics in March, and couldn't care less what's going on in the primaries.

It will be all but forgotten or explained away by November.

I won't waste any energy trying to persuade you otherwise, but I think you're wrong on both counts.

Buccaneer

03-21-2008, 07:52 PM

Roland Martin makes some good points here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/roland.martin/index.html).

Roland Martin always makes some good point (he's by far my favorite columnist).

Cringer

03-21-2008, 08:57 PM

Cringer

03-21-2008, 09:06 PM

One more, which helps me understand "God Damn America" much better. Nice to see the comments in context.....

The key line is at the end, but the build up makes you understand it, especially the last couple minutes.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RvMbeVQj6Lw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RvMbeVQj6Lw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 09:07 PM

I found this interesting....

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html)

Meet the man who inspired Reverend Jeremiah Wright's now famous tirade about America's foreign policy inciting the terrorist attacks of September 11.

His name is Ambassador Edward Peck. And he is a retired, white, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter -- hardly the black-rage image with which Wright has been stigmatized.

In fact, when Wright took the pulpit to give his post-9/11 address -- which has since become boiled down to a five second sound bite about "America's chickens coming home to roost" -- he prefaced his remarks as a "faith footnote," an indication that he was deviating from his sermon.

"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday," Wright declared. "He was on Fox News. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true: America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright then went on to list more than a few U.S. foreign policy endeavors that, by the tone of his voice and manner of his expression, he viewed as more or less deplorable. This included, as has been demonstrated in the endless loop of clips from his sermon, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuking "far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."

"Violence begets violence," Wright said, "hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."

And then he concluded by putting the comments on Peck's shoulders: "A white ambassador said that yall, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open and is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice... the ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them... let me stop my faith footnote right there."

Watch the video (the relevant material starts around the 3:00 mark):

So it seems that while Wright did believe American held some responsibility for 9/11, his views, which have been described as radically outside the political mainstream, were actually influenced by a career foreign policy official.

Who is Peck? The ambassador, who has offered controversial criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank but also warned against the Iraq War, was lecturing on a cruise ship and was unavailable for comment. But officials at Peck's former organization, the Council for the National Interest, a non-profit group that advocates reducing Israel's influence on U.S. Middle East policy, offered descriptions of the man.

"Peck is very outspoken," said Eugene Bird, who now heads CNI. "He is also very good at making phrases that have a resonance with the American people. When he came off of that Fox News, a few days later he said they would never invite me back again."

And what, exactly, did Peck say in that Fox News interview that inspired Wright's words?

Here are some quotes from an appearance the Ambassador made on the network on October 11, 2001, which may or may not have been the segment Wright was referring to. On the show, Peck said he thought it was illogical to tie Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and that while the then-Iraqi leader had "some very sound and logical reasons not to like [the United States]," he and Osama bin Laden had no other ties.

From there, Peck went on to ascribe motives for what prompted the 9/11 attacks. "Stopping the economic embargo and bombings of Iraq," he said, "things to which Osama bin Laden has alluded as the kinds of things he doesn't like. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things that he sees us as having been doing, the same way Saddam Hussein feels. So from that perspective, they have a commonality of interests. But they also have a deeply divergent view of the role of Islam in government, which would be a problem."

Buccaneer

03-21-2008, 09:24 PM

Ah, a Jimmy Carter connection. Probably says it all.

Young Drachma

03-21-2008, 09:25 PM

President of the United Church of Christ at Trinity UCC. Comments might surprise you.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GA0vEys1oxY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GA0vEys1oxY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 09:31 PM

Ward Churchill also used the "chickens are coming home to roost" line too, but I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "pseudo-Native American rage".

Peck is also a "Truther" (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), so I'm not sure that he adds any legitimacy to Rev. Wright.

It seems to me the tone of that piece is to try to say that since in this case, Wright quoted a white guy, he can't possibly be a racist. But Wright himself took pains to point out that Peck is white. Who the hell cares what color his skin is? This is what I mean about EVERY action or comment having to be seen through the prism of race.

CamEdwards

03-21-2008, 09:37 PM

stevew

03-21-2008, 09:42 PM

I've been wondering why nobody has reported on the Clinton almost ZERO chance of winning the standard delegate count. Even if she takes 60 percent of remaining delegates, she can't beat Barack. And the re-votes would do nothing but further solidify Barack, and may just give him enough votes to clinch the nomination. The rest of the supers aren't going to break 100 percent to her, I mean there's basically no reason she's still in this race. It makes her look more like the egotistical whore that she is.

JPhillips

03-21-2008, 10:55 PM

Cam: Since nobody else will answer I'll ask you. What's fundamentally different between saying America's chickens are coming home to roost and blaming 9/11 on our sins and immorality? That's a position held by hundreds of thousands or millions of largely Republican voters.

On church leadership, I think UCC operates roughly the same as The Disciples of Christ. I know we have a lot of connections and I think "management" works the same way. In Disciples churches the idea is that the congregation develops the church. We have wildly liberal and more conservative churches. My church in Silver Spring was multi-racial and politically diverse. One of the big downtown Disciples churches was almost all black and more liberal. If you go farther towards Gaithersburg they're almost all white.

If the UCC works the same way it has much less to do with liberal politics and much more in a fundamental belief in the autonomy of individual churches.

Cringer

03-21-2008, 11:11 PM

And no, the comments don't surprise me. UCC is a socially liberal church and has been for years. I'm sure the church leadership doesn't see anything particularly controversial about Rev. Wright's comments, nor would they see a need to step in and tell the church what to say. To do so in this case would probably be seen as abhorrent in the context of liberation theology.

In an honest attempt to understand your position on this I am asking these questions. Hopefully it comes out sounding like I mean it, non-confrontational or even biased one way or the other.....

Do you believe the whole speech as it is is still controversial and borderline hate speech? If yes, then what is it that you feel is so wrong about it, that it is in a church? That it is talking about (in an angry tone?) the wrongs of our past to present governments as seen by him (and many others in this country)?

st.cronin

03-22-2008, 08:22 AM

flere-imsaho

03-22-2008, 08:35 AM

In an interview that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."

McCain has attempted to distance himself from some of Hagee's views, much as Barack Obama is doing in relation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But unlike McCain, Obama has not stood on stage with Wright and accepted his accolades this year.

Interviewed by Deborah Solomon, Hagee refused to discuss his statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans, calling it "so far off-base." He claims, "Our church is not hard against the gay people. Our church teaches what the bible teaches, that it is not a righteous lifestyle. But of course we must love even sinners."

Stephen Colbert:

But the real problem here is not whether the Senator attended church, or whether he was aware of his reverend’s views, but how he handled an inflammatory spiritual leader during a presidential campaign. If you want to know how to do it right, ask John McCain. He also has a long-standing and complicated relationship with controversial preachers: Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Now I’m not comparing Falwell and Robertson to Jeremiah Wright, after all, the Sunday after September 11th, Rev. Wright said this:

Wright: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Chickens? Roost? That implies we have the terrorists cooped up in tiny cages for years and we didn’t do that until after 9/11. By comparison, Falwell and Robertson delivered a touching sermon three days after September 11th:

Fallwell: “I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them, who tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”

Robertson: “I totally concur”

It is even more inspiring than their sermon about the two sets of footprints on the beach. The second set belongs to a gay dude sneaking up on you. Run, Jesus! But like the out of control Rev. Wright, Falwell and Robertson were also condemned by a presidential candidate. During John McCain’s 2000 campaign, he called them both “agents of intolerance.” But before this campaign, McCain did what was necessary to win. Here’s what he said about them this time:

McCain: I believe that the “Christian Right “ has a major role to play in the Republican Party.”

Russert: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

McCain: No, I don’t.

He embraced them. In fact, in 2006, McCain gave the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University. I’m telling you folks, the man is such a maverick, he is even independent from his own true feelings! McCain was able to cozy up to preachers who say that gays and Satanists are the same thing and it’s a non-issue. I think that Obama’s mistake is that he did it backwards. If he had denounced Rev. Wright years ago, then quietly embraced him for this election, he could have spent the time he wasted on yesterday’s speech focusing on the issues that really matter.

Good stuff. As you were.

Arles

03-22-2008, 10:33 AM

got a chuckle out of this:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_vH5f59Og-Sc/R-Nfx9rOEcI/AAAAAAAAC_I/586jLLl50hw/s400/payn080320_03_cmyk.jpg

And, for a little balance on both dem candidates:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_vH5f59Og-Sc/R-Qp19rOEfI/AAAAAAAAC_k/EX9gxhayHc4/s400/holb080321.jpg

Dutch

03-22-2008, 12:48 PM

Good stuff. As you were.

Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

miked

03-22-2008, 05:55 PM

Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

Unless they are future cabinet members or will be consulting on policy decisions, what does it really matter? Really, all this is getting old and has no bearing on anyone's "fitness" to be president. People can chase this strawman all they want, but this overreaction just hurts the party (part of the reason Hillary has stayed silent). I mean, of course the people who support Bush/McCain will jump all over it, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing this guy said is really that much different from some other guys like Falwell/Robertson.

Young Drachma

03-22-2008, 05:56 PM

Why Richardson's endorsement matters (http://www.slate.com/id/2187113/)