Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Rasmussen tracking poll today showed Obama's lead over Clinton drop from +8 to +1. I'll bet those numbers aren't poll variance, but a genuine look at how badly this has hurt Obama.

The worst possible for thing for Obama is to be lumped together with what most of white America sees as the radical black political class. A lot of people will hear about this and unfairly see him as an ideological twin of Al Sharpton.

You got your USA lapel pin on? Neither do I! God damn America!

[miked]

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

God damn, Americans!

[rowech]

Originally Posted by miked

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

Exactly. Obama thought it was a big enough deal to stop wearing it.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

Yeah McCain can be trusted, to continue the process of running the country into the ground.

Originally Posted by miked

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

Uh oh, looks like someone isn't swayed by the FUD. Quickly, someone send Paul Begala over there.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Yeah McCain can be trusted, to continue the process of running the country into the ground.



Uh oh, looks like someone isn't swayed by the FUD. Quickly, someone send Paul Begala over there.

Generally, a president doens't run anything into the ground. Congress does. Congress runs the country both good and bad. All they have to do is stop funding the war. It's that simple. But they won't. They don't have the guts to do it. The system is perfectly designed as long as people are willing to do what it takes to stop abuses. If they're not, then you get situations like we have here.

As for our country running into the ground, that's going to continue to happen no matter who is elected. Our CITIZENS are the ones that are destroying it. We're the ones that run to the doctor for a sniffle and then cry when insurance rates skyrocket. We're the ones who have lost any sense of morality and right/wrong. We're the ones who spend more than we have and cry about it so the government will bail us out. We're the ones who have three kids too many but have a fourth just to get more money. We're the ones who won't allow schools to actually discipline and expect our kids to do what they're supposed to do.

NOBODY is going to help these things. It doesn't matter who goes in there.

[JPhillips]

So a person can't change, can't make new decisions based on new information?

Guess what's missing in this picture.



This kind of gotcha politics is so fucking stupid. Would wearing two flag pins be better? Or should you wear one big one like a super patriotic Flavor Flav? What about a flag suit? Or a full body flag tattoo?

My vote this year will be based on two factors, the metric volume of flag the candidate wears and how close the flag's colors match the Pantone colors of the base flag. That will be in a 62 to 38 ratio.

[JPhillips]

dola

Saw this summary of a new study that seems appropriate here.

According to the research of Drew Western, political partisans -- and especially the smart, well-informed ones -- not only feel better when their brains downplay contradictory political information, they actually get a little emotional "high" when the brain (unconsciously) rejects evidence that contradicts their deeply held political beliefs. In a series of brain scans of political partisans asked to consider contradictory statements by the politicians they supported, Western found that the brain reverted to the comfort zone of its long-held biases -- and doing so actually made people feel good.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Guess what's missing in this picture.

He's not blaming America for 9/11 and saying God damn? Or what did you mean?

[Young Drachma]

Tracy Morgan sounds drunk.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Tracy Morgan sounds drunk.

He always sounds drunk. but that bit was funny. "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

He's not blaming America for 9/11 and saying God damn? Or what did you mean?

So now Obama blames America for 9/11 and says goddamn? By this logic McCain blames God for 9/11 and thinks the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Of course neither candidate believes any of this, which should be the point.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So now Obama blames America for 9/11 and says goddamn? By this logic McCain blames God for 9/11 and thinks the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Of course neither candidate believes any of this, which should be the point.

Hagee would better equate to Luis Farrakan. The relationship between Obama and Wright is not just a simple endorsement for President from a controversial person.

[JPhillips]

Regardless, Obama didn't say what you alleged.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Regardless, Obama didn't say what you alleged.

But he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, or have a yellow "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon on his car. How much more clear can it be?

[Young Drachma]

I hope this is the beginning of the end. I look forward to the delicious revolt that will ensue and using this as the final thing to kill all of the hope of those not part of the baby boom generation. They want to take this country down with them and they'll succeed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

But he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, or have a yellow "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon on his car. How much more clear can it be?

You're right. Like Obama, I could really care less about the lapel. It's what in his heart that matters. Of course, he gets most of his heart-felt guidance from Wright...but I digress.

[Noop]

Wait who the hell are you guys going for?

As far as I am concerned we are fucked. McCain, Clinton, or Obama I would vote for Obama not because he is black but because he is in my eyes different then your normal Manchurian candidate. I simply refuse to vote for a women whose only thing of merit is standing by her cheating husband who has been doing it for years so she can use him for political gain.

I am so tired of this dog and puppy show.

[Vegas Vic]

Getting back on track, here's why I believe that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance in the general election. He's a three year senator with no legislative accomplisments. This has been a non-issue during the primaries, but it will be a big deal during the fall campaign.

[Young Drachma]

They were getting ahead of this a while ago (this stuff was posted on the web back in January), so they knew it would blow up eventually.

[Young Drachma]

[Toddzilla]

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

1.) The visual of Wright screaming "God Damn America" is almost tailor-made to get people upset.

2.) Most Americans are white Christians, so most Americans realize that it is possible to be Christian and not agree with Robertson, etc. Indeed, most Americans probably fit into that camp. So it is easier for them to reconcile the idea that just because Falwell endorses a politican does not mean that the politician beleives everything that Falwell says. Since most Americans do not belong to a "black" church, they are not as comfortable with the idea that every black Christian does not beleive the most inflammatory statements made by the leadership of the religion. (See also, Islam).

3.) Wright raises the specter of "Black Militants." Catholic/white Christian militants have not been as much of a problem since the Crusades. (But see, abortion clinic bombings).

4.) Deep down, most of us know that Robertson, etc. are crazy old men. It just isn't news anymore. We don't respect them enough to be shocked when they go on one of their "God hates the fags and the myspace.com" rants.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

Hagee is not a personal friend of McCain. McCain basically got an endorsement from a fringe guy.

Obama got an endorsement from a fringe guy, but one that he has had a 20 year relationship with. One who married he and his wife, baptised his children, etc. He went to this person's church for 20 years. So you are going to tell me that he went to this guy's church for 20 years, and never said, "You know what, I disagree with what this guy is preaching. Let's go to another church."

The other problem that I have, is this shows a big problem with his ability to judge people. Let's look at Bush. People despise Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and co. People have claimed that Bush is a poor judge of talent and character (which I think is a difference in ideology rather than talent or ability). Yet, here is Obama, who shows an even greater (IMO) lack of judgement, and we are supposed to over look it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

Because black candidates can't be angry or associate with angry black folks. It scares white people and that's not acceptable.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Getting back on track, here's why I believe that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance in the general election. He's a three year senator with no legislative accomplisments. This has been a non-issue during the primaries, but it will be a big deal during the fall campaign.

As well it should. I may not be a huge fan of McCain. I may disagree with much of the stuff that he has done, but out of the people remaining in the race, he is the only one that has gotten stuff done in Washington.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Because black candidates can't be angry or associate with angry black folks. It scares white people and that's not acceptable.

And angry white folks are considered acceptable candidates? I mean come one, Pat Buchanan in '12 baby!

[Young Drachma]

Link

Far from putting the controversial issue of race behind him, Barack Obama has decided to address the issue head on in a speech Tuesday.

I think it's a mistake to keep addressing it and yet, I think he wants to be a watershed speech on the role of faith in this election. One thing this whole reverend this has done by accident, is it's burnished the idea that he's a Christian in the mainstream media to where people won't be duped by the "OMG he's a Moslem!" talk if he were to win the Dem nomination.

In a way, that might be the reason his team played along with this. Because even though this sucks, they'd much rather fight this versus accusations that he's of a different faith. In some ways, it might make him "more black" to have a fiery black preacher.

The folks who think this will torpedo his campaign don't understand how small this thing is in the grand scheme of things and of all of the things that could come up for them, it's better than Rezko or other stuff. So...it might been a blessing in disguise, a conclusion that I didn't come to until just now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Hagee is not a personal friend of McCain. McCain basically got an endorsement from a fringe guy.

Obama got an endorsement from a fringe guy, but one that he has had a 20 year relationship with. One who married he and his wife, baptised his children, etc. He went to this person's church for 20 years. So you are going to tell me that he went to this guy's church for 20 years, and never said, "You know what, I disagree with what this guy is preaching. Let's go to another church."

Yep, that's about right. I mean this isn't some random guy pledging fealty to the candidate. This is a guy that he's known and associated with for a couple decades now. And this guy hasn't recently been nuts. He's been saying this stuff for years. Now, granted, Obama may have been going up there for political reasons (the preacher is quite a powerful person in that neck of the woods), but that does run in the face of his message of ending politics as usual.

So it's a bigger deal here for real reasons.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And angry white folks are considered acceptable candidates? I mean come one, Pat Buchanan in '12 baby!

Bad example. We're talking about candidates who associate with people who might have crazy ideas or say outrageous things that make people squirm. Going to Falwell's church or to Bob Jones University back when it still had a campus rule that outlawed interracial dating was still something that was acceptable and even required by candidates in the GOP.

These aren't exactly bastions of "progressive" thought from the perspective of embracing all Americans. But that's allowed because folks just dismiss them as being wingnuts on the margins of religious thought.

On the flip, the experience of the 'average' person with the black church is nil and so, hearing what Wright said seemed outrageous out of context because it forces them to confront things in a perspective that they'd not really willing to delve into.

But what informs that rhetoric has a lot more layers and so, while I'd hardly call it 'acceptable', I'll say that it's on par with what those other people did or still do. And the conservative southern church circuit is still and will be undoubtedly part of what helps the GOP win again this year.

It's on par, but they're treating (Wright) as if he's worse, when it's not.

[Young Drachma]

I'd be astounded if John McCain will be able to beat Obama or Clinton. McCain is no Reagan, he's basically a liberal version of Bob Dole. I just don't see how he'll be able to connect to the larger public, unless the vaunted split of the left happens between now and November.

Folks here are using their brains too hard on this one. You imagine a debate between McCain and Obama and think that McCain will wipe the floor with him due to his knowledge of specifics and detail of which he understands certain issues.

But it's not going to be that easy for the geezer. Because this is a beauty pageant, not an election and hasn't been for a while. McCain is going to be sold as Bush III and will have a hard time separating himself from that. If Gore couldn't beat Bush riding the wave of the "success" of the Clinton years, you can only imagine that McCain's uphill battle will be just as fierce, even if it doesn't look that way right now.

The best is yet to come.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Bad example. We're talking about candidates who associate with people who might have crazy ideas or say outrageous things that make people squirm. Going to Falwell's church or to Bob Jones University back when it still had a campus rule that outlawed interracial dating was still something that was acceptable and even required by candidates in the GOP.

Yes, it was necessary to get votes, but we're not talking about having a personal relationship with these people or even having to share some of their views.

Additionally, Bob Jones was always looked upon as a wacko place (can't comment on Falwell's church cause I never really listened to what he had to say).

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's on par, but they're treating (Wright) as if he's worse, when it's not.

You're missing the point. The difference is the closeness to the candidate. Obama has close ties to Wright. That is the problem with this. No republican candidate has had close ties to Bob Jones University, that I am aware of.

[CamEdwards]

Well, tomorrow should be interesting with Obama promising to "deliver a major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this moment in our history."

I have to say I admire Obama's guts to continue to try and respond to this. It's either a gutsy move or an incredibly stupid one. As Warhammer and others have noted, this isn't the same as Hagee or a Falwell endorsing McCain. This is Obama's pastor. The man who officiated at Obama's marriage. The man who baptized the Obama children. The man who blessed the Obama house. There are many Americans who attend church every Sunday who don't have the close relationship with their pastor that Obama has with Rev. Wright.

Forget the "God Damn America" comment for a second. What about "The U-S of K-K-K A"? Or "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." Or hell, let's use the whole "God Damn America quote.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

As a white guy, I have a problem with these statements. As the father of two black children, I have a problem with these statements. Further, I cannot imagine being a part of a church whose pastor routinely made statements like this, no matter the color of his skin. It's not a message of unity. It's a message of division. It's not the audacity of hope. It's the abdicating of personal responsibility and the scapegoating of government for all of our ills.

And what has Obama said to this point about Wright?

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

"[He] is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with"

And from his campaign:
"Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

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.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

Now, if Obama says "If elected, I am going to appoint Pastor Wright to an important position in government in which he will help guide the nation's policies on race and religion," then we have a totally different situation. Which is why I don't think that Obama/Wright is like Bush being a poor judge of talent. If Donald Rumsfeld was just Bush's friend who had a poor understanding of military history and middle-eastern cultures, it wouldn't have mattered so much. It only became, in my mind, grounds for serious criticism when he was made Secretary of Defense.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

Cam was posting when I was writing, so I didn't see his post above mine. He does raise a good point, though. The relationship that Obama has with Wright is one to which every voter should pay attention. And, if warranted, one should decide how to view Obama based on that. I don't mean to suggest by my comment above that we should never judge politicians by their friends/mentors. Just that I think we do it way too much.

And I can see why Obama is coming out with a speech on this. Based on one of the main arguments that Clinton is making against him ("Obama hasn't been vetted"), he cannot afford to have any skeletons.

Also, if this really is a deal breaker (i.e. keeps him from being a viable general election candidate), then does it not make sense for the good of the Democratic party to figure that out now, while there is still a chance to nominate Clinton? If he lets this fester, he might be handing the election to McCain. He wants to win, sure. But he wants to win the presidency, not just the nomination. And, as a guy who would hold his nose and vote for Clinton over McCain, I would rather the Dems put up the best candidate possible than rush to judgment on this.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

Now, if Obama says "If elected, I am going to appoint Pastor Wright to an important position in government in which he will help guide the nation's policies on race and religion," then we have a totally different situation. Which is why I don't think that Obama/Wright is like Bush being a poor judge of talent. If Donald Rumsfeld was just Bush's friend who had a poor understanding of military history and middle-eastern cultures, it wouldn't have mattered so much. It only became, in my mind, grounds for serious criticism when he was made Secretary of Defense.

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said? Wright was already on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee... is it that odd to think he wouldn't have found a place for his pastor had this controversy not erupted?

[Ksyrup]

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said? Wright was already on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee... is it that odd to think he wouldn't have found a place for his pastor had this controversy not erupted?

Agreed. The comments about Rumsfeld are hindsight. Are we supposed to wait until after it happens to question Obama's decision to make Wright a part of his circle of advisors?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

On the other hand, apparently Obama could name Wright the new Surgeon General and we'd solve the AIDS epidemic the day after inauguration. And since the government is providing the drugs to black people so it can put them in jail, if Wright does double duty as drug czar we can win the war on drugs in a heartbeat as well.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said?

No. I think that this discussion is healthy for democracy. Wright is an aspect of Obama's character, and it is good that we are learning about it now rather than later.

I was simply responding to the point someone made above that criticism of Cheney, et al. is similar to criticism of Wright. It is not. Now, if you want to make the argument that Obama will appoint people like Wright to positions of power, then we are getting a lot closer to the things about which people have criticized Bush. And I can't really say that I have a read on that.

I take comfort in the fact that Obama picks up the phone and calls guys like Cass Sunstein before making big decisions. But I need to examine myself and make sure that I am not ignoring the fact that, after he hangs up with Professor Sunstein, he's not calling up the Reverand Nutjob to solidify his decision.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, tomorrow should be interesting with Obama promising to "deliver a major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this moment in our history."

I have to say I admire Obama's guts to continue to try and respond to this. It's either a gutsy move or an incredibly stupid one. As Warhammer and others have noted, this isn't the same as Hagee or a Falwell endorsing McCain. This is Obama's pastor. The man who officiated at Obama's marriage. The man who baptized the Obama children. The man who blessed the Obama house. There are many Americans who attend church every Sunday who don't have the close relationship with their pastor that Obama has with Rev. Wright.

Forget the "God Damn America" comment for a second. What about "The U-S of K-K-K A"? Or "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." Or hell, let's use the whole "God Damn America quote.



As a white guy, I have a problem with these statements. As the father of two black children, I have a problem with these statements. Further, I cannot imagine being a part of a church whose pastor routinely made statements like this, no matter the color of his skin. It's not a message of unity. It's a message of division. It's not the audacity of hope. It's the abdicating of personal responsibility and the scapegoating of government for all of our ills.

And what has Obama said to this point about Wright?

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

"[He] is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with"

And from his campaign:
"Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

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 Obama's problem is, he's basically been spending the last 20 or so years in a crash course on black America. He's not sure how to approach this because it never occurred to him that it would come up in the way that it has. I think he's still a neophyte when it comes to understanding these issues, because he didn't grow up with them as a young boy living on the mainland in an inner city context. I mean, he's a smart guy..but I just don't think he understands the dialectic between white and black America in the manner that those of who have lived in it for better or worse since we showed up here have dealt with it.

I think it's vexing him and his team and it'll be interesting to see what his speech will do to the dialogue.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

So we're going to cut him a break for not being the originator? Huh? The man is a leader in the black community. As such, he has a responsibility to do more than simply "play to his base" in order to get people to come to his church. And especially when that includes paranoid delusional propagandist bullshit I can read on conspiracy theory websites, then yeah, I hold him responsible for continuing to disseminate that kind of information.

I'm not sure what would be worse - if he believes it, or if he doesn't believe it but chooses to spread it to "play to the base." This isn't about entertainment where a rock band pretends to be satanist to sell albums because they know controversy sells. I think the leader of a church ought to be just a bit more responsible for his actions than that.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

Something just struck me. You know what's been missing from ALL of Obama's explanations about his relationship with Wright? Something like this:

"I too have been bewildered and hurt by some of Rev. Wright's claims. But is it better to hide your head in the sand and ignore the fact that these rumors exist in many black communities, or is it better to engage someone like Rev. Wright and try to convince them they're wrong? For twenty years, I've sat in Rev. Wright's church, but our relationship has been a dialogue, not a sermon. You've heard what Rev. Wright told his flock, but you've not heard what this lamb had to say to his shepard."

Frankly, that might've been Obama's best option, but I don't think he can pull that card out at this late date without at least alluding to it earlier.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not sure what would be worse - if he believes it, or if he doesn't believe it but chooses to spread it to "play to the base." This isn't about entertainment where a rock band pretends to be satanist to sell albums because they know controversy sells. I think the leader of a church ought to be just a bit more responsible for his actions than that.

I know quite a few Catholic priests that have to toe the Vatican line during their homilies but outside of church privately express their misgivings on some of the policies of the Vatican.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Something just struck me. You know what's been missing from ALL of Obama's explanations about his relationship with Wright? Something like this:

"I too have been bewildered and hurt by some of Rev. Wright's claims. But is it better to hide your head in the sand and ignore the fact that these rumors exist in many black communities, or is it better to engage someone like Rev. Wright and try to convince them they're wrong? For twenty years, I've sat in Rev. Wright's church, but our relationship has been a dialogue, not a sermon. You've heard what Rev. Wright told his flock, but you've not heard what this lamb had to say to his shepard."

Frankly, that might've been Obama's best option, but I don't think he can pull that card out at this late date without at least alluding to it earlier.

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing, that he could basically play it up as "I'm giving him another perspective..." rather than "he's teaching me things."

But, I don't think he'll be able to pull that off convincingly. His team's lack of political savvy is going to have to be boned up. They might be a good organization and have a good ground game, but they're going to get eaten alive tactically if they don't get their operatives in order.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by cartman

I know quite a few Catholic priests that have to toe the Vatican line during their homilies but outside of church privately express their misgivings on some of the policies of the Vatican.

And again, I don't see the connection. What part of "the government invented HIV to kill off blacks" is part of an honest debate with which people can reasonably be on either side? This isn't about having private misgivings about a part of your faith, this is about claiming as fact things that are utterly insane.

In the Catholic context, this would be like a Priest taking the position that child molestation is OK. Not ignoring it, like the church did for years, but coming straight out and endorsing it. That's not an argument where we just "agree to disagree."

[cartman]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that what a priest/preacher says at the pulpit isn't necessarily what they believe off of the pulpit. Goes back to your point and Dark Cloud's of "preaching to the choir".

[SuperGrover]

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 agree. His campaign is one of uniting an America beyond political ties. The video clip of his pastor is not exactly a rallying cry for the majority of Americans.