Christianity, Obama, Identity Politics and Liberation Theology

Senator Barack Obama has been severely burned by the recently released videos (it appears that Hillary has been a busy bee lately) of his self described spiritual mentor and role model showing an ugly side that is offensive and downright repugnant to most thinking people.

Obama is nervous, backpedaling and apparently running as far away from Pastor Jeremiah ‘Old Uncle, The US of KKKA’ Wright as he can get at the moment. On My Faith and My Church

“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.” - Barack Obama

Ah yes, the “ignorant boob” defense.

So Obama is attempting to tell us that the pastor who preached to him, married him, counseled him, baptized his children, and served as his personal mentor and spiritual adviser suddenly blindsided him right before his presidential bid with socialist, divisive, black liberation theology and hateful anti-American rhetoric that apparently had never ever been uttered in Obama’s presence before (let along discussed in his general vicinity by even one fellow member of the congregation) in the last twenty three years? Am I supposed to believe this? Anyone? Good grief. Are we to believe that the good pastor was suddenly seized some sort of late mid-life crisis that forced him over the edge or perhaps he had an epiphany that projected him into the realm of hatred, vicious diviseness and bitterness?

Do those in the Obama camp really believe the rest of us are that stupid?

I managed to get my father to agree to an short impromptu ‘interview’ for this column. He has been a pastor for forty years and during that time has served in several different denominations in several different churches. In the course of that time he has been in a position of spiritual authority over, and provided spiritual guidance to, thousands of people. He has a fairly broad, balanced and deep understanding of Biblical theology, people’s nature, and Christianity as a whole and has dedicated his life to being a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I asked him whether or not in his forty years of pastoring if he has ever seen or heard of anyone sitting under a pastor for twenty years without having a good idea of what that pastor stands for and believes both ideologically and theologically. I also asked him whether someone would even agree to be under the spiritual authority of a pastor for that long of period of time while disagreeing vehemently with him on such significant issues as the ones Obama supposedly disagrees with his pastor about.

The answer to both questions was a definitive “No”. I also asked him if he had ever been called ‘like an old Uncle’ for his beliefs from a member of his congregation and that also elicited a smile and a ‘No’ as well.

After a lot of private discussion he refused to offer any public condemnation of Jeremiah Wright mainly because he had not listened to the comments himself and would reserve public judgment until he could make a truly balanced and informed decision with all the facts plainly laid out. (He is a wise man.)

My father did pass on a couple of thoughts for our readers to ponder on the more general issue of identity politics, liberation theology and race based religion. First of all was that the dream and vision of Martin Luther King Jr. certainly doesn’t mesh with the black liberation/identity theology being preached by Obama’s pastor.

The second was the scripture verse:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.- Galatians 3:28

Posted by David M. Huntwork at March 17, 2008 1:40 AM
Comments
Comment #248193

Obama, severely burned? Didn’t appear that way in his interview in which he appeared to have calm and comfortable control of the situation. He discovers a friend is making outrageous comments when Obama is not present, and Obama rebukes the outrageous comments and distances himself from that friend’s views. We all have friends that could do that to us if we were running for president. Hillary discovered this in Geraldine Ferraro. McCain will likely discover this too before this campaign is over.

Burned? Sounds like wishful thinking to me from the party that wants to play “Let’s him and her fight”. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 17, 2008 5:57 AM
Comment #248195

McCain has had to do this a couple of times before, but of course, he was accused of having the same views but using those people as ‘attack dogs’ while he appeared above the fray. He has also been severely criticized by many on the left for being endorsed by several religious groups.

I’m sure that it is different for Obama, because, well, he’s Obama…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 7:13 AM
Comment #248196

The Eagle’s pep talk to Barak:

It’s all about judgement, Barak.

Judgement to lead this country as commander and chief.

Judgement to surround yourself with people who preach the essence of what Jesus Christ said: love.

Judgement to protect the minds and attitudes of your children.

You failed, Barak.

The onion is being peeled back…the vetting process, which hasn’t even started yet by the Republicans, has exposed you during the junior varsity warm-up.

The guy who you “dis-invited” to your campaign kick-off announcement, Jerimahia Wright…who was supposed to publicly lead the introductory prayer…the guy who baptized your kids, married you and Michelle. preached to you for 20 years, and you call your “uncle”…is a racist hate monger.

Your judgement of whom you allow to influence your philosopy is fatally flawed..and now so are you.

Today, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on your African American Religious Leadership Committee.

If that guy is qualified to sit on any religious committee, then so is Hitler, Barak.

Consirer these words of wisdom from your “pastor”

About Hillary:

“Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was.Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain’t never been called a ‘nigger!’ Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person.”

On opportunity is America…the same America that educated you and your wife at Harvard Law School, and gave you that 2 million dollar Chicago mansion (with a little help from one of your corrupt campaign contributors):

“Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?”


How about this one from a sermon by your “pastor” shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorism attacks?

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”


Or on the treatment of Africa-Americans:

“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.”

Quite a guy, Barak…your pastor. This is the guy who you quoted in your book, inspired you?

Ah, Barak…we hardly knew ye……time for your campaign to fold its tent, I think….you have been exposed.

The Mighty Eagle

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 17, 2008 7:17 AM
Comment #248197

There is a big difference between an often held up mentor and a simple campaign supporter or associate.
To feign ignorance of your own mentor’s ideals shows he is either an extremely poor judge of character (not too bright). or agreed with the racist comments until they jeopardized the white vote.

Posted by: Kruser at March 17, 2008 8:52 AM
Comment #248200

Don’t start about crazy preacher friends. One of the folks whose endorsement John McCain sought believes that America was founded to destroy Islam.. Another has called the Catholic Church The Great Whore, blamed the holocaust on the sins of the Jews, and when Katrina struck, He claimed it was the judgment of God for the city having held a gay parade. Apparently god gets so skeeved over homosexuality that he drowns 8000 people for it and destroys an economy.

McCain also actively campaigned for an endorsement from Bob Jones, Oh he of the banned interracial dating.

Shall I mention the late Jerry Fallwell, who blamed 9/11 on gays, lesbians, feminists and abortionists?

Seriously, folks. The Red Column not only has Crazy uncles, it’s embracing them, where Democrats do their best to distance themselves. This is the double standard: Republicans can get away with their supporters saying terrible, monstrous things, and associating with people who do, but in fact seek them out. And they can say things that are just as inflammatory, yet nobody will set them aside in the GOP.

Obama obviously stakes out different territory from his pastor. He’s obviously his own man in rhetoric and message. But of course, when a black preacher comes down with the hellfire and brimstone, he’s a scary black separatist. When a Republican preacher comes across with the same kind of rhetoric, he’s simply a truthteller.

This hypocrisy makes me sick.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2008 9:06 AM
Comment #248204

Hypocrisy, thy name is politics.

Regarding Wright, Hagee, Jones, et al, there is no room in reasoned discourse for this kind of rhetoric. If we are serious about reuniting our country, we must stop with the hate.. Yes, the Constitution protects free speech, but that doesn’t mean we need to spew venom in such a way as these folks do. Although, I will say that it is mild compared to some of the writings posted on Watchblog. However, when I read some of the outporings of little minds, I am reminded of an apocryphal saying of a very wise man:” Isn’t it a shame that some people learn to hate before they learn to spell?”

Those who would drive wedges between the various groups in this country have no right to call themselves “patriots”. They are hatemongers, dividers, self-aggrandizing, and fools in the classic sense of the word. Don’t listen to them. We are in desperate need of people who can call all of us to action that will recover the spirit of the founders and make this,again, the United States of America.

Posted by: Old Grouch at March 17, 2008 9:21 AM
Comment #248209

An argument for the irrelevance of Wright’s politics to Obama’s.

As a Catholic, I do not agree with a hundred percent of what the person giving the homily says. There are some that have offended me seriously, or which just strike me as wrongheaded. God gave us brains to think for ourselves, and that’s what we do. Alleging that Barack Obama is a carbon copy of his minister is not only wrong, its wrong on the merits. If you want to prove that Barack Obama is disingenuous in expressing his beliefs, find contemporary, recent material of his where he contradicts himself. Don’t keep selling us on this stealth candidate BS. Find something real to hold against him, something that speaks to what he does and believes.

Of course, folks have found that difficult. He sat down with both of Chicago’s Newspapers and answered questions for an hour and a half each from dozens of reporters answering every question.

In the end, this was their response: He passed with flying colors.

The folks who insist that he will self-destruct depend on an argument from ignorance: that is, we have to suppose, without real evidence, that he has given in to corruption, that he holds radical views, that he hates white people, etc.

I think the time has come to acknowledge that Barack Obama is not a weak or problematic candidate in and of himself, that the only thing making him truly problematic is the efforts of those who are scared of his political potential, among the Democrats and the Republicans.

In a way, the strength of the attention paid to such things is a backhanded compliment of how good he really is as a candidate. You don’t go so far to attack a candidate on so little unless you’re really desperate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2008 9:39 AM
Comment #248210

I actually agree with Rev Jeremiah’s jeremiad on drugs, prisons, and 3 strikes, but find the G D America rhetoric insulting, since America is the people, not the government. He is apparently retired from that church. Segregation in churches allows for the hate speech we hear from them.

When Conrad Black gets out of jail, everyone else in jail for lesser offenses should also be let out. Bush should also pardon everyone in prison for using any drugs that he has used, or for selling any that his wife or other relations have sold.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2008 9:49 AM
Comment #248211

Stephen

Sunlight is the best disefectent.

Watch what happens this week after evidence is presented that on July 22 Obama attended a Wright sermon where inflammatory things were said.

Now, beside having bad judgement, he will be painted as a cheap 2 bit politician who lied to save his skin.

This guy is toast.

Bring on Hillary and let the fun begin.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 17, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #248214

Obama is the son of an immigrant, and isn’t part of the usual racial back and forth nonsense that infect the fundamentalist religious community. A Jamaican friend of mind laughs at a lot of the nonsense that he hears from the black community here.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2008 10:03 AM
Comment #248217

What Pastor Wright preached, and I repeat preached, is no different that what you would here in most black churches on any given Sunday. Also, his view that 9/11 was America’s fault was put forth in the Republican debates by Ron Paul. How he said it was a little different, but he was in front of his home crowd. Mark Thompson called preachers and prophets the original “shock jocks” on his show the other day. Certainly some context can be applied here.

In politics space, this is more about the tightrope that Obama is walking with regards to black/white divide. His campaign has worked hard for him to not become the “black candidate” while the Clinton campaign wants to define him precisely as such. And yes Stephen, it is the Clinton campaign that is doing this, not the demon, hypocritical Republicans. A continuation of Bill’s remarks in SC, mainly because they have been losing white men during the recent primaries.


Posted by: George in SC at March 17, 2008 10:16 AM
Comment #248218

Eagle

Now, beside having bad judgement, he will be painted as a cheap 2 bit politician who lied to save his skin.

I seriously doubt he will ever be grouped with the persona of republican politicians. After all that classification is reserved for good white god fearing men of conservative principles and little integrity. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at March 17, 2008 10:40 AM
Comment #248219

Obama was actually benefitting from the Writer’s Strike. Nobody was researching for material to write about, and didn’t look into a connection that was only mentioned by sources that would be considered disreputable by the main stream media.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2008 10:43 AM
Comment #248222

George

In politics space, this is more about the tightrope that Obama is walking with regards to black/white divide. His campaign has worked hard for him to not become the “black candidate” while the Clinton campaign wants to define him precisely as such.

I am in total agreement with your assertions here. I think we all knew and expected that at some point it would come to this. After all this is America and there does still exist a lot of racial hatred from all sides of the spectrum. There is no way to lightly step around this issue. Obama is a black man who attends a black church. It is only natural to assume that just like any other church or institution of public gathering that anyone who attends is going to be confronted with ideologies of large variance. I could walk into any white church in America and find just as many color biased, and hate filled white men as one might find blacks in a black church. I could also find just as many racially and politically opinionated pastors. What is important is whether or not one carries and exercises those controversial ideals in his or her personal and public life.

I view Obama as a well educated, intelligent man of solid character and high ideals. I really do believe him to be the best of the candidates out there. That is my opinion. But in all honesty I do not believe American is ready for a black in the highest seat in our country. I do not see that we have truly progressed far enough beyond those age old color related biases which many do not seem to now how or are willing to overcome.

Posted by: RickIL at March 17, 2008 11:09 AM
Comment #248223
I seriously doubt he will ever be grouped with the persona of republican politicians.

Of course not, that is what double standards means…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 11:11 AM
Comment #248224

George in SC-
Would it explain things a little if I told you I don’t have much respect for the Clinton Campaign as of late? I think both of them are doing it for the same reason: Obama’s a strong candidate, and they want to cut him down to size.

SE-
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Trouble for your side is, Obama’s apparently using it rather well on himself. As for looking to see whether Obama was in the crowd? I think you’re getting into rather silly territory there. Even if you could establish the fact, and I doubt they take attendance or sell tickets, you’re still left with the question of whether Obama agrees with what was said.

I don’t think the purpose of this rhetoric coming from those campaign is disinfection. Nobody’s found a substantive reason to see Obama as false. All we have is innuendo, meant to contaminate his campaign, diminish its health.

Meanwhile, your favorite candidate’s sought-after endorsers publically express hateful rhetoric not unlike that which Wright espoused. They too blame Americas troubles on its sins, they too create political controversies.

Why should anybody take seriously the disinfection attempts of a party with such weeping sores of hypocrisy on its face?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2008 11:15 AM
Comment #248225

Obama’s Minister Committed “Treason” But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero

When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps) rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the “murder of the unborn,” has become “Sodom” by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, “under the judgment of God.” They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama’s minister’s shouted “controversial” comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation’s sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father’s sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our “stand” by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Consider a few passages from my father’s immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here’s Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]… then at a certain point force is justifiable.

And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools… There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union….

Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate… A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion… It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation…

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad’s statements.

Take Dad’s words and put them in the mouth of Obama’s preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words “godly” and “prophetic” and a “call to repentance.”

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad’s books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the “respectable” evangelical community and he’s still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he’d take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad’s Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler’s Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister’s words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to “bear arms” as “insurance” to limit government power. They are the same people that in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as “fallen away from God” at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the “progressive” Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #248226

RickIL-
I think the exit polls for voters coming out of the primaries demonstrates that in most places, White voters have few problems with him.

When you look at the political landscape, sometimes it’s more important what people believe to be possible, than what they accept isn’t. Look at what the Republicans did with Bush in 2004. If somebody can re-elect somebody who screwed up that badly, I don’t think a person with minor controversies like this is going to be a problem getting elected, black or white.

I’m looking forward to the fight. God knows its been long enough that this country has talked about the equality of women and of minorities; this next election should be a clarion call that America is not all talk.

That is, if we can get past the usual silly crap. We’ve got a major investment firm going under because of bad financial bets, and some people still think the most important story in the world is that Obama’s pastor has on occasion said some pretty controversial things, which Obama is on record as having repudiated. Which do you think people will care about more?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment #248228

Stephen,

Doesn’t this mirror your outrage with the Republicans on the Eliot Spitzer thing? You attack the hypocrisy on one side but avoid it like the plague on yours…

It seems to me that you find fault with Republicans for taking money from Religious nuts, even though there is no attribution of their ideals being mirrored by them. Yet they are used by your and those on your side to attack those on the other side who accept their support.

But when it is found out that your candidate of choice has the same issue, you are now using the ‘that doesn’t mean he believes it either’ defense? I find that a bit interesting, to say the least.

Personally, I don’t think it is as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, in this regard. Though I do find it disheartening that those who claim to know what it is like to be judged by the color of their skin continue to judge others by the color of theirs… It is somewhat sad really.

But what really hits home for me is how some people will use any little thing they can find as fodder against their opponent but will then defend to the end their own side doing the same things…

If anything, what I think will happen now is that McCain’s support by the religious right will be out of bounds for the General election if Obama gets the noination. It is kind of hard to claim that your opponent is wrong in accepting support from religious extremists (just support, not even his own pastor) when it is found that the person you have looked to for guidance for decades turns out to be one as well. It pretty much takes another attack method that the left likes to use against the right off of the table now, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 11:29 AM
Comment #248229
God knows its been long enough that this country has talked about the equality of women and of minorities; this next election should be a clarion call that America is not all talk.

Only if someone who isn’t a Democrat or Republican is involved, since that is the only way real equality will ever get discussed…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #248232

Stephen

You are right that this is silly crap. Silly crap in that it should not be a part of any campaign in supposedly modern day America. The fact that it is supports the notion that perhaps we have not moved as far forward in the area of color bias as many would like to believe. I live in a largely white rural region of Il where many people claim to be culturally diverse and devoid of race bias. But the reality is that they do not practice those claims. They seem to think that just claiming it is sufficient to make it so. I am rather opinionated on the matter and find it hard to get many persons of my age to engage in any serious talk of their feelings on the matter. They tend to avoid it like the plague in order that they will not have to confess their true feelings and be judged as a result.

On the other hand I have a son in his late 20’s and another in his early 30’s. I do see in them and their friends a lack of that bias which still seems present in many of my age. I think that this probably is mostly a generational issue and will eventually evolve into a non issue. That is if those who would like to manipulate such issues will allow it to be.

I personally believe that anyone who really gives a damn will take a serious look at Obama’s character and realize that his leanings are not the same as his pastors. However there are a lot of seriously gullible people who because of desire, bias, hatred and laziness will eagerly tether themselves to this misguided notion that Obama advocates for the same principles as those of his former pastor.

I am sure there are some who would love to use Obama controversy as a distraction from the realities of a rapidly failing economy based on republican economic policy. But seriously, in view of the practical realities of such failure I doubt the controversy will be long lived.

Posted by: RickIL at March 17, 2008 12:01 PM
Comment #248234

Rhinehold:

It is kind of hard to claim that your opponent is wrong in accepting support from religious extremists (just support, not even his own pastor) when it is found that the person you have looked to for guidance for decades turns out to be one as well.

Prove it.
Prove that Obama is himself a religious extremist because of who his pastor has been. For this you need to find where Obama has made statements that mirror his pastor’s remarks.

If you can’t, then who will be stupid enough to believe that Obama has been ruined by this association?

If the religious (not political) guidance Obama received from Wright is to be considered questionable because it goes back twenty years, you’re going to also need to find many more such statements from Wright going back many more years.

If you can’t, then maybe the truth is that Wright’s preaching became more incendiary in recent years.

Those who are claiming that Obama’s candidacy is over because of guilt by association, and a couple of short video clips have to stop operating on wishful thinking because you dread him facing McCain in the general, and go out and prove that this association with Wright has made him unfit for the presidency.

I’m agnostic, but I realize that people who attend a church do so for more than just their pastors sermons. They attend to connect and become a part of a community of people. And because that is true, it actually seems worse that McCain, knowing full well that Hagee and Parsley are extremists, just decided to embrace them and make them “spiritual advisers” to his campaign. It seems more contrived — a slimy tactic of accepting their intolerance simply to gain the support of Religious Right voters.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 12:14 PM
Comment #248237

Here they go again. New campaign song for Obama, just change the lyrics from Blame Canada to Blame Hillary.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #248238

Stephen and Rick,

I actually think that this subject coming up now is GOOD for Obama and his campaign. First of all, it negates the “Obama is a Muslim” talking point that the Right has been working so hard to establish. It has hammered home the fact that he is a Christian who regularly attended church. Secondly, this will be old news by the time the general election rolls around, so it can’t be whipped out as an October Surprise.
Btw, lots of recent signs that our party is starting to acknowledge that Obama has won the nomination.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 12:34 PM
Comment #248239

Stephen, Rick 1L, Vertitas

Sorry guys, the vetting process has only begun.

This guy is an empty suit.

Other than The Audacity of Hate..err Hope, little is known about this guy except that he was in cahoots with a crooked backer who helped him get a 2.5 million dollar mansion in Chicago plus he has been brainwashed by a “minister” masquarading as a holy man.

Believe me, this guy is in trouble.

The best part of it all, I think, is that once he is out of the way, Hillary is on deck.

Personally, I now view Barry (his grade school name) as sort of an appetizer…spring training, if you will.

Then we can deal with Hilliary.

God, I love the smell of politics in the morning!

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 17, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #248242

“Sorry guys, the vetting process has only begun.”

You are confusing a smear campaign as vetting. But then again, there is always a certain group of people who rather deal with innuendo than facts. Why not instead question this pastor’s religious views instead? That would be more relevant, since that is why his parishioners attend his church. Or here is a thought, why not question Obama’s views and statements and actions, since he is the one running for office?

“Watch what happens this week after evidence is presented that on July 22 Obama attended a Wright sermon where inflammatory things were said.”

Is this like your statement that there was drones video evidence to that would exonerate the soldiers in Haditha? Well if it is, I won’t hold my breath for it.


Posted by: Cube at March 17, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #248243

Eagle

Re- God, I love the smell of politics in the morning!

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. Surely you do not believe that on the surface something so meaningless as what a mans pastor has to say is or can mean immediate death to a campaign. If the consequences of reality were mired in such simplistic provocation then McCain would not have a snowballs chance in hell of surviving the heat of this battle. Enjoy your emotional dance, the music will soon no longer be in the top ten and it will be time to move on to more reasonable accusations. In the mean time I will entertain your enthusiastic displays of revealing glee.

God, I loathe the smell of bullsh-t in the morning! ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at March 17, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #248244

Sic Eagle:

the vetting process has only begun.

I’m not worried about Obama being vetted, but I do think it’s Hillary and McCain’s turn. Time to release the record of their earmarks, don’t you think? Oh, but that’s right, both of them are refusing to do so. I wonder why?
Additionally, Hillary claims she’s been vetted, but the truth is, her vetting stopped almost eight years ago when Bill left the White House. There has been no vetting since then. So let’s see her tax returns, and that Clinton Library donor list, and her White House appointments list. The latter is important since she tells us that it’s the reason she meets the “threshold of CinC.” So far we know that she’s lied about her support for NAFTA, lied about the Belfast Tea Party that she claims “brought peace” to Northern Ireland, and has lied about writing the SCHIP legislation.

This guy is an empty suit.

You mean you wish he was.

Other than The Audacity of Hate..err Hope,

Have you read The Audacity of Hope? It’s a wonderful and very well written book. Anyone who reads it will know that Obama is the one we need to be our next president.
Hillary and McCain can’t kill off Hope if the American people don’t let them.

little is known about this guy except that he was in cahoots with a crooked backer who helped him get a 2.5 million dollar mansion in Chicago

Plenty is known about Obama. But you’re not talking about information, are you? No, you mean dirt. Well, they’ve been digging and digging and all they could find was a few seconds out of a couple of Wright’s sermons, and Rezko who is obviously a crook who tried to get ahead by donating to lots of politicians, and who Obama never did any political favors for.

But let’s be truthful, shall we? Is anyone surprised that unsavory characters raise money for politicians? It would be pretty naive to think that millions of dollars are raised for political campaigns without these people coming into inadvertent contact with a few scumbag crooks. I’ll bet McCain has plenty of crooks who have raised money for him. And we all know Hsu raised $850,000 for Hillary just for this campaign alone (in contrast, Rezko raised 250,000 during the years he knew Obama), so how come the GOP never chooses to talk about him?

I’ll tell you why. Because the GOP dreads running against Obama.

plus he has been brainwashed by a “minister” masquarading as a holy man.

Prove it. If Obama has been “brainwashed” by Wright, then it should be easy to find a quote where he mirrors his pastor’s 2003 sentiments.

Believe me, this guy is in trouble.

You mean you wish he was.

The best part of it all, I think, is that once he is out of the way, Hillary is on deck.

Yes, this your fondest wish, but unfortunately for you she has all but lost the Democratic nomination, and you’re much more likely to face Obama. This is your worst nightmare. To have McCain have to run against a brilliant, charismatic and decent man, who is so unfailingly polite and fair that it will only make the GOP look cheap and dirty when the Rovian Slime Hose is turned upon him.

Personally, I now view Barry (his grade school name) as sort of an appetizer…spring training, if you will.

You mean you wish that’s what he was.

Then we can deal with Hilliary.

I think it’s likely you’re going to be very disappointed, because it’s not looking too good for Hillary being the one you’ll be running McCain against in November.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 1:55 PM
Comment #248245

VV

The reason McCain hasn’t released his earmarks is because he has none. He’s earmarked exactly $0.00.

Posted by: Duane-o at March 17, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #248246

VV

I think you are correct in that it is good to get this out in the open early. It is obvious that Obama’s campaign was not blind sided by this cheap shot. I am sure that he of all people knows all too well what being a black man in such a race entails. These are simply expected obstacles which his campaign will have to work through. Nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary by American campaign standards. All he can do is maintain a position of integrity and answer all attacks promptly and clearly. I think that most reasonable non race motivated voters will see this for what it is. The rest will just have to live with their petty biases.

Posted by: RickIL at March 17, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #248248

There is no question that this is a serious issue, and Obama has some splainin’ to do. If I were him, I would make a Kennedy/Romney-type argument for religious tolerance. He answers to his own conscience, not his pastor, etc.

I doubt that Clinton was behind this. It would be pretty stupid of her to wait until he had basically locked up this nomination to leak this.

First of all was that the dream and vision of Martin Luther King Jr. certainly doesn’t mesh with the black liberation/identity theology being preached by Obama’s pastor.

People remember King as a lot more pleasant and sunny than he actually was. If he was around today, you guys would be calling him an angry left-wing nut.

The reason McCain hasn’t released his earmarks is because he has none. He’s earmarked exactly $0.00.

Contrary to popular belief, McCain has requested at least one earmark (that we know of). He wrote a letter asking the EPA to “earmark” (his word) $5 million for a wastewater project in Arizona. He did fail, so it is possible he never actually succeeded in getting an earmark.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Comment #248249
The reason McCain hasn’t released his earmarks is because he has none. He’s earmarked exactly $0.00.

Nonsense. Arizona gets significantly more federal money sent from Washington than they send to the government. For instance, when Congress passes a multi-billion dollar defense spending bill that results in large salaries being paid to workers at Luke AFB in Arizona, that might not be called an earmark, but it’s actually the same thing. Same goes for earmarks or wasteful bills authored under other names than his own that he supported. Among those that I happen to be aware of, McCain supported and voted for wasteful spending that went under the names of Kyl, Renzi, Franks, Shadegg, and Flake. There are probably many more.
When McCain attacked Clinton at the GOP debate about her Woodstock Museum earmark he neglected to mention that less than two years ago, he and Kyl (also from Arizona) were teamed up on a bill to direct $10 million over five years to help create the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona Law School. Just because that bill never passed doesn’t mean it shouldn’t count as a McCain Earmark/Wasteful Spending.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 2:44 PM
Comment #248250

Veritas

Love that name. Truth. Lux et Vertitas….Harvard, isn’t it?

Why let truth get in the way of a jolly good campaign?

Name one campaign in American history that was truthful.

These arrows flying at Barry didn’t come from the right…although I betcha that Rove will be getting blamed any minute now.

You know and I know from whence they came…and are still coming…and her name begins with “H” I think.

Baraked.

Just coined a new word.

By defination: politicial fratricide from the same party.

Obama got Baraked.

hehe. Love it.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 17, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #248251

Woody-

See if you open up your horizons a little…..

Limbaugh absolutely nailed this as far back as last October. The most important internal polling that both campaigns have been watching is for white men. Specifically, non-college educated white men. Clinton had a lead early on but coming out of Texas that polling data slipped. It makes perfect sense for her campaign to push the racial divide stuff now, ahead of PA, where she has to do well to stake a claim to the nomination. Her only argument is to win Fla, Ohio, and Pa and say that she’s got the best chance of winning during the general.

The Washington Post must have been listening to his show last week because today they ran White Male Vote Especially Critical, but the fact is that’s what this race has been about from the beginning. Bill knew that when he made his comment ahead of SC, Hillary knew that when she went hunting, etc. etc.

The Clintons give a rat’s butt about the Democratic Party or Barak Obama.

Posted by: George in SC at March 17, 2008 3:04 PM
Comment #248252

SE-
Vetting is a horse-racing term originally, meaning to check out the horse in anticipating of running it in a race. You’re checking to see if there’s a problem.

It is not the obsessive fault finding of opponents. It’s not people persisting in rumors and insinuations or using the Kitchen sink approach.

Nobody’s seriously trying to check him out to make sure he’s suitable. They’re trying to kill his candidacy, plain and simple.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2008 3:10 PM
Comment #248253

Woody:

There is no question that this is a serious issue, and Obama has some splainin’ to do. If I were him, I would make a Kennedy/Romney-type argument for religious tolerance. He answers to his own conscience, not his pastor, etc.

Why is what Wright said a serious issue for Obama? Obama has already explained himself, so are you saying that what he has said thus far isn’t good enough for you?
Should we now take this the next logical step: that anything that anyone remotely connected to the candidates has said can now be hung on them? If so, then McCain is now responsible for all of the bigotry and hatred that Falwell, Hagee, and Parsley have spewed over the years.

I doubt that Clinton was behind this. It would be pretty stupid of her to wait until he had basically locked up this nomination to leak this.

It could be Clinton’s/DLC because they’re desperate to overturn the will of the voters and make Obama out to be unelectable to the super delegates. Or it could be the GOP because they’re desperate to run against Hillary rather than against Obama. Or it could simply be the media because the corporate-friendly status quo butters their bread, and of all the candidates, Obama is talking about change, so he doesn’t fall into that category.
But whoever is behind this, they are definitely doing their best to keep the focus off the disaster that is Iraq, and the economy that’s now in the toilet, in order to race-bait the country, and play the guilt by association game over something that doesn’t even matter in the larger scheme of things.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #248263

Stephen

I have been trying to figure out who Minister Wright reminds of…and I got it!

Long before your time, there was a sitcom called the Red Foxx Show….

He’s Redd Fox, and Barry is his son.

The father was always getting into trouble,and the son always covering for him.

Trouble is, election politics is not tv.

The pursuit of pure power never is.

Rest assured that Hillary will not give an inch…even if she loses every election up until the convention.

Meanwhile, the Repubs are keeping the powder dry, and chuckling like hell.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 17, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment #248265
It is kind of hard to claim that your opponent is wrong in accepting support from religious extremists (just support, not even his own pastor) when it is found that the person you have looked to for guidance for decades turns out to be one as well.

Prove it.

Prove that it is kind of hard to claim that your opponent is wrong when you do the same thing? I guess I don’t understand what I have to prove there, it seems kind of ‘common sense-y’ to me…

Prove that Obama is himself a religious extremist because of who his pastor has been.

I don’t think he is and I didn’t suggest he was. Perhaps you are seeing red so much because your cult lea… erm, ‘candidate’, is being questioned in a way you don’t agree with and are lashing out? I’m not sure, but I don’t see any reason to attempt to prove anything I don’t believe in, that makes little sense to me.

If you can’t, then who will be stupid enough to believe that Obama has been ruined by this association?

I’m not suggesting he has been ‘ruined’ by this, but I do suggest, and think it is quite clear, that you can no longer go after the religious right supporting McCain if Obama gets the nomination. It leaves an attack play off of the table. Good or bad? That’s for others to decide, personally I think it is good because the Democrats shouldn’t be using that tactic anyway, I find it rather stupid, but that’s just me…

If the religious (not political) guidance Obama received from Wright is to be considered questionable because it goes back twenty years, you’re going to also need to find many more such statements from Wright going back many more years.

I’m sure someone will try to, because politics is a nasty business. Do you know why? It is because politics determines who will run the government, or in other words, who will be given the legal power to control our lives through force. And since we have allowed those in government to control more and more of our lives in this manner, there is more and more at stake. That leads people to do exceeding more nasty things to obtain that power.

Now, had we not gone down this road and perhaps understood this decades ago, we might not find this so repugnant now… But I am digressing…

If you can’t, then maybe the truth is that Wright’s preaching became more incendiary in recent years.

Possibly true. I for one don’t know. I figure this will all come out in the wash.

Those who are claiming that Obama’s candidacy is over because of guilt by association, and a couple of short video clips have to stop operating on wishful thinking because you dread him facing McCain in the general, and go out and prove that this association with Wright has made him unfit for the presidency.

I guess you’re not talking to me anymore, but I’ll respond anyway… I personally don’t dread Obama being a candidate any more than Hillary or McCain. I don’t think any of the three are really what I would call presidential material because I want my president to tell me he is going to quit trying to run my life for me. So far, all three candidates have no intention of that.

And I don’t usually think anything is ‘over’ until it is. Just as I don’t think the Democratic nomination is ‘over’ yet, because it isn’t. You are the one calling for a candidacy to be over before it is, not me.

I’m agnostic, but I realize that people who attend a church do so for more than just their pastors sermons. They attend to connect and become a part of a community of people. And because that is true, it actually seems worse that McCain, knowing full well that Hagee and Parsley are extremists, just decided to embrace them and make them “spiritual advisers” to his campaign. It seems more contrived — a slimy tactic of accepting their intolerance simply to gain the support of Religious Right voters.

And I’m an athiest, so I am a bit more cynical about the critical thought process of anyone who can honestly say that they think an invisible man is watching everything you do and determining if you pass or fail some invisible scorecard of your life, ala Santa Clause, and then tells you they love you.

But again, not really germaine to the issue I raised, is it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #248267

Obama plans major race speech tomorrow

Once again we see what kind of character Barack Obama possesses. Rather than desperately try to change the subject, or run away from any of the criticism that is being directed at him (because he has denounced what Wright said, without totally denouncing the man himself), Barack Obama is standing up to take this issue head-on. That’s Leadership and the kind of Change that so many people are looking for — even if the most partisan of Republican’s refuse to see it.

And who better to help America try to narrow our racial divide than a half white, half black man of amazing intelligence and consistently inspiring oratory? Even if he doesn’t even win the nomination, Obama has become a leader who will surely make this country a better place.
I’m not at all surprised, and I’m willing to bet it’s going to be one hell of a speech!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #248273

SE-
Let me put this brouhaha in perspective: when we have a nominee, all the energy that people are putting into this contest will be put into defeating your candidate.

The Republicans are keeping their powder dry. To shoot each other, though. The divisions within our party pale in comparison to yours. McCain is a compromise candidate, and an uncomfortable one at that. Chuckle all you want to. It’s good to have a laugh before the internecine slaughter begins.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #248274
And who better to help America try to narrow our racial divide than a half white, half black man of amazing intelligence and consistently inspiring oratory?

Someone who is actually speaking to the issues of race (and how the notion is invalid to begin with) and how it affects what politicans promise based on it.

I’m not saying that Obama isn’t that man, but it does not compute in MY mind that he is the ‘best person’ to speak to these issues simply because of the color of his skin. As for his speaking well, there are a lot of people who are completely evil that have charisma and can provide inspiring oratory. That in and of itself again, doesn’t mean that he is the ‘best person’ to do this.

In fact, what if the best person is a white person? Or an Asian-American? Or a Latino?

Suggesting that he has an inside track on race relations because of his race is kind of part of the problem, as I see it…

But, as I said before, as long as Democrats and Republicans are talking about race, no real advancement will ever get done because invariably it comes down to getting elected, pandering, and promising.

Is Obama going to stand up and say that black people in America should stop seeing white people as ‘the man’ or the enemy and that they should vote for a white person if that person is better than he? Is he going to say that the problems that the ‘black community’ (what a sad phrase) are more directly related to those in those communities and not external forces of government controlled by white men?

When the actual issues get addressed, wake me up. Until then, keep the racist notions that only black people can speak to racism effectively to yourself.

(BTW, my cynicism tells me that Obama is not ‘trying to change the subject’ but instead take control of the subject to his advantage, being, as *YOU* pointed out, a half black half white man… That’s not ‘character’ but good politics and I’m sure his advisors are telling him exactly that.)

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 6:16 PM
Comment #248278

Obama needed people like the Rev Jeremiah Wright when he was running for the General Assembly and the USHOR. He was just elected to the Senate, and is now running for POTUS. I guess he doesn’t like being a senator that much, but he certainly doesn’t need the Rev anymore. Now he’s just a crazy old uncle.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2008 6:39 PM
Comment #248283

I hope he includes some sound bites about the failing of major banks, the wars, printing excessive amounts of money, corporate domination, corruption in government, unnessessary taxes and unnessessary force used to collect those taxes, being guilty until found guilty in a court of law, prima-facia biggotry called “officers discretion” in domestic violence accusations.
You know, those small nusiences that occasionally pop up to distract us from this tripe.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2008 7:01 PM
Comment #248289

Rhinehold:

I’m not saying that Obama isn’t that man, but it does not compute in MY mind that he is the ‘best person’ to speak to these issues simply because of the color of his skin.

Now who is focusing on the color of his skin? If it was only simply about that, I wouldn’t have needed to mention his intelligence or his ability to deliver inspiring oratory. No, the reason that Obama is the man to address these issues at this moment is because he’s the whole enchilada, and it’s working very well for him.

As for his speaking well, there are a lot of people who are completely evil that have charisma and can provide inspiring oratory. That in and of itself again, doesn’t mean that he is the ‘best person’ to do this.

Cult leaders who are evil misinform and isolate their followers, while leaders who are strong and righteous, do just the opposite. They are honest, and they bring people together. And yes, at this moment in time, Barack Obama is that person, just like in his time, Dr. King was that person.
Barack Obama is an intelligent, eloquent, half white, half black man running for the Democratic nomination, and he is well ahead in this race. That means he has already bridged what some people tend to perceive as a huge divide, and is bringing people together all over the place. In fact, he is even getting a certain percentage of Republicans to vote for him. He is showing us that we’re not nearly as divided as many often think we are, and that we share so much, including the desire to move beyond things that are mostly superficial, such as racial origins and skin color.

In fact, what if the best person is a white person? Or an Asian-American? Or a Latino?

Great, we need all the leadership we can get on this issue, but right now? The best person is obviously Barack Obama. You know it’s true.

Suggesting that he has an inside track on race relations because of his race is kind of part of the problem, as I see it…

I’m not suggesting it, I’m saying he clearly does. He must, because people of every color, every religion, both sexes, gay and straight, and from every income level have already chosen to vote for him. He has transcended a lot of the petty crap that people often get caught up on, and cut right to the heart of what the majority of Americans truly want: honest government, needed change, respectful dialog between our political factions, dignity for all, and an end to the things that divide us.

Obama is a perfect example of where Dr. King’s Dream has lead us as a nation. He is a person who is being judged by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin.

If you weren’t always so focused on being negative in most of your comments, I think you’d see this more clearly — indeed, you might even want to agree with me, Rhinehold! ;^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #248294
Now who is focusing on the color of his skin?

You are.

If it was only simply about that, I wouldn’t have needed to mention his intelligence or his ability to deliver inspiring oratory.

Then why did you mention that he was half white and half black? Seems that you think that is a qualifier since *YOU* mentioned it, more than once.

Barack Obama is an intelligent, eloquent, half white, half black man running for the Democratic nomination

Again, the qualifier. You must think that his being half black, half white means something or you wouldn’t keep mentioning it.

Which speaks to my point.

Why not say ‘He is an intelligent, eloquent man running for the Democratic nomination’? Because to you, that matters…

He is a person who is being judged by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin.

He is by you, since you keep mentioning it…

If you weren’t always so focused on being negative in most of your comments, I think you’d see this more clearly — indeed, you might even want to agree with me, Rhinehold!

If I agree with you it will be because Obama shows me something. He hasn’t yet. I have not yet been ‘sucked in’ by pretty talk. I do not assume he knows best about anything because of the color of his skin. His views on the role of government are in direct opposite with how I see how we should be treating each other, so he is either going to have to change his views or me mine for me to support him as a candidate.

That doesn’t mean I don’t like him, or that I do like him. Nor does it mean that I would suggest that his being half black speaks to his being an expert on anything.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #248299

By law, custom and historic usage, there is no half black, he’s just black. Bi-racial would be more correct. Calling Obama half white, half black is the same as calling him an oreo or zebra.

I just found out the appeal of Obama. He cures insomnia. Gwen Ifill “interviewed” him on the News Hour, which was mostly the usual media treatment where he gives several speeches, with softball questions in between. I fell asleep twice.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 17, 2008 8:42 PM
Comment #248300

Rhinehold:

Then why did you mention that he was half white and half black? Seems that you think that is a qualifier since *YOU* mentioned it, more than once.

Of course I mentioned it — because a giant issue is being made out of it at this moment. Though Obama has not used his race as a reason for anyone to vote for him during this campaign, he is now going to be making a speech about race, because he is being attacked on both fronts due to issues surrounding his race!
Maybe you didn’t see my link? He just announced:

“I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign,”
“talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example,”

If you had read or listened to any of Obama’s speeches during this campaign, you’d realize that his message has transcended race — until now. But now the issue is being forced, no doubt Obama will deal as effectively with this issue, as he has with every other that has arisen during this campaign.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 8:48 PM
Comment #248303

Just because he is talking about race relations doesn’t mean it matters one iota what his individual race is.

If I were to give a speech about race, would it matter one single bit that I am white? (well, german, so more of a mutt) Nope. It shouldn’t at least…

But there are those that still want to make an issue out of it. And you are one of those people.

And no, I doubt you will get it and will try find a way to defend Obama (who I wasn’t saying anything bad about to begin with) and still interject *his individual* race into the topic…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #248305
Maybe you didn’t see my link?

I saw your link. What does it have to do with you making sure to qualify his race when you describe him?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 9:09 PM
Comment #248306

BTW, let me just ask this question, first of Obama and then you…

Will Obama, if elected, work to remove the question: “Race:______” from any and all governmental forms including the census?

Will you support that action from any president or other politician?

Get back to me on that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 17, 2008 9:17 PM
Comment #248319

A couple of points.

If you have never truly supported a church with all your soul…it may be hard to understand this issue.

First off, yes, clearly, Obama is damaged. The poll numbers are showing his level of support dropping. It’s NAFTA, Buying the house from a crook, and it’s a racist paster, and the idea that racism is helping Obama with 90% of the black vote… that is now hurting him.

When you humble yourself before god and accept salvation….you put a lot of trust in the people that brought you to that position. I like to say that people OFTEN park their brains at the door when they go to church…and I also say, God doesn’t want them to! But they do, they endow the preacher with great, unquestioning trust.


Obama may have sat there for 20 years under this racist paster, knew he disagreed with some of this stuff, but just sorta winced and let it roll off his back.

His wife’s statements about not being proud of America before are more unsettling because they feed into this. And the fact that he stopped wearing that flag pin…that’s a far left nod to those who call the American flag and nation a disgrace.

So I’m concerned that if you put the elements all together, Obama’s “progressive” left-wing beliefs, his church, his rejection of his flag pin, his wifes statements….It appears that Obama buys into the radical left wings Anti-American rhetoric. And that of course, is unelectable if exposed. So I think, he seems to be trying to be true to those far left beliefs by hiding them as opposed to revealing them. He realizes he can’t openly speak them now, but he’s not corrupt enough to deny them. So he hides them. And badly.


We are starting to get to really know who Obama is, and as people learn about him, they don’t like him so much.

Posted by: Stephen at March 17, 2008 10:26 PM
Comment #248324

Rhinehold:

Just because he is talking about race relations doesn’t mean it matters one iota what his individual race is.

Oh Bullsh*t! Ferraro just repeatedly told all of America that Obama has only gotten where he is because he is a black man. If race had not been injected into this campaign by her and other recent attackers, Barack Obama wouldn’t have needed to talk about race at all.

But there are those that still want to make an issue out of it.

Right, like that Moron Ferraro, or like Faux News, who keeps continually running those same few seconds of Wright’s sermon, and talking about this ad nauseum in order to try to scare the crap out of America. These people are doing their best to convince anyone who might have voted for Obama to think twice. Even though Ferraro and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for attacking a Democrat like Obama in this way, and even though Faux News regularly had members of the religious right on that spout the exact same kind of incendiary preaching about how America is being forsaken by God for various reasons — usually having something to do with Liberals and Liberalism.

And you are one of those people.

Wrong. Although I do find it amusing to see the ridiculous contortions and pretzel logic that contrarians must twist themselves into to desperately spin this into a problem of Obama’s and his supporters.

Get back to me on that…

I’m afraid I don’t see why I should. After all, “it’s not really germaine to the issue I raised, is it?”

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #248327
First off, yes, clearly, Obama is damaged. The poll numbers are showing his level of support dropping.

It depends on who you’re asking, I guess. Obama may be “damaged” among those who would never vote for him in the first place, but this latest poll claims that a Majority of Democrats prefer Obama.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 17, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #248332

Wow VV you’re really carrying this guys water, kudos btw.

Look I have no friends here so I can say, as a conservative, that I was really hoping Obama was someone who could change politics. I wished it came from my side but I honestly didn’t care as long as it happened. I told my Dad not 2 months ago it wouldn’t bother me in the least if he was elected. Our country is great and can always overcome obstacles, even liberal ideals…lol. I just hoped he could change Washington for everyone. Conservative, liberal, libertarian, green whatever.

But this relationship he’s had with this ridiculously disgusting man is way too much. I know the comeback is that “McCain did it” but he has not aligned his life to these people.

I just wish this all came out after Hillary conceded, I know for sure I don’t want her. This just gives the supers a reason to side with her without sounding racist.

I just think as much as I’m not into Mcain, he’s the best choice. But I can’t wait until this country can figure out how to beat Washington.

Posted by: andy at March 18, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #248340

As a very conservative republican….I too was hoping that Obama stood for real change. I at one time considered even VOTING for him.

But now that we see how the crooked influence peddler in his home state was into Obama with that house, how Obama pandered to us on NAFTA, how Obama is hiding some of that pork spending, and this far left politically correct black racism thing…I’m not seeing change. I’m seeing more radicalized, left wing, corrupt, same old same old.

At least McCain is honest and stands in the middle, really does make change and reach across the isles. Obama is just words….when the rubber meets the road, we see the same lies and deceits.

Posted by: Stephen at March 18, 2008 12:34 AM
Comment #248347
Just because he is talking about race relations doesn’t mean it matters one iota what his individual race is.

Oh Bullsh*t! Ferraro just repeatedly told all of America that Obama has only gotten where he is because he is a black man. If race had not been injected into this campaign by her and other recent attackers, Barack Obama wouldn’t have needed to talk about race at all.

So, you’re now saying that you are no better than Ferraro? You can’t rise above the fray?

I’m glad to see you admit it, but it pains me that I am right in that as long as Democrats and Republicans are involved in the discussion, race relations will not improve in this country.

But there are those that still want to make an issue out of it.
Right, like that Moron Ferraro, or like Faux News, who keeps continually running those same few seconds of Wright’s sermon, and talking about this ad nauseum in order to try to scare the crap out of America. These people are doing their best to convince anyone who might have voted for Obama to think twice. Even though Ferraro and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for attacking a Democrat like Obama in this way, and even though Faux News regularly had members of the religious right on that spout the exact same kind of incendiary preaching about how America is being forsaken by God for various reasons — usually having something to do with Liberals and Liberalism.

And now the ability to use that tired old weapon against the Republicans in the general election is gone if Obama is nominated. Simply because he and his supporters are making the point that a man’s religious views are his, not automatic copies of those who support him or he looks to for religious guidance.

And you are one of those people.

Wrong. Although I do find it amusing to see the ridiculous contortions and pretzel logic that contrarians must twist themselves into to desperately spin this into a problem of Obama’s and his supporters.

Sorry, but *YOU* are the one who brought up his race and how it matters in the discussion of race relations in this conversation with me, I did not. Go back and check, his race is meaningless for me because I do not judge people on their race, good or bad. I spoke simply on the issue of religious advisors and how this issue prevents the Democrats from using their tired old weapon of attacking the religious leaders that support the Republican candidates. It is rediculous and I am for one glad to see this weapon removed from the toolbox, as it were.

You see, I do not think that what Obama’s pastor said has any real bearing on Obama’s views. Obama is his own man and I have not seen those same views repeated by him.

And as for ‘pretzel logic’ and ‘contortions’, go back and look at your initial attack on me for saying this. Here I actually support Obama in this instance, yet I am still attacked because I haven’t ‘drank the kool-aid’ as it were.

Interestingly enough, I have seen this type of behavior before… I used to be a preacher a LONG LONG LONG time ago… trust me, I can see through the behavior of the followers that follow Obama because of what he stands for and the behavior of the followers that follow in a cult-like fashion because of what they THINK he stands for…

Get back to me on that…
I’m afraid I don’t see why I should. After all, “it’s not really germaine to the issue I raised, is it?”

Actually, it is germaine to the issue you raised. But if you want to avoid the answer because you know it will put you on the spot, that’s ok.

But it does make my point for me re: race relations and the two main parties that use the problem for their own political gain. There is no desire to follow MLK’s views by the leadership of either party so it won’t happen. Instead, panders, promise and keep the sheeple at each other, manipulating for political gains…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 18, 2008 2:06 AM
Comment #248348
I like to say that people OFTEN park their brains at the door when they go to church

Well, that’s true. One has to do that in order to believe in invisible men in the sky keeping track of our actions on an unseen ‘scoreboard’…

But I don’t think that was the point you were trying to make, was it?

the fact that he stopped wearing that flag pin…that’s a far left nod to those who call the American flag and nation a disgrace.

While I am not an Obama supporter, this idiocy most definately is a disgrace. By you. And anyone on the right that floats this turd out for our consumption.

I don’t wear a flag pin. Am I not an American Patriot? Remember, before you answer, that I am a disabled veteran. Please, please, please tell me that I am not a patriot because I don’t wear a flag pin on my lapel…

I thought we lived in America where displays of our support for the country was not something we were forced to do… I’ve been proven wrong before, please educate me.

BTW, does your invisible god wear a flag pin too?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 18, 2008 2:11 AM
Comment #248349

Rhinehold, Obama turned this into an issue. I’ve never worn the flag pen and did not make it an issue.

It also becomes an issue for Obama because he’s a part of the Anti-flag left. Which clearly you are aware of and possibly trying to deny?

never the less. It’s Obama who made the flag pen his issue. It’s Obama’s wife who says she was never proud of Amerca before. It’s Obama who believes in the radical left agenda which are always critial of the US and it’s flag. It’s Obama who went for 20 years to a church that attacks America and promotes some form of black over white gospel racism. And Stephens’ claiming it was one sermon was way off line. We now know of many sermons and people are working to connect Obama to one of those meeting so they can put the lie to his saying he “never heard it” before.


The flag pin is a small thing….but Obama turned it into a big thing. A turd? No, the flag is not a turd even though you on the left think so.

Posted by: Stephen at March 18, 2008 2:49 AM
Comment #248351

You can’t go to a church for 20 years and have no idea your pastor is a radicalized, left wing, racist. It’s not possible.


Obama is not as much “change” as we had hopped for. Clearly the HONESTY is not there.

Posted by: Stephen at March 18, 2008 3:09 AM
Comment #248357

Has Obama discussed anything in depth besides his latest moneygrab called Health Care? Why is the campaign centered around his church and his pastor?
I just don’t get it unless it’s to distract from the point he is an empty suit.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 18, 2008 5:09 AM
Comment #248359

Francis Schaffer wrote that euthanasia or giving an authority the ability to decide who lives or dies will lead to Nazi like atrocities such as killing the mentally retarded and homosexuals. It was about preserving life and is totally mischaracterized in the above posting. I read the book thirty years ago.

Obama has been reduced from a deity to just another ambitious duke kissing the ring of the pope. In his quest to distance himself from Islam and qualify as an oppressed black man he has been burned. One of the hazards of identity politics. He is a slick talker so today’s speech ought to be interesting.

Posted by: Kruser at March 18, 2008 6:26 AM
Comment #248364

While digesting Reader’s Digest
In the back of a dirty book store,
A plastic flag, with gum on the back,
Fell out on the floor.
Well, I picked it up and I ran outside
Slapped it on my window shield,
And if I could see old Betsy Ross
I’d tell her how good I feel.

Well, I went to the bank this morning
And the cashier he said to me,
“If you join the Christmas club
We’ll give you ten of them flags for free.”
Well, I didn’t mess around a bit
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck them stickers all over my car
And one on my wife’s forehead.

Well, I got my window shield so filled
With flags I couldn’t see.
So, I ran the car upside a curb
And right into a tree.
By the time they got a doctor down
I was already dead.
And I’ll never understand why the man
Standing in the Pearly Gates said…

“But your flag decal won’t get you
Into Heaven any more.
We’re already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don’t like killin’
No matter what the reason’s for,
And your flag decal won’t get you
Into Heaven any more.”

John Prine

Posted by: ohrealy at March 18, 2008 9:16 AM
Comment #248365
It’s Obama who made the flag pen his issue.

Bullshit, it’s … people like you that have made it an issue.

Obama chose not to wear the pin one day and asked why. He said he didn’t feel it was necessary for him to wear a pin to ‘prove’ his patriotism. That was it. Since then the unthinking sheeple have made it an issue.

It’s not unsurprising, there are a large group of people that can’t simply think for themselves, usually indicitive of those who parrot what they hear on the radio and go to church. Both of those things require a definate lack of brain cells.

And I find it hilarious that you say ‘those of you on the left’ with a stright face, so to speak. Because others call me ‘those of you on the right’…

It’s like the braincells have atrophied so much that you can’t even tell what is being said by the mouth anymore, it just becomes a patterned auto-response.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 18, 2008 9:37 AM
Comment #248366

Rhinehold-
Obama, so long as I have known of him in the public sphere, has treated race as an incidental thing. He’s never relied on it, from what I’ve seen, to raise his profile. It’s interesting that he’d be the first black president (or non-white if you want to be picky about it) but that’s not what drew my attention when I first saw him at the convention in 2004.

What drew me was the inclusive vision that he put forward, one that better recognized the real nature of the electorate. He talked like somebody who understood that the stereotypical dividing lines between the races, between religions, between all the different categories the political consultants talked about were just that: stereotypes that ill represented reality.

Moreover, he had the kind of dynamic presence that we’re no longer use to seeing from officials, in this day and age of lowest-common-denominator politics.

Those who claim he is an empty suit have their claims belied by his hard work. He sponsored hundreds of bills in his tenure. He was a lecturer at a high-tier law school, who himself was president of the law review where he studied law, which would be Harvard. I think people want somebody with decent judgment, and he shows more of it than the other candidates combined. His only big mistakes so far have been underestimating the viciousness of his critics and the vacuousness of the media, which seems to crave this kind of pointless controversy.

Stephen-
Speaking of pointless controversies, you’re still peddling the BS that his critics have done their best to come up with.

NAFTA’s been debunked, with at best nobody really talking to the canadians, and at worst it being the Clintons (the folks who levelled that accusation, remember) who reassured Canada on the matter.

Buying the house from the Crook? You know nothing about the case if you make that claim, because Rezko didn’t own the house. He wasn’t even involved in the negotiations for it. He just bought a strip of land at the side, and sold Obama some of it at what’s been established as fair market price. Obama acknowledges it was a mistake, and when he candidly talked about the matter to the people who knew the case best, they found his answers convincing and direct.

As for the “racist paster”? Having a grievance with whites in America is not racism, first of all, but second of all, not every denomination expects people to leave their brains at the door. It’s obvious that Barack Obama follows a different path than Wright as far as rhetoric goes, and it stands to reason, due to the fact that he was raised by a white mother, and that nobody can seem to find any contradictory language from him to the contrary, that Obama believes what he says.

And if he believes what he says, then this controversy is hollow at its core, political haymaking over worthless logic.

Same with this crap about not wearing a flag pin, or the implication that his wife was saying they didn’t love their country when she said that she was really proud of it for the first time in her adult life. You know what she was really talking about?

Let me clue you in with a little math: In Harris County, about 50,000 Democrats voted in 2000. In 2004, it was 70,000. Now? Over 400,000. And this is not an isolated incident. Americans are finally beginning to defy the pessimism that has been the conventional wisdom about politics for the last generation. We finally seem genuinely interested in taking an active role in our government, and for the first time in a long time, I can take pride not merely in what this country might be, or could be, but what it is right now.

You talk about these people who talk about our nation’s disgraces as if they’re evil. They’re not. Some might genuinely hate our country, but I feel a lot of them speak of these things because they believe in America living up to its ideals. For many people they can’t take unqualified faith in this country, because they know of and have seen our country do many things contrary to its principles. The right habitually demonizes these people, but then turns around and does these things that blacken our country’s image abroad. Behind the slanders against the Obama’s on the question of Patriotism hides the last refuge of the scoundrels who do little to encourage others to love our country abroad.

But the kind of attacks like this, that you’re throwing? These are what I’ve grown up with over the last generation. It’s what makes it difficult for people like me to like Clinton or McCain, much less Bush. We’re just sick of people screwing up royally, then expecting us to vote for them because they dig up BS that tears down their opponent. One of Obama’s chief appeals to many young voters is that he seems to be the kind of person who can lead without being actively divisive, persistently negative. It’s been a long time since we had somebody who could inspire us, rather than just browbeat us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2008 9:43 AM
Comment #248370
NAFTA’s been debunked, with at best nobody really talking to the canadians, and at worst it being the Clintons (the folks who levelled that accusation, remember) who reassured Canada on the matter.

Not exactly true, there was communication from the Obama campaign as well, but the details of that communication are in dispute. The canadian official wrote an email stating one thing and the Obama camp has stated that the details of the communication are being misrepresented.

But there is no doubt that the Obama campaign did contact the Canadian government, as did the Hillary campaign it appears also.

Having a grievance with whites in America is not racism

Actually it is, Stephen. If I had a ‘grievance with the blacks in America’, wouldn’t that be racist? I mean, not all black people think and act the same and including them all into that group and then having a problem with them is not fair to them, why would it be fair for this pastor to feel the same way about ‘whites’ when, since we are also individuals with differing views and feelings, etc.

It’s that kind of rhetoric that is harming race relations in the US, not helping it.

Which, once again, proves my point above…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Comment #248379

Rhinehold

Re- And I find it hilarious that you say ‘those of you on the left’ with a stright face, so to speak. Because others call me ‘those of you on the right’…

It’s like the braincells have atrophied so much that you can’t even tell what is being said by the mouth anymore, it just becomes a patterned auto-response.


Sometimes guilty as charged.

It took me some time to figure out that you do not cater to any particular party. Sometimes I think you just enjoy argument. I do know people who will argue an opposite approach to any matter just for the sake of doing so. I understand your necessity to alienate yourself from the mainstream. It is easier to obtain and correlate an objective viewpoint if one is not influenced by the contrived notions of an easily manipulated and accepted mass belief. I to have endeavored to be a bit of a loner over the years but found more often than not that people usually disregarded my viewpoints because they viewed them as being extreme and not mired in reality. It is easier for some to simply go unquestioningly with the crowd. While I still have problems accepting that from time to time, I have found that a more subtle and indirect manipulation of controversy can be more effective at getting a point across. And it is much less frustrating.

Posted by: RickIL at March 18, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #248386

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday again shows John McCain with a six-percentage point lead over both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by an identical 48% to 42% margin (see recent daily results). Among White voters, McCain leads Clinton by fifteen percentage points and Obama by nineteen points…

The Illinois Senator is viewed favorably today by just 48% of voters nationwide (see recent daily results). The number with an unfavorable view of Obama has grown to 49%. Obama�s overall favorable ratings peaked at 56% on February 21 and have declined modestly since that time. While Obama tries to move beyond discussions of race, he is viewed favorably by 83% of African-Americans and by 42% among White voters.

Bye bye, Barry!!!

Posted by: Duane-o at March 18, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #248391

Stephen,

“If you have never truly supported a church with all your soul…it may be hard to understand this issue.”

As the majority of white folks in this country were raised as Christians I find it hard to understand what this line means.
Whether I still attend a church or not is beside the point.
Unless you are black, and I can only assume from the tenor of your posts that you are not, please don’t ask us to believe that you know what it is like to be, not only black in this country, but as a black child raised by a white mother, to be a minority within a minority.

Is there racism in this country on both sides of the divide?
You better believe it, and old habits die hard.

MLK said he had a dream, and that dream hasn’t been fully realized, and won’t be realized until those that push racism from both sides are marginalized.

Obama himself seems to want to stay above the fray, and seemingly wants to discuss the issues that face this country.
That Bill Clinton, or Geraldine Ferraro chose to speak out in the manner that they did is unfortunate. Whether they spoke the truth is irrelevant.

To paraphrase from a line from a movie;
“America has serious problems, and we need serious people to address these problems.”

Racism is only one of many “serious” problems that this country now faces.

I am not a rabid Obama supporter, and at this point I haven’t decided on who to vote for, including McCain.
From where I stand, Obama seems to be the only candidate who is willing to address these problems without attempting to exploit the divisions that are ripping this country apart.

If he can pull this off, with or without my vote, more power to him.

Posted by: Rocky at March 18, 2008 2:15 PM
Comment #248434

Rocky, I think your comment about my not being able to understand what goes on in a church is very racist.

I was in fact trying to be sympathetic to Obama. When a person meets a man, and a church, and they change his life. Bring him to Christ. Turn him around…..that brings with it a level of acceptance and tolerance that man might not have for others. They become a family and you accept them even if you don’t like some of the things they say or do. And you tend to park your normal critical thinking at the front door and be accepting of whatever comes from the pulpit.

One does not have to be black, yellow, or white to understand that.


The problem Obama has is the BELIEVES that racism. He supports it. It’s a part of his politically correct left wing belief system. And yet, he only now realized it’s this very racism that will keep him from the Whitehouse if he exposes it or supports it.

And even in his speech he tried to excuse it and stand by the church and stand by the bigot.


I can understand how Obama got lulled into accepting and believing in this racism. Now Obama has to tell us he DID accept it and did believe it and tell us how he will distance himself from it.


And he wont, because he still accepts it, he still thinks it’s ok for black churches to preach black on white racism and bigotry.


Obama has a real problem and the left is trying to cover it and help him not have to deal with it.


This isn’t about ME, and My racism. This is about Obama and his 20 year history of accepting this racism and bigotry and his refusal to walk away from it. To get up and leave that church like Opra did and never go back. To say in no uncertain terms he once tolerated and accepted it but now he will make a clean and forever break with it.


He can’t say that…..but perhaps he will reach that point some day. If he sees the White House continuing to slip away from him?

Posted by: Stephen at March 18, 2008 10:58 PM
Comment #248435

Rhinehold-
Race in this country is not a simple geometric, linear relationship, with blacks at one point, and whites on another, and nothing but abstract averaging and levelling to really decide things. It is a messy, problematic issue, with both sides having their share of greivances and misgivings. If I had to be perfectly honest, though, the balance of the wrong that was done and still is being done remains with white Americans, and the balance of the costs for this wrong rest with black Americans.

Given that truth, the weight of social injustice, it seems, without specific and careful weighing of factors to be rather crass to talk about White greivances against black people in general. There were systematic efforts until recent generations to hold African Americans and other minorities down in the social and economic order. No such greivous history of black oppression of whites can be cataloged, and as such, reality shows a significant bias towards claims of blacks being oppressed by whites, rather than the opposite.

I don’t find it mere political correctness for black grievances to be considered more legitimate, worthier of greater attention than white grievances, because for years, the greatest grievance we had against them was that they were trying to stand as equals with us.

It’s a losing approach to racial politics. The better approach is a deconstructive one that takes race out of it and analyzes things in terms of proper conduct, proper ethics, and other such matters. Take the group out of it, make it about an individual’s responsibility.

Or put another way, don’t just talk about how things should be the individual’s responsibility, talk in terms of that, rather than making broad assessments of race.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #248438

Stephen,

There are a few problems with ‘race’ in America that people can’t seem to get around, or even want to discuss…

First, you mention the past, and how ‘white america’ held down ‘black america’. Unfortunately, not ALL whites did this, in fact throughout history there have been many many many white Americans that fought long and hard for black equality. Yet, the ‘grouping’ that is done is unfortunately inclusive by nature, lumping those into the fold, ignoring the struggles within ‘white america’ in regards to slavery and institutionalized inequality. In effect, trying to solve the problem by committing the same actions, though in a more minor way, but still two wrongs don’t make a right.

Second, Most of those who are guilty are no longer around or no longer in power. Those of us in our 40s and younger are more likely to be appauled at the thought of treating someone differently simply because of the color of our skin. While there are still some morons out there who are infilled with hate and use race as one way to push their internal hatred outwards, they are firmly in the minority. Yet, we are still being asked to take on the guilt of those that came before us even though we have done nothing wrong ourselves. Not only is that not fair, it causes some to use this as a reason to embrace that hatred that they would normally have eschewed. Just like we exacerbate the problem of terrorism by treating those who aren’t terrorists as the enemy, the same mindset happens in this case as well.

Finally, there are too many people, politicians to be specific, who find that they can USE the issues of race to their advantage in gaining political traction. We still see this today. There can be no real resolution until at least one side stops using these tools in their arsenal… That isn’t about to happen anytime soon, which is unfortunate.

So, we can pontificate about those who still embrace their internal hatred and externalize it by hating blacks, mexicans, women, irish, germans, etc, etc… without admiting that we are talking about the minority of americans who, more often than not, just need some good psychological help. But that isn’t going to solve anything until we stop trying to punish people for past sins or attempting to force people through the power of government to not hate (which in itself is an attempt at criminalizing thought, if it hasn’t been acted upon…)

When someone wants to talk about these issues and how we need to stop focusing on race now so that our children will not learn from what we are doing wrong, I’m in. Until then, as I said, wake me when some does.

BTW, I’ll ask you too, do you support the removal of the section ‘Race:____’ on all governmental forms as well as the census? If not, why and how is it not a form of racism?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 18, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #248440

Stephen,

“Rocky, I think your comment about my not being able to understand what goes on in a church is very racist.”

I wrote nothing about your understanding what goes on in a church.

Perhaps you might go back and read what I wrote again, and if you don’t understand something, please, feel free to ask a question.

Posted by: Rocky at March 18, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #248457

Stephen

This isn’t about ME, and My racism. This is about Obama and his 20 year history of accepting this racism and bigotry and his refusal to walk away from it. To get up and leave that church like Opra did and never go back. To say in no uncertain terms he once tolerated and accepted it but now he will make a clean and forever break with it.

Your view is ridiculous. Obama has merely confronted the issue as honestly and openly as humanly possible without abandoning his roots and his culture. You are suggesting he denounce and completely distance himself from the realities of black history and where the situation of racism in society stands today. He has stated that while he acknowledges such views it is the result of a matter of generations of societal prejudice and hate which does still exist. He has stated that he does not nor has he ever personally supported the extremist views of Pastor Wright. What more do you want, a statement in blood?

I have many friends and even family members who do not come anywhere close to sharing my views. Yet we manage to attend functions together and hold no bitter or hateful regard for one another. We recognize the right of each to share and voice an opinion and do not condemn one another because of it.

Are you telling us that the bigots who attend your church or any other good white church in America leave such biases at the door? That is baloney. They are not something that can be parked at the door and picked up on the way out. One either is or they are not. Period. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to claim that once inside the church our hatreds and biases no longer exist. It may be that people don’t display them but they are still there. And anyone who has attended a church for any amount of time knows just who in the pews those prejudices apply to.

Tell me will you denounce McCain for eliciting the support of those extremist ministers he is catering to? Are you willing to openly denounce and separate yourself from all the bigots and hypocrites who attend your church? Of course not, because some of those people are your friends or casual aquaintances who you deal with on a fairly regular basis. If you are not willing to do the same as you expect of Obama then it can be assumed that since you are holding this standard to a black church but not a white church that you are either racist or a hypocrite or both.

Obama has, as far as I am concerned, more than adequately demonstrated that he is a man of good moral standards with strong beliefs who recognizes the realities of race issues and is not intimidated at approaching them. I would much rather support a person who is willing to recognize and deal with such issues than merely step around them like the plague.

Posted by: Stephan at March 19, 2008 11:05 AM
Comment #248458

The last post #248457 was written by RickIL. Sorry about that I don’t know why it came up that way.

Posted by: RickIL at March 19, 2008 11:08 AM
Comment #248460

Rhinehold

Finally, there are too many people, politicians to be specific, who find that they can USE the issues of race to their advantage in gaining political traction. We still see this today. There can be no real resolution until at least one side stops using these tools in their arsenal… That isn’t about to happen anytime soon, which is unfortunate.

You are correct in this analogy. Much of my generation grew up with the idea of a distinct line of separation in colors implanted at an early age. I personally, for some reason of which I am still not sure, never took to the idea that color could determine ones worth or place in the world. Though it is obvious that the mantra of racial hatred is being kept alive today, I do recognize that the degree of those hatreds are diminishing with each new generation. I doubt we will ever see it diminish entirely but hopefully it will diminish to the point that its use for personal gain will be of no value. When that happens we will know that we have finally reached a level of equal respect regardless of color.

Posted by: RickIL at March 19, 2008 11:26 AM
Comment #248466

Rinehold, your response above to Stephen was excellent and expressed my thoughts. Race hatred is a many-headed beast and exists among white, black and any other pairing one can think of. The term “race baiting” is used nearly every day in the media during election cycles.

Why do some black people insist on being African-Americans, hispanics, Mexican-Americans, etc. Is it not obvious that if a person is black his ancestry is probably from Africa, or having Hispanic features, from Mexico?

Why do some folks of color and the media continue to identify by race? Is there any good reason anyone can think of for this if not to fan racial flames in those so predisposed to be racists?

Let this generation be the one who no longer recognizes people by race or gender or religion. Let this be the generation that refuses to use hyphenated names for Americans.

Posted by: Jim M at March 19, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #248540

I have been a democrat all my life but I think the DNC has really screwed this up. First they must find a way to seat Mich and Fla. We can not afford to turn away the voters in these states. They are to important to the electoral collage. I read that we will all come together in Nov, Ihave a news flash for you. I had lunch today with three women between the ages of 23-57. They were all dems but said if Obama is the candidate they would probably vote for McCain

Posted by: lisa at March 20, 2008 1:26 AM
Comment #248539

I have been a democrat all my life but I think the DNC has really screwed this up. First they must find a way to seat Mich and Fla. We can not afford to turn away the voters in these states. They are to important to the electoral collage. I read that we will all come together in Nov, Ihave a news flash for you. I had lunch today with three women between the ages of 23-57. They were all dems but said if Obama is the candidate they would probably vote for McCain

Posted by: lisa at March 20, 2008 1:26 AM
Comment #248820

And because some clueless women over lunch and drinks said they wouldn’t vote for Obama, he can’t win?

Posted by: ray at March 21, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #248891

Goodness, are the Obama haters trying to revive McCarthyism to this modern age?

America should remember the days of Joseph McCarthy whose over-the-board hate, superficial patriotism and insanity caused so many good Americans to be defamed and banished. It was an era in which some of the best American creative minds were lost to other nations, such as Switzerland, France and England. It was an era when true American Democracy was secretly being destroyed by McCarthyism. Let us not bring ourselves back to that dark era of American history. It’s time decent Americans stop McCarthyism from mushrooming in this modern age!

So what, Obama sat in that Church for 20 years. He has turned out to be a fine young man that America is proud to have and for Americans to be proud to associate. At least, his Church is not one of those that turn out pedophiles, rapists, murderers or those who drop out of school. Let us not assume that America is a nation of gullible citizens who have little intelligence to see right or wrong and are so easily brainwashed by everything a pastor says… unless of course, those who believe so must, themselves, attend Churches whose congregations comprise of illiterates and naive folks, so easily brainwashed to believe everything their church leaders tell them.

Senator Obama is every American mother’s hope and dream that her son could be. And Senator Obama is the son America is proud to have.


Posted by: Bill B. at March 22, 2008 4:20 PM
Post a comment