Obama Kicks Wright to the Curb

It is about time Obama had his Sister Souljah moment. I am glad he rejected that kind of hatred and stupidity spread by Wright and his ilk. Now all Obama supporters can give up defending that BS. The smart ones never believed in it anyway.

Obama has the standing to reject the racist anti-American crap that has become too common & unchallenged. If nothing else good happens in the campaign, this makes it worth the effort. For too long this kind of stuff has been accepted on the loony left of academia and in racist circles. Sensitive PC people had to pretend it was okay because it was delivered by officially recognized "victims of the Man" and people like me were not believed when we criticized it because we represented “the Man” in their eyes.

Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bill Clinton could enact welfare reform and only Obama can smack down the black racists. I saw him on TV today. It took great courage to stand up there and it must have caused him some personal aguish. No matter how nutty a guy like Wright can be, he is probably personally charming and pleasant to Obama and his family. You also can understand that back in Wright’s generation some of that stuff made more sense. I even feel a little sorry for Wright. He is obviously a simple man who really cannot stand up to the critical media attention, although my sympathy is mitigated by his obvious selfishness in putting his personal aggrandizement over Obama’s campaign. (Not that I am an Obama supporter, but Wright was supposed to be his friend and friends don't do that to friends.)

I will go back to criticizing Obama tomorrow but today he is my man. Well done Barack. Should have done it earlier, but well done.

BTW – as long as I am on this thought, something else occurs to me. Those who recall the French history will remember that only De-Gaulle could address the Algerian question. Maybe only McCain can address Iraq

Posted by Jack at April 29, 2008 4:20 PM
Comments
Comment #251704

Good thoughts Jack. For Obama, he’s a day late and a dollar short. He has found out the hard way that politics is really hard-ball and it’s always the best course to tell the truth from the start, no matter how much it hurts.

Posted by: Jim M at April 29, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #251708

The sentiments expressed by the Rev, right or wrong, are accepted widely in the black community: that there are conspiracies aimed against black people, that racism is still widespread, that the system is somehow rigged against them. Elements of truth in all these perceptions.
Look at the reaction to O.J’s acquittal in the black community. Obviously, guilty as hell but deserving of acquittal as a sort of a payback for the institutional racism endemic in the L.A. Police Department. Sometimes events can be illogical and yet still understandable if you could put yourself into their place.
I listened to Wright’s speech to the press club and the Q+A afterwards and I found his comments to be entirely reasonable and his response to questions to be thoughtful although evasive on a couple of points.
I liked his comment about serving his country for six years in the military and comparing that to Dick “I had other priorities” Cheney, who, nevertheless, is all to careful to wear his flag lapel pin, just to remind people whose side he’s on.
As I have stated before, I think you have to consider the man’s experience in our society before you dismiss him as being somehow out of place. Wright’s spent a lifetime with white people/society telling him what his “place” was. The fact that he is angry and speaks his mind should not be dismissed as “stupidity”. It simply comes out of the experience that any elderly black man has experienced in this country.

Posted by: charles ross at April 29, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #251711

Charles

It might come out of his experience, but that sort of hatred and disinformation should no longer be tolerated.

I understand that his background makes him susceptible to being taken in by these sorts of conspiracy theories. We all know some old guys who have had a hard time. I know a woman who was assaulted by members of a particular minority many years ago and still holds it against the whole group. We cut them slack in their personal hatreds and mistakes, but it is still wrong and we cannot accept it in public. Obama evidently agrees we me and has now backed away from the postion you seem to be advocating above.

I understand why Obama wants to cut him some slack.

His comment about Cheney, BTW, was irrelevant. It was meant to endear him to certain segments of our political society and it worked.

However, his statements about terrorism & AIDS are clearly stupid. We should not accept such things just because the guy saying them seems a sympathetic character. Besides, I don’t really see how a guy as rich as Wright can stay mad at the society that gave him the opportunity.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #251714

Jack, Wright is a phony who had the same problem as BHO in Chicago, and resorted to the same tactics. BHO imitated Bobby Rush, Wright imitated other preachers. I’ve never understood how he came to the UCC, which was mostly former Congregationalist and Evangelical Reformed churchs. In 1972, W 95th St. in Chicago would have been on the outer edge of the black community, in a prosperous area.

BHO’s advisors have calculated that he is secure enough with the black vote, to be able to come out against Wright, without jeopardising anything. People are saying now that BHO is actually sick of campaigning, which isn’t surprising. He’s been doing it continuously for so many years.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 29, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment #251718

Sen. Obama simply stated that Pastor Wright changed their relationship. Obama did not break ties other than symbolically. For someone that wants to be my President, I would never vote for someone that is nothing more than a total “lie”.


Normal Fashion


In normal Obama fashion, he says he is outraged at his almost uncle, mentor and spiritual advisor 18+ months after the fact. Although Americans heard the Senator from Illinois for months that Pastor Wright was his spiritual advisor, now he says he was only his pastor and never his spiritual advisor. Also, in normal fashion, the media is giving the Senator from Illinois a free ride is justifying his sudden change of heart.


According to Watson (2008), “Obama’s having been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States (FrontPage Magazine - Hoover Institution
of Stanford University, April 29, 2008). But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president”. The fact that Watson and many others journalist have research and written about the Senator from Illinois reflects how easily the news networks are willing to hide Obama’s true past.


In fact, as Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of the New York Times: ” My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s younger half sister. But Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school and then a Muslim public school where the religious education was cursory. When he was 10, he returned to his birthplace of Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attended a preparatory school with a Christian affiliation but little religious instruction” (NY Times, Kantor, April 30, 2007).


It seems Obama’s half sister has a different recollection of their upbringing. The issue is not that Obama is a Muslim for I truly believe that most Americans would care. But the fact that Obama denies his Muslim roots and then lies about it because he wishes to be President, tells us about the candidate’s integrity. The Senator from Illinois let Americans believe that a welfare mother raised him. The truth is that his grandmother that he so easily slanders raised Obama since turning 10 years of age. Since the Senator from Illinois refused to let anyone question his past, it is difficult to judge someone that hopes to become President and should be above any suspicion as to what is true and what is not true which seems to be the “Obama factor”.

Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF Retired (2005) at April 29, 2008 6:43 PM
Comment #251727

Jack,
Agreed, Obama did the “right” thing. There is no reason not to repudiate some of the things the reverend said. Wright is not a politician. He’s retired. But he sure loves that spotlight. The retired reverend is not running for president, and I don’t care about him. Unfortunately, Wright decided to make the most of his 15 seconds of fame, and the corporate media were more than happy to go along with it. The entire effort to identify Wright as the same as Obama, and substitute Wright as the presidential candidate in the mind of voters, is an example of American politics at its worst.

To his credit, McCain has resisted the urge to take the low road. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his some of his supporters.

It really is appalling. The country desperately needs a politician like Obama at the helm, but we seem to be hellbent on finding ways to tear the country apart over flag pins, retired reverends, and other slurs too despicable to merit a response.

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2008 7:36 PM
Comment #251730

“The country desperately needs a politician like Obama at the helm, but we seem to be hellbent on finding ways to tear the country apart over flag pins” Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2008 07:36 PM

The following was shared by a friend of mine who is a veteran. Well said I think. Jim

ISN’T A PRESIDENT SUPPOSED TO TAKE HIS COUNTRY’S SIDE?? WHAT PLANET IS THIS GUY FROM????


Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides,” Obama said. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.”

This man does not respect our symbols of pride and freedom and respect. This man proposes to be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces who fight for our flag and our veterans who have fought, died, been maimed, over the last 200+ years? I suspect that he also does not believe in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, but yet when you see him making a speech on television (like the recent Philadelphia race speech) he is surrounded by a backdrop of 10 or more American flags! He likes those props! You can assume from all this that he is a fake and a hypocrite.

Something is wrong and frightening here.

AND SOME PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY STILL THINK HE IS THE GREATEST…

Posted by: Jim M at April 29, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #251740

Jim,
Come on. The guy is a United States Senator running for President. He presents an inspirational vision of just how great this country can be, the kind of message we haven’t heard in a long time. If that’s not American enough for you, or patriotic enough, then nothing will convince you.

Do you disagree with the vision? Are there actual issues on which you and Obama disagree? Fine. That’s a great subject for discussion. But the relentless character assassination being directed towards him- Obama is a Muslim, Obama’s buddies are terrorists, Obama is a racist, Obama is unamerican, Obama is unpatriotic- these kinds of attacks are beneath contempt.

It is no coincidence. McCain suffered the same kinds of attacks from Bush supporters in the 2000 election- McCain was a Manchurian candidate who had been brainwashed by the Vietnamese, McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby- and those attacks were equally despicable.

Today I caught a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh on the radio. He spewed poisonous hatred, most of it directed at Obama. It was truly the vilest bile.

Well, I suppose nothing will stop the haters within the GOP. But I would like to think most Americans, whether they support McCain or Hillary or Obama, are made of better stuff.

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #251742

phx8:

But the relentless character assassination being directed towards him- Obama is a Muslim, Obama’s buddies are terrorists, Obama is a racist, Obama is unamerican, Obama is unpatriotic- these kinds of attacks are beneath contempt.

And that is his fellow democrats!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 29, 2008 10:10 PM
Comment #251745

Craig,
lol! Hillary is playing for keeps, no question. Running for president must be incredibly consuming, and the relentless pressure of being in the public eye will inevitably result in some gaffes. That’s to be expected. I’m sure both Hillary & McCain have said a few things they wish they could take back. And her campaign has resorted to some negative advertising. But neither one of them is stooping to the kind of vile insinuations being spewed by the far right of the GOP- I’m talking about the deeply personal attacks upon character, the kinds of attacks which are so difficult to address, because they’re emotional rather than factual, or based upon events decades ago, such as Obama’s childhood, or the Swiftboating of Kerry.

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2008 11:02 PM
Comment #251746

Phx8:

I have never seen a presidential race like this. I haven’t heard the remarks from the far right. Or at least I haven’t paid attention to them.

I have to say I am astonished. Since I take you as a Democrat of good will, this must be driving people like you crazy!!

If you could keep Rev Wright and Bill Clinton quiet, this would be sooooooooooo easy for you.

It sure makes for good entertainment.

Wow, these black preachers sure liven the politics up a bit.

By the way, on behalf of all of us Republicans, I want to thank your party for making this race close. We thought it was lost long ago.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 29, 2008 11:10 PM
Comment #251747

Phx8:

Oh man I hate to do this. If Rev Wright is put together the way I think he is, you Obama supporters are not done. I think Wright is going to respond. Rev Wright OBVIOUSLY does not believe he should do anything for the sake of getting Obama elected. It is certainly highly likely that you will hear another round.

My advice to Obama after today would be to go silent on Rev Wright. If Rev Wright responds, (highly likely), I would have no comment and let Rev Wright have the last word. Rev Wright has the power to have the last word.

Actually, I expect Wright to talk and talk and talk and talk, to use his new found fame to push his agenda. Wright probably feels that his agenda is more important than presidential politics. Oh if he would just go away!!

Even Carter. Carter should stay at home unless he has cleared is movements with Howard Dean. You never saw Presidents Ford or Bush I do this kind of thing. It is so important to let the Presidential Candidates have the press time.

Your past Presidents need to cool it during campaigns.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 29, 2008 11:23 PM
Comment #251748

Craig,
I’m sure the attacks on Obama will continue. Ultimately, in terms of results, it won’t matter. Obama is a lock to win the Democratic nomination, and highly likely to win the November election in a landslide. The traditional media and the GOP, and the “moderate” Democrats, for that matter, are not paying attention to what the general public has been saying all along: get out of Iraq, stop outsourcing American jobs in the name of “free trade,” and make fundamental changes in approaches to energy policy, both as a matter of economic health and as a matter of national security, as well as a way of addressing Global Warming.

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #251749

Phx8

Obama has the most liberal record in the Senate. He believes in a more intrusive government than I do. I do not share his vision.

I think it would be great if we could all just get along, but it seems like Obama is inviting us to join him, not moving toward the middle ground between us. That is not the same as being a uniter. I just watched a documentary on Rome. It is sort of like the Romans inviting the Greek states to become part of the empire. Maybe good, but not really meeting them halfway.

Posted by: jack at April 29, 2008 11:31 PM
Comment #251750

“GENEVA, SWITZERLAND—An international peace-crimes tribunal commenced legal proceedings against former U.S. President Jimmy Carter for alleged crimes against inhumanity Monday.

“Jimmy Carter’s political career includes a laundry list of anti-war-making offenses,” said chief prosecutor Charles B. Simmons. “Carter’s record of benevolence, diplomacy, and respect for human life is unrivaled in recent geopolitical history. For millions, the very sight of his face evokes memories of his administration’s reign of tolerance.”

Carter awaits trial for acts of peace committed between 1976 and the present.
The former president, whom Simmons described as “relentless in his naked pursuit of everlasting global peace,” has been sought by peace-crimes officers in the international war-making community for decades. Police apprehended Carter on July 25 in South Florida, where he was building low-income housing as a part of a Habitat For Humanity project. Shortly thereafter, he was extradited to Geneva, where he will be prosecuted for “grossly humane acts against all nations.”

“Carter’s defense team will have a difficult task defending him against these peacemaking accusations,” Hargrove said. “Carter’s signature is right there on the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel. His decision to return control of the Panama Canal to Panama continues to impede U.S. military intervention in the region even today…
While much of his peacemaking took place during his term of office, the years following Carter’s presidency have included peace-mongering missions in Ethiopia, Sudan, North Korea, and the former Yugoslavia.

An unearthed 1978 photo shows a peace-mongering Carter with Menachem Begin and Anwar al-Sadat.
“Carter is one of the worst enemies the forces of destruction have known since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his non-violent rampages of the ’50s and ’60s,” Simmons said. “Even today, in his capacity as an ex-president, [Carter] continues his pursuit of non-aggression. He must be stopped now, before another terrible war is avoided and more lives are saved.”

Prosecutors have linked Carter to a number of international humanitarian organizations, including Red Cross and Amnesty International, both of which fund compassionate, non-military efforts around the globe…

The Onion
8/6/2003

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2008 11:38 PM
Comment #251753

I love the Onion. There is actually another version of their website in India. One time, when I couldn’t get a page to open on the regular website, I got it from the India version.

I am almost starting to feel sorry for BHO’s supporters, the sane ones, not the cult members.

Jack, BHO believes mostly in himself, the “L” word positions are campaign tactics given to him by the Strategy Group in Evanston, going all the way back to the state senate. He wouldn’t feel bound by any of that, any more than he feels bound to defend his crazy old uncle Jeremiah anymore.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 30, 2008 12:44 AM
Comment #251768

“Rev Wright OBVIOUSLY does not believe he should do anything for the sake of getting Obama elected”

He just did something like that Craig.
Obama wouldn’t denounce what wright was saying in Obama’s church and that didn’t go over well with the average joe voter. So, wright goes public and says the exact same things Obama has listened to for 20+ years and now Obama can publically denounce what wright says.
Finally seeing the light? Or doing what would be best for his campaign?

Posted by: kctim at April 30, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment #251778

It amazes me how unreasonable people feel Wrights comments are, both in the historic context of the Tuskeegee experiment and the modern context of the Sewage experiments conducted in poor black neighborhoods of Baltimore with zero medical follow-up. Even if he is wrong in the particular instance of HIV/AIDS, it is quite apparent that medical experimentation on the black community is still taking place; though I would conceed at this point there is reason to question whether current policies specifically target blacks or simply the poor in general, of which blacks still constitute a disproportionate number.

Posted by: Jarandhel at April 30, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #251779

phx8:

I’m sure the attacks on Obama will continue.

I simply think Obama is from the far left, and he has interesting associations. It’s not a knock on the left, we have are stranger people on the right as well.

We had our Democratic convention in town. I was at an Applebees. Here comes some people right out of the 1960’s, with their beards, head bands etc. I wondered where the die hard hippies went!!
They are still democratic party activists!!

I expect more of this to come forward. I think you take the good with the bad. Nominate someone from the far left and this is what you get.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 30, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #251781

I expect more of this to come forward. I think you take the good with the bad. Nominate someone from the far left and this is what you get.

You mean an honest discussion of racism, and wack-a- doodle conspiracy theories? More please!!

Maybe Ted Haggee could share with us a little. We never get this kind of stuff from the right.

Posted by: googlumpus at April 30, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #251782

Obama’s repudiated a pastor he knew (or thought he knew) for over twenty years, rejecting and denouncing the views he gave on Monday to that Press Club.

McCain has failed to repudiate two pastors who have insulted great religions of this country and of this world, pastors who’s foreign policy views are atrocious, and who have themselves made inflammatory statements blaming America’s disasters on the victims.

If Obama can cut off his right hand if it offends, why can’t McCain let go of people he’s far less invested in? Obama’s willing to step out and take a chance at alienating a significant portion of his base in order to reject a supporter’s (using that word loosely) views. McCain will continue to kiss backsides of his pastors to get elected.

Who will put the interests of the average person on top, even if it means saying no to some of his strongest supporters? Will McCain say no to all his lobbyist friends, whose legislation he just happens to help get passed? Will Hillary say no to the PACs who have given her over 800,000 dollars?

Barack Obama does what he has to do to get the job done, even at significant personal cost.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #251788

I haven’t heard all that much of what Rev. Wright has said. I have seen the 30 second clips on Fox (my favorite news source, I’ll take a good lie over the truth any day!) and also CNN. I saw his speech to the Press Club in its entirety and found his remarks to be, for the most part, entirely reasonable.
How many black people do you know, Jack? I don’t know any. In fact, among my circle of friends I don’t know any of my friends who knows a black person. When I go into a business, you rarely see a black person working there who is in the view of the public; and this in in Portland, Oregon, (the place liberals move to when Berkeley gets too expensive.)
I think it is required of us, as human beings, to at least attempt to empathize with others, who have other views. I don’t think that anyone on this board would dispute the fact that black people in this country have gotten royally SCREWED over the years, the hundreds of years (!). Rev. Wright has lived in a time when a black could not hold certain jobs, or live in certain neighborhoods, or patronize certain business’s.
Everybody seems so outraged at Wright and his remarks. Doesn’t he have a right to be outraged too?
I’m disappointed in Obama. He understands what Wright is saying and running away from it because it it the expediant thing to do.


Posted by: charles ross at April 30, 2008 2:41 PM
Comment #251796

Charles ross,
Good for you! I had the same experience watching the Reverend Wright’s speech. I thought it was lively, provocative, even somewhat erudite. I do think that maybe some have a problem with his *blackness* Which, yes, may be sometimes construed as bombastic. How about the guy who introduced Wright!?!?

Anyhow, I fail miserably to see just exactly what it was he said that’s so bad. Do we not live in a country where speech and ideas are free? I don’t agree with much of what he says, so what? I know my man Obama does not agree with it either. Why do people feel so threatened by a little free speech? I find the railing against his ideas more bothersome than I do the offending ideas themselves. Call me screwy, but is that not what both of my grandfathers, my uncles, my mom, my dad, and my brother went to war for??? Really, isn’t freedom the reason? Or do some just pay lip sevice to it. The Reverend is a man of God who has served his community for a long time. Before that, he served as a United States Marine. As my father (a very white guy, who I heard use the word “nigger”) did.

Long story short; some of you should back off the Reverend and maybe start focusing on what we can do to better our country and our situation.All the more so because you are only inviting more scrutiny and hoopla about McCain’s associations. I have heard more than enough of this sort of thing already. No more, please!

Posted by: steve miller at April 30, 2008 5:12 PM
Comment #251797

Charles ross,
Good for you! I had the same experience watching the Reverend Wright’s speech. I thought it was lively, provocative, even somewhat erudite. I do think that maybe some have a problem with his *blackness* Which, yes, may be sometimes construed as bombastic. How about the guy who introduced Wright!?!?

Anyhow, I fail miserably to see just exactly what it was he said that’s so bad. Do we not live in a country where speech and ideas are free? I don’t agree with much of what he says, so what? I know my man Obama does not agree with it either. Why do people feel so threatened by a little free speech? I find the railing against his ideas more bothersome than I do the offending ideas themselves. Call me screwy, but is that not what both of my grandfathers, my uncles, my mom, my dad, and my brother went to war for??? Really, isn’t freedom the reason? Or do some just pay lip sevice to it. The Reverend is a man of God who has served his community for a long time. Before that, he served as a United States Marine. As my father (a very white guy, who I heard use the word “nigger”) did.

Long story short; some of you should back off the Reverend and maybe start focusing on what we can do to better our country and our situation.All the more so because you are only inviting more scrutiny and hoopla about McCain’s associations. I have heard more than enough of this sort of thing already. No more, please!

Posted by: steve miller at April 30, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #251799

googlumpus:

Just think about it for a bit. The further to the left or right, the more interesting the people are.

Moderates are boring, but have enourmous power as king makers. It’s on the fringe that you get conspiracy theory and all sorts of entertaining ideas.

Obama is the single more liberal member of the Senate last year. That doesn’t mean he is a strange person, but rather that the “strange folk” from the lest are most likely to gravitate to him. Where else would you most interesting people go?

You don’t need to be defensive. It sort of comes with the fringe of voters.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #251800

Stephen:

McCain has failed to repudiate two pastors who have insulted great religions of this country and of this world, pastors who’s foreign policy views are atrocious, and who have themselves made inflammatory statements blaming America’s disasters on the victims.

When our wacko pastors speak at the national press club, and give out our sides conspiracy theories.

So far we are able to keep our wacko pastors and our past presidents quiet. This feat is keeping us equal in the polls.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 30, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #251803

Nobody is questioning whether the jackass has a right to say what he wants, thats nothing but a sad attempt at misdirection.
Some are, however, questioning how a man who sat and listened to how evil whitey is and how evil the USA is, for 20+ years, could possibly be a leader who represents the US and ALL of its people.

Obama lied and said he had no idea wright believed those things. Then he said, yeah, he says that stuff, but thats just the Rev., he’s a wacky guy huh.
And now he denounces what wright said at the press club, after listening to the same crap for 20+ years.

The guy is a disgrace, and you have no idea how much it sickens me to say this, but I would rather have hillary. BLAH!

Posted by: kctim at April 30, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #251806

kctim:

I think Obama’s prayer breakfasts would be more interesting.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 30, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #251812

kctim-
While certainly not always a sympathetic figure, Wright is certainly more complex than this vision of a perpetually ranting pastor.

The Right doesn’t want to process that. They want to turn religion into a nail in the coffin of their strongest opponent.

Fine then. If McCain is such a reasonable fellow by comparison, then we know that he’s already repudiated and rejected Pastors Hagee and Parsely.

Right.
Right?

Oh, I’m sorry, right-wingers like John McCain don’t have to dissociate from their controversial Pastors, because no matter how much they damn America, no matter how much they seek to get us into new Wars in Israel and Iran, no matter how rancid and terrible their beliefs get, Republicans have a free ride on being associated with patently offensive people!

Barack Obama cut off his right hand, his pastor of 20 years, a man he had long history with, and McCain doesn’t even have the guts to part ways with guys he doesn’t even otherwise like. I wonder: whose beliefs, whose credibility, whose strength of character is greater here?

Again and again, you guys give him a free pass. You give him a free pass of making a big stink of what an enemy of the old Washington Politics he was, even thought the guy’s surrounded by more lobbyists than even Hillary Clinton, and let his lobbyist friends run both his campaign and their lobbying firms from the Straight-Talk Express.

You give him a free pass on the hundred years duplicity. Tell me: he says the hundred years will be peaceful ones, few injuries or deaths. How the hell does he get to that, though? One way or another, it’s continued violence in Iraq during his administration, because the magic military fairy isn’t going to end the war when he gets into office.

You give him a free pass on flip-flopping on many positions. Last I recalled, McCain was Pro-Choice, Anti-Torture, Anti-Religious Right. Your own party was attacking him as not conservative enough. I guess, though, he had to follow the party platform: inconsistency on all levels, especially during Presidential elections.

And yes, you give him a free pass on campaign finance. Mr. McCain of McCain Feingold sold himself as reform embodied. And what does he do?

This is rich: he promises a bank that if he loses the primary, he’ll sign up for public financing and let that pay off his loan. Yep. That’s what taxpayer dollars are for: slush funds for unsuccessful campaigns. Oh, it gets better. He’s accepted 500,000 from lobbyists, 400,000 from PACs. His opponent (Obama)? Doesn’t accept money from Lobbyists, doesn’t accept PAC money.

Oh, it gets even better: Half McCain’s money comes from people paying the max of 2300. Two thirds of Obama’s money comes from people paying LESS than the maximum.

So, go ahead. Tell us about the virtues of John McCain. Tell me about Barack’s one scary pastor, the one he disavowed when he reiterated his corrosive comments. McCain sure didn’t disavow Hagee when he went back and damned New Orleans again for having a Gay Parade!

I know I have a candidate with real character, not somebody who has to invent theirs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2008 6:48 PM
Comment #251817

That’s quite a reply Stephen, but the topic is about Obama and not McCain.

Posted by: BOHICA at April 30, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #251821

BOHICA-
The topic has been Obama for long enough. It’s time to vet McCain.

Don’t worry, we’re doing him a favor. If he survives this, he’ll have been toughened up. If he survives it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2008 7:44 PM
Comment #251824

“The topic has been Obama for long enough.”

I didn’t name the topic of this article nor did I write it, however the topic is about Obama. I understand that your man is in a bind now and you want to supprt him and I understand that the best way you feel you can do this is to attack McCain, but the topic is not about McCain.

You are articulate enough, why not comment on Obama kicking his pastor to the curb, and stay on topic?

Posted by: BOHICA at April 30, 2008 7:54 PM
Comment #251827

BOHICA-
What’s left to discuss? He’s done it! He’s repudiated him. And what happens? The Conservatives contine their concern trollery.

For those who don’t know, Concern trolls are those who kindly give advice to Democrats on what they could best do to improve their chances for election. Usually this involves moving to the right, adopting Republican positions, not being so darn liberal, and of course, there’s no conflict of interest whatsoever in the fact that their advice is given to the people they intend to defeat!

What makes this worse, of course is the fact that Republicans are no longer trusted on many issues, and Democratic Party fortunes are on the rise.

Why should we be accepting advice from the folks who are on their way out the door from a political disaster of epic proportions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2008 9:38 PM
Comment #251831

And doh-te-doh, McCain just floats along. All you guys have to do is NOMINATE someone…and bang you win. This is too funny.

Although…I did see a poll where Billary beats McCain by 9 points. I say we call off the Hounds. I think Hussien is easy pickins. Who would have thunk?

Posted by: andy at May 1, 2008 12:13 AM
Comment #251834

Stephen:

I don’t see to many people questioning Obama’s character. It’s his judgment. It is hard to imagine that Obama was a member of his church for 20 years, had his children baptized, was himself married by, and didn’t have the slightest idea what Rev. Wright was like. It doesn’t make any sense. That is not how the world works.

As for blaming the right, you are the ones who are nominating someone from the far left. This is what happens.

There will be more. It is just begining.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #251836

Stephen

I know you guys want to shift the focus to McCain’s problems. But let me tell you what, it won’t fly. Obama and the Dems are on their heels. They may be able to get their composure again, but I for one have no intention of talking about McCain’s negatives when I can talk about Hilary’s or Obama’s.

The great thing re Hilary and Obama is that they are revealing all the weaknesses of each other. Hilary even ran an add with a picture of Osama bin Laden. Republicans could not have gotten away with that one.


I have and will continue to write re McCain’s strengths, however.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2008 1:07 AM
Comment #251838

Does that mean we’ll be hearing less and less from you then, Jack??
And the Republican mantra never changes…..do as I say, not as I do..

Posted by: janedoe at May 1, 2008 1:37 AM
Comment #251839

Janedoe said
“And the Republican mantra never changes…..do as I say, not as I do..”
Possibly. But tell me one thing. What are we to make of the Democrat mantra “a lie repeated often enough becomes truth”?
Reason I ask is because Obama supporters keep saying he will unite us. How? I’m Libetarian,pro 2nd ammendment,pro-life,anti-affirmative action,and….well you get the point. Name me one Obama initiative that was made to get my approval,in the face of Liberal opposition. Just one. Not talk,mind you,but something he has done. A concrete action.
He is an arch Liberal. For him to try to pass himself off as anything else is a lie.

Posted by: t-bone at May 1, 2008 5:30 AM
Comment #251840

Sorry,I forgot to give credit to the quote I used to define the Democrat Mantra. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Another great Liberal.

Posted by: t-bone at May 1, 2008 5:54 AM
Comment #251845

andy-
Easy pickings? Watch the Superdelegates. Watch the pledged delegates; they’re going nowhere fast to make up her gap. There have been more bruising primary fights. It’s Hillary’s willingness to chase the Right-Wing to the bottom of the barrel that’s both made her tough, and ensured most Democrats don’t want her to win.

Craig Holmes-
Like I said before, Wright is a complex man. You guys persist in thinking that he was just some crazy guy. You miss the intellectually complex guy who had multiple degrees, and who in his way was as charismatic as Obama. You talk about judgment, but step back for a moment.

He was just a community organizer at that point, his presidential ambitions more than sixteen years in the future. Did he see this foaming at the mouth radical all the time? No. You’re asking him to have the prescience to know about his pastors remarks a decade hence, as well as what ambitions he would have at that point. You’re also asking him to have a psychopathic degree of detachment with the man who played such a major role in his life.

I think your argument reduces to “he’s a liberal who associates with dangerous radicals”. The truth is, though, being a liberal is not a liability, especially not in today’s climate, and Wright’s views aren’t Obama’s. I know the Republicans want to isolate all the folks they consider radical from society, but they’ve become so radical themselves, that they’ve practically defined the moderate middle as radical.

Which is why the moderates have broken for the Democrats. You can can talk about Obama being far left, but the Republican Party and Conservatives nowadays do it from from such a distance from the center that it becomes a qualifier of whatever they say.

Jack-
You will talk about them. You will tell me why Obama can cut himself off from a pastor he’s known for twenty years, and McCain can’t sever himself from a pair of religious radicals he barely tolerates, much less agrees with.

You will tell me how such a candidate can dare to beat up on Obama for campaign finance when Barack’s operation is cleaner on every level than his.

You will answer these questions if you want your candidate elected, because you will have to defend his record. You don’t get to stay on offense because you’re the Republican. You have to play defense, too. We’re tired of the double standard, and don’t think we’re not going to do something about it.

And McCain will make it easy, with the people he associates with, with the policy he backs. You’re going to watch what he says with much more anxiety that he’ll say the wrong thing or lose his temper. He is also your compromise candidate, the man you folks settled for because nobody else had even a chance of appealing broadly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2008 8:14 AM
Comment #251846

Janedoe

I don’t even understand that.

I think that doing what I say not what I do is a Democrat thing. Ask Hilary (93million income) Clinton or Barack (Chicago real estate mogul) Obama.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2008 8:18 AM
Comment #251852

Jack, my hat off to you.

Yes Obama at least in public has broken off the relationship with Wright, once he was attacked by Wright, but then again what he says and what he does might be different. How can he say he has not heard Wright says the same thing in 20yrs of being a member of the church, did he go to church and sleep for all those years.

phx8 said”Come on. The guy is a United States Senator running for President. He presents an inspirational vision of just how great this country can be, the kind of message we haven’t heard in a long time. If that’s not American enough for you, or patriotic enough, then nothing will convince you.”

Years ago another person ran for office, was legally elected to office, Chancellor of his country, and then the s**t hit the fan. He was abled to smooze and bamboozle the people in believing he was the new Messiah, for his country.


So if Obama doesn’t feel right with symbols that we as Americans hold up as patriotic then what does he hold as patriotic? The Star Spangle Banner, yes has bombs bursting in the air, but it also represents that the US will fight for it’s freedoms even if attacked and at war.

If he gets elected(which I doubt), will he stop the 21 gun salutes for himself and other heads of states? Well he stop the salute’s over military personnel who have died. Will he stop the salute at retreat on military bases. Wait, why not just lay down all the weapons and lets have a worldwide group hug, and it will solve all the problems.

Wright now all Obama is words, a sheep in wolf clothing.

KT

Posted by: KT at May 1, 2008 9:17 AM
Comment #251856

I’ve never really thought much about Hagee’s endorsment of John McCain as being somehow reflective of McCain’s feelings about Catholics and Jews. It is an illogical connection and I would only make myself look foolish by establishing a syllogism that says:

Pastor Hagee thinks that Catholics are whoremongers
Pastor Hagee thinks John McCain would make a fine president, therefore
John McCain thinks that Catholics are whoremongers

Conservatives on this board DO look foolish by trying to use the same poor, really poor, logic to tie the “goddamn america” comments by Wright to Obama’s sentiments. It goes something like this:

Rev. Wright is anti-american
Barack Obama knows Rev. Wright (and doesn’t wear a flag pin very often and was caught not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge (quite a crime) therefore
Barack Obama is anti-american.

You conservatives, trying your best to get over with this sort of sophmoric reasoning! You must know you’re hanging by the thinest thread. You know that don’t you?

Posted by: charles ross at May 1, 2008 10:07 AM
Comment #251859

Stephen:

I think your argument reduces to “he’s a liberal who associates with dangerous radicals”. The truth is, though, being a liberal is not a liability, especially not in today’s climate, and Wright’s views aren’t Obama’s.

I’m not sure we disagree too much here. I think it is normal for any candidate close to the edge to have interesting associations.

I think you as a democrat, and we as a country need to be prepared for more of the same. It’s almost like Clinton and his Bimbos. Clinton is a womanizer. If one is associated with him “part of the price of friendship” is enduring stories of infidelity.

Obama isn’t a womanizer, and I don’t see dishonesty. But he is pretty far to the left. I think a “part of the price of friendship” is going to be defending him from his more interesting associations.

Since this is a 20 year relationship, he obviously knew the man. I don’t think at all that Obama embodies Rev Wright’s more extreme views. I do however think this is a tip of an iceberg. He has other 20 year relationships, and they are probably interesting as well. As a supporter of Obama I think you should be preparing to defend him from the next one that hits the press.

The Liberal angle is this. Several months ago, Obama was portraying himself as a man who transends old labels. That was hogwash, and a way to “duck” what he stands for. He is simply from the left. I don’t use that term as a four letter word. I use that term to describe and expectation of what Obama will be proposing to the American people in terms of policy and legislation.

Taxes are going up!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 10:35 AM
Comment #251860

Craig, when you cut someone’s taxes and borrow the money to do it, it is not a tax cut, it’s a deferred tax increase.
Democrats don’t have to raise cap gains/dividend taxes, George Bush did that when he signed the orginal “deferred tax increase” into law. If this tax policy is so great, how come w didn’t make it permanent to begin with?
w’s administration, if nothing else (and there is nothing else remotely positive), is “pro-growth”. Cutting the tax rate on div’s and cap’s was a central part in that policy.
So, where’s the growth????

Posted by: Charles Ross at May 1, 2008 10:47 AM
Comment #251862

Jack-
Just keep on piling absurdity on top of absurdity. I know you guys like to call us communists for the sake of politics, but don’t be so foolish as to actually believe we’re communists. We’re for a more equitably spread capitalist environment, you know, the kind that allows an actual middle class to exist.

Secondly, Barack Obama is not a real estate mogul except by an extreme inversion of the term. As far as I know, the only recent real-estate transactions he’s done are ones in which he was paying, not being paid. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a lousy story. He has earned millions this year, but his job description is something more like “Bestselling Author.” and “U.S. Senator”.

Meanwhile, if reports are true, your candidate’s richer than either of the two, the result of marrying up to Beer heiress reputedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, McCain only released his tax return, showing his humble Senator’s salary and royalties from his book.

As for the duplicity you’re claiming, the Republicans are much better at it. Claiming to be the representatives of the average working class American, they support an agenda biased towards raising the fortunes of the already rich. Even if they take their own press seriously and have the best intentions, the policy choices they make provide these breaks to big business and the rich with the notion that helping out these people will do more good than helping out the average American directly.

Think about that. Why does the help always have to go through the upper classes, the elites first? Fact is, the rich save more, keep more of the money back. They’re not financially disinterested. They will often serve their own financial interests first, and the average person’s next, if at all.

The people who originally formulated these policies most likely believe that the judgment of the middle class and the poor is inferior to that of the Rich, that indeed the rich are there because of their superior economic sense. Rather than being interested in giving people back their money because they know how best to spend it, they’re real purpose is to give it to the economic elites because a) it benefits them, and b)they think they’ll use the money better.

Put simply, the weighting of the tax policy is indicative of the view that the judgment and intelligence of the elite should be valued over the average person’s. We see in the policies of the right this ongoing pattern. The average American is considered too weak-kneed to be allowed their wish on withdrawal. The Neocon and chickenhawk elites therefore feel the need to use any and all means to get America into certain wars, even committing widespread deceptions and pushing weak evidence in order to win the debate. And when they want out? Oh, no, you can’t get out. We must stay the course. We must maintain the surge. We must not go or bad things will happen.

Most Americans favor Government interventions on behalf of the environment, on behalf of consumers, on behalf of healthcare. But the elites in the GOP know better than the rest of us, and will do all they can to scuttle things.

And of course, we can’t let people decide how to run their own sex lives, their own religious lives. Society would fall. Therefore, we have to have abstinence only education for kids on sex, if that. We can’t allow gays to marry, we can’t allow women the right to chose, because we have decided that despite what the law says that we should impose our personal views on others.

The Republicans are elitists in the realest sense of the word.

KT-
It’s nice to know you focus on the real substantive issues. I mean, there’s so much you can tell from the way they wear a flag-pin, from a few words here and there. I mean, it would just be foolish to take broader views, sift fact from fiction, and not go into fevered speculation at the drop of a hat.

We might as well speculate that McCain’s a Manchurian candidate, if that’s the tone you want. A brainwashed pawn of the Chinese!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #251863

Stephen
I’m not a McCain supporter, so I couldn’t even begin to act to try and tell you about his virtues. Thats probably why I don’t really mention McCain huh.
The way you keep trying to change the topic from Obama to McCain is comical though, and it shows just how nervous you are that this issue may have an unfavorable impact on Saint Obama.

“I know I have a candidate with real character, not somebody who has to invent theirs”

Real character? He said he never heard those words, then he said we did and we needed to discuss it and now he denounces what he listened to for 20+ years.
Real character would have been denouncing those ideas and getting up and leaving the first time he heard them. That is IF he disagreed with them.

Obama is constantly reinventing himself for votes.
Obama is nothing but more of the same.

Posted by: kctim at May 1, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #251868

Charles Ross:

Craig, when you cut someone’s taxes and borrow the money to do it, it is not a tax cut, it’s a deferred tax increase.

You are backwards. Tax cuts did not lead to a reduction in revenue for a couple of reasons. First of all tax brackets are not indexed for inflation. So taxes naturally rise in time via inflation.

Second if you look at long term trends in federal tax revenue we are way within normal limits. In fact we are right about our 50 year average.

It is the spending that should be of concern.

Democrats don’t have to raise cap gains/dividend taxes, George Bush did that when he signed the orginal “deferred tax increase” into law. If this tax policy is so great, how come w didn’t make it permanent to begin with?

This is simply a “sin of ommission”. You are in charge of tax policy. You are for raising taxes because you plan to do nothing. Actually, I think Democrats will “do something” which is to keep the tax cuts for the middle/lower classes.

w’s administration, if nothing else (and there is nothing else remotely positive), is “pro-growth”. Cutting the tax rate on div’s and cap’s was a central part in that policy. So, where’s the growth????

Where is the problem? Since the tax cuts were enacted, we have come out of a recession and the economy has growth at historical norms.

Here is a quote from and article I recently read:

What is also true is that since the 2001 recession, the US has bounced back faster than the EU. At present, both GDP growth per head and labour productivity are growing faster in the US. But recent US productivity gains are concentrated in distribution rather than manufacturing, and US growth continues to pull in more imports than it produces exports, resulting in a growing external deficit – funded in part by the EU current account surplus.

On the EU-15 side, lower growth is reflected in a high and prolonged average rate of unemployment, which has remained about three points above that of the US for some time.

High taxes such as in Europe drasticly slow growth and increase unemployment. Lower taxes and lower government expenses increase growth rate of GDP.

Liberals would vote for policies that would make our country look more like Europe, which over time would slow economic growth and increase unemployment.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #251871

Charles:

Rev. Wright is anti-american Barack Obama knows Rev. Wright (and doesn’t wear a flag pin very often and was caught not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge (quite a crime) therefore Barack Obama is anti-american.

You conservatives, trying your best to get over with this sort of sophmoric reasoning! You must know you’re hanging by the thinest thread. You know that don’t you?

Here is a quote from a poll released today:

But Mr. Obama has vulnerabilities. Only 29 percent of registered voters said they considered him “very patriotic,” compared with 40 percent who described Mrs. Clinton that way. Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, was considered “very patriotic” by 70 percent of the registered voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01poll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

So Obama wants to be President in a time of war and only 29% of registered voters consider him “very patriotic”.

We are hanging by the thinnest thread that currently is supported by 70% of registered voters.

Anyone want to discus Elitism?


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #251872

kctim-
Nervous? Not with news like this:Do you wonder why McCain pushed the BS Hamas story?.

McCain and Hillary may be familiar, but that doesn’t mean they’re any better or purer or safer of candidates than he is. Obama’s an easy target because he’s new, not because he’s worse than the other two. They, on the other hand, have history aplenty for Obama’s surrogates and the party to bring up. McCain’s not a reformer, just a very duplicitous politician.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #251875

The idea behind much of what Rev Wright has to say is this. If you have power over others, you are inherently evil. If you have the ability to do things that affect others’ lives negatively, you are evil. He sounds a lot like a right wing nut, complaining about the evils of government. He just goes farther by blaming the whole country, which he considers himself in the name of his congregation to be apart from, which is not completely untrue.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 1, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #251876

Stephen
All three of them have “history aplenty,” but we are just now finding out the history of the “new” guy and it seems like it doesn’t impress a whole lot of people. Well, a whole lot of people other than his followers who think he can do no wrong.

The left preaches about wanting change, but their actions only show that the only change they really care about, is a change in party.

Posted by: kctim at May 1, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #251880

kctim-
It’s a change in the establishment in general that people like me are looking for, clearing the decks of both Republicans, who maintain a deathgrip on the status quo, and the Democrats who seem invested in keeping politics the way it has been for the last generation. More than a shift towards the Democrats, we want a shift away from useless politics.

Obama’s lack of history and great apparent strengths in character and organization are more attractive to us than years of experience being part of the crew that has run Washington the way it has for the last generation. We want somebody who doesn’t have experience running things the old way, because it is our intention to run things in a newer, different way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment #251881

Stephen

I have never called liberals communists. Of course there are some communists who are communists and I have called them that and some liberals have taken it as a shot at them. Communism/fascism is a very specific set of ideologies, mostly they are creatures of the past. It is a good riddance to hateful and murderous ideologies. I do feel a bit angry when I see some fool with a picture of Che Guevara. He was a communist and a particularly murderous and stupid one at that, but he kinda looked like Jesus in that one picture so he gets good PR among the ignorant.

I know you want to turn this around to an attack on McCain, but. I didn’t even attack Obama in this post, BTW. I thought he did a good thing by purging the racist. I wrote that. I only wish he had done it earlier. I know it is fun for you to attack McCain, but it is not particularly appropriate here. Sort of like bringing a football to a basketball game.

Re THE rich and THE poor, those are not really good categories. I am currently among the almost rich. Ten years ago I was dead center and twenty years ago I was poor. In a couple of years, my income will drop precipitously and then I will be back among the semi-poor in income. In fact, I figured out my income over the roughly 30 years of my working life and I come out (adjusted for inflation) at almost exactly the median income if you figure in all the years and incomes.
I am not interested in policies that help the rich or the poor. The policies I want are those that increase the general prosperity so the poor can stop being that way sooner. Fair policies will naturally reward smart behavior. Those who take advantage of the opportunities may be “poor” but will probably become “rich”

So you see this poor rich thing is a bit of a tautology. It is like looking at the line at the airport and observing – correctly – that the guy at the end of the line never gets to the front. Maybe you want to redistribute the places in line. I would be more interested in making sure the line was moving to help the INDIVIDUAL at the end of the line move to the front faster, even if the class of guys at the end of the line, almost by definition, never moved.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #251882

Stephen:

We want somebody who doesn’t have experience running things the old way, because it is our intention to run things in a newer, different way.

As in divided?


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #251884

Stephen
“More than a shift towards the Democrats, we want a shift away from useless politics.”

And judging by Obama’s extreme liberal voting record, we understand what you think useless politics are.
You guys had this election in the bag, all you had to do was put up somebody who would represent all of us. Instead, we get another gore and its close.

“Obama’s lack of history and great apparent strengths in character and organization are more attractive to us than years of experience…”

It is becoming clear that Obama does not have a “lack of history,” but plenty of it and people are questioning it.

Craig is right, Obama and his politics will do nothing but divide this country even more.

Posted by: kctim at May 1, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #251885


Stephen D.: I remember when I was young and idealistic. I thought George McGovern was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I thought the people would easily see through the B.S. of Richard Nixon. I thought there was no way that McGovern could lose.

Posted by: jlw at May 1, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #251886

jlw:

I worked in McGovern’s campaign!! Then I became a Republican.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #251889

Don’t confuse political survival to guts. Since Sen. Barack Obama has had most news media networks in his back pocket at no cost, the truth about this elitest politician has not been told. For example, Obama grew up going to private schools all of his life and not the welfare life that he falsely pandered.

YouTube and the Senator from Illinois have one thing in common, both groups have no idea what ethical behavior should be as part of an individual’s responsibility. Last night Sen. Hillary Clinton stated to Anchorman Bill O’Reilly, that she was glad that both were rich in order for them to be able to assist those Americans less fortunate. Instead, many on YouTube in normal Obama fashion twisted Clinton’s belief that it is her responsibility to give back to America for the riches that our nation has given her and her family.


Shame on all of those that continue to lie and twist someone’s good intentions in order to pass on their hatred and support for a slimy politician as the Senator from Illinois. The fact that it was to Black journalist that forced the news media to investigate the Senator from Illinois questionable friends and Obama’s inability to bring Democrats and Republicans in the Illinois State Senate and U.S. Senate. Sen. Obama’s lack of knowledge in areas that America needs to focus in the near future, continues to be downplayed by many super deligates that are trying to convince Americans that Obama is the right Democratic nominee.

The Democratics National Committee (DNC) has forgottent that Democrats are supposted to allow voters to support their choice up to the Democratic Convention and not the DNC’s right to force a viable candidate to drop out solely because of in-house politics. The DNC refuses to mention that if Americans had been told the truth months ago, the current total delegate count would have most like been totally different.

Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF Retired (2005) at May 1, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #251898

Dr. Hubert-
The politically survivalist thing for Obama to do would have been to throw Wright under the bus. He didn’t. Instead he gave a speech challenging Americans to confront the racial divide that was part of those comments. He also both embraced his pastor as a man while at the same time rejecting his comments. That take guts to attempt and intelligence to pull off, and he did well enough that the pundits even said that it was a magnificent.

As for this whole thing about a candidate being forced out, let me remind you that this is basically the entire strategy of the candidate you’re trying to portray as a victim. She can only win by destroying the candidate with the most votes, most states and most delegates. Any other Democrat would have conceded by now and given the leading candidate the license they needed to go after the opposing side.

As for O’Reilly? She can’t possibly believe that she won’t pay a price for that, whether from the right or the left. The Right Wing is obviously supporting her because they know that Barack Obama is a threat to them politically. The left, which didn’t even like Obama talking to Chris Wallace on Fox, positively loathes her over going on Bill O’Reilly’s show. She’s already convinced many that when push comes to shove, she flees to the right. That’s how Obama got his opportunity with the netroots left. The campaign has only reinforced this sense that she’s just a Republican Lite.

As for the media? Give me a break. Whether it’s the AP showing up and giving McCain Donuts, ABC’s anchors spending 45 minutes on damaging distractions, or the whole media doing the can-can on Obama over Reverend Wright and Bitter gate, it is astounding for anybody to claim Barack Obama has it easy with the media.

But of course, if you repeat lies enough, some might think they’re true. Repeat trash about the pledge. Repeat trash about Rezko. Repeat trash about him being a Muslim, even as you repeat stuff about Wright! (that’s what we call MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BS!)

Never mind this stuff has been debunked backwards and forwards, you folks are trying to influence the gullible, the anxious, the prejudiced. An not out of any interest in doing good for them. No, the poor and working class, the uneducated have gotten a raw deal under you. No, you’re going after them because they’re easy targets.

They deserve better. They deserve people who look out for their interests and tell them the truth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2008 8:10 PM
Comment #251909

Stephen:

The Right Wing is obviously supporting her because they know that Barack Obama is a threat to them politically.

Wrong. The Right Wing is supporting Hillary because the longer you fight each other the better for Republican chances in the fall. If Hillary were to magically pull ahead, the right wing would start pulling for Obama.

Plus, Hillary is more conservative than Obama.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #251910

Stephen:

Never mind this stuff has been debunked backwards and forwards, you folks are trying to influence the gullible, the anxious, the prejudiced. An not out of any interest in doing good for them. No, the poor and working class, the uneducated have gotten a raw deal under you. No, you’re going after them because they’re easy targets.

You folks? Who are “you folks”. Is that like You gays, or you blacks etc, etc? You seem to be not your best when you use that tone.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 1, 2008 9:36 PM
Comment #251913

Jack-
You might never call us communists, but have you read your Red Column Compatriots? (interesting that they are on the Red Column. Reds. Could they just be trying to distract us from… Nah, couldn’t be!)

On the subject of Obama? He’s new, so he’s getting the worst drubbing. Okay. But I think people by now are somewhat familiar with him, and anybody who wants to know his story can check out the books at the library! His life is literally an open book!

There are plenty of worse things that Hillary and McCain have been involved with, not merely folks they have been associated with. It is the inertia of fossilized records that keep these things down, keep them from being news. Trust me, once we get into the summer, these things will not remain undisturbed. Even if Obama doesn’t go there, count on the Netroots to go there instead. Remember the Attorney’s controversy? That started with the Netroots. Don’t doubt the ability of them to make a difference.

And you know what? It’s time. McCain does not get to dodge this forever.

As for rich and poor, it’s pretty simple: A rich person can afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle and then some. A poor person has to struggle constantly. The Republicans have made that struggle worse for millions with their policies.

America’s strength is that the gradient of wealth is much softer than in many places, where the middle class is much smaller, and the divide between rich and poor sharper. Our prosperity is based on wider participation in the economy, wider sharing of the rewards.

I see this commercial on all the time for this job-search site, and it just bugs the crap out of me: The Ladders. They smugly put out this tennis pro who gets knocked over and overwhelmed by a crowd of regular people playing like a bunch of morons. 100K+ job search site for 100K+ people.

That’s elitism. That’s what you Republicans seem to say on every issue. Let the 100K+ people make all the decisions. You try and Democratize things by invoking the market, but when industry elites together decided to follow the same policies, individual choice, at least for the middle class weakens as an antidote to business’s encroachments and misbehaviors.

And the thing is, not all of our talent lies in these upper reaches of income. Hell, much of it is widely distributed. However, we are more inefficient at taking advantage of it when we go for elitist economic policies.

Craig Holmes-
You haven’t been paying much attention to the Obama campaign if you think division is his main theme.

kctim-
We could elect Enid the hair-curler wearing hausfrau and you’d call her extreme. I think Obama pointed out that many of the National Journals picks for Liberal policies were actually quite uncontroversial, middle-of-the-road legislation. Unfortunately, the Republicans and conservatives are so far out to the edge of the right-wing, that many reasonable things to most Americans strike them as far left.

The people doing the most dividing, relying on the most divisive rhetoric are the folks fighting against him.

jlw-
I think his appeal is broader. I don’t, however, approach this with pure idealism. I think it will take a lot of hard work. That said, McGovern was dealing with a party going in the opposite direction from that of the party when they were running against Nixon. Now it’s the Republicans going into the election with their president of two terms having started or escalated a failed war. Now they are the ones who screwed up the economy. Now its McCain who has to summon up support from a fractured, demoralized party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #251916

Stephen;

You haven’t been paying much attention to the Obama campaign if you think division is his main theme.text

Your party is split right down the middle. A third of Hillary voters plan now to vote for McCain. (Of course that will change).

If you cannot united your party, how can you expect to unite the country?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 12:12 AM
Comment #251918

Craig,
“If you cannot united your party, how can you expect to unite the country?”

Fair enough. If, despite the closeness of the contest with Hillary, Obama unites the party behind him, then would you concede he’s the best choice for president, because he actually might be able to do the same for the country?

Dr Hubert,
Apparently you prefer the lowest form of political attack, namely character assassination. Let’s see… “most news media networks” are in Obama’s pocket. Well, “most” implies lots and lots. But let’s make this easy. Name one.

Elitism. Another fine example of character assassination. Of course, it can never be proven or disproven. It’s just a vague accusation. But I am curious. Is there a national politician who you think is not an elitist? You know, a real salt of the earth, feet made of clay, stand-up kind of person? Please. Name one.



Posted by: phx8 at May 2, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #251919

phx8…My answer is yes. If he wins the election he is my president and I, as an American, will hope and pray he succeeds.

Posted by: andy at May 2, 2008 2:34 AM
Comment #251921

Craig Holmes-
I’m always skeptical of the slicing and dicing when people try to play this as an exact science. Truth is, Hillary is a formidable politician and candidate, who specializes in a particularly divisive form of politics.

But where has that gotten the Democrats? It worked fine for Bill, but we suffered net losses on just about every front. We’ve won two elections with Clinton, and few elections with anybody else using their tactics. Additionally these tactics really only worked for Bill in the 90’s, dealing with a rightward slanted country. Now that slant has gone the other way, and Democrats have succeeded in the last election with a broader strategy.

Which Obama supports, and not just with his words. He put his money where his mouth is, and is prepared to do that again.

Clinton freezes out those who turn to Obama, Obama welcomes Clinton supporters. Who do you think is going to gain the most support, especially with his commanding lead?

He’s a uniter in a way that Hillary, Bush, or McCain aren’t. I mean, the fact that he didn’t throw his pastor under the bus at first opportunity indicates his attitudes. I mean, even that Bittergate BS, where you guys are calling him an Elitist was basically him explaining to somebody why they shouldn’t write off a Demographic in Pennsylvania. That’s the irony of it all: he’s called an Elitist for a poor word choice meant to serve the goal of telling somebody to respect their values, their differences.

I think the real dividers here are his opponents, who are more than willing to exploit pre-existing fault lines in American politics for their own gain.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2008 8:07 AM
Comment #251922

Phx8:

Fair enough. If, despite the closeness of the contest with Hillary, Obama unites the party behind him, then would you concede he’s the best choice for president, because he actually might be able to do the same for the country?

Wow that’s a tall request!! In a weak field. I wont vote for Obama regardless. I’m a moderate Republican, and he is too liberal for me. Combined with a democratic congress I would think legislation would be passed that would take us down a path looking a bit more like Europe, which is something I wish to avoid.

If we had a Republican congress I might not feel as strong about it.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 9:11 AM
Comment #251926

Stephen
No need to elect Enid, just nominate a Democrat who would represent a larger majority of the voters. Something a liberal candidate does not.
Obama’s “theme” may not be one of division, but his liberal policies are.

Liberals don’t see it that way though. They see racism, evil Republicans, lack of education, propaganda etc… as the reason why we are so divided, but you guys are wrong.

“The people doing the most dividing, relying on the most divisive rhetoric are the folks fighting against him”

Yeah, right, and the ones doing the uniting are the ones who have been preaching to him 20 some years.

Posted by: kctim at May 2, 2008 9:59 AM
Comment #251929

Stephen

Re Obama, McCain etc. I can understand why you want to turn all these fora to looking at McCain’s problems and you can understand why I want to keep the focus on Obama. It is sort of a zero sum game here. Right now, there is a lot more interesting stuff on Obama. It is not only me who thinks so, and Obama fans are increasingly frustrated that they cannot get others to pay attention to what they think are big deals.

If it is any consilation, the Hillary folks probably felt that way about Obama, when nothing seemed to stick to him. Now that he has lost his non-stick surface and can no longer walk on water, you can expect to feel their pain.

Re poor and rich - we (you and I)) have a very different way of looking at life and that is what informs our politics. I see things in dynamic fashion. I was poor once; I am not poor now; I may be poor again. I don’t worry about temporary discomforts and challenges. In fact, I think challenges are very good. I am concerned that my kids have it too easy and I make sure they have to do some real work, although I cannot recreate the actual “poor” conditions, since they do not have the poor mentality and they have a safety net.

Re the poor in general, I worry only if people stay poor for too long and then I ask why that happened and how it might be changed. I am really not much interested in equalizing outcomes as long as I can make opportunity available. And clearly opportuity is available since there are a lot of FORMER poor people with good incomes.

We need both to develop opporunities AND get the poor to take them, even if it means hard work and sacrifice. In some respects, these two goals conflict. If we make life too easy for people, they won’t do much.

The great old historian Arnold Toynbee observed that great civilization did not develop in places were conditions were hard, but also where they were TOO easy. You need a challenge that you can overcome, but you need a challenge. When we tell the poor that it is not their fault, even when that has elements of truth, we cripple their ability to resond.

I have been poor and I have been not poor. Not poor is better. But worse than poor is being not poor and still not having the self respect of having contributed to your own prosperity.

Our society provides many opportunities and lots of help. None of us does it on his/her own. But we need to recognize that differnt choices will produce different outcomes. Some people will always be poor in relation to others. That is not something we can change and we should not try.

Posted by: Jack at May 2, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #251932

Really Jack? It’s about time this “important” issue was addressed? For me, Wright is an issue created by and relentlessly kept alive by our media, which would rather talk about anything other than real issues.

Also, comparisons with McCain are totally legitimate, and illustrate what a bs issue this is. You would find it exasperating if Democrats were to continually call on McCain to denounce:

A: His wife, for stealing from charities to support her OxyCotin (e.g. Heroin) habit.

B: His wife again, for cheating with him on his first wife.

C: Himself, for not wearing a flag on his lapel (why has no one pointed out that NONE of the candidates do this?)

D: Himself, for supporting John Hagee, a war mongering, racist, radical preacher who has publicly called the Catholic church “the great whore”.

I could go on and on and on, but - really, is that what we should be debating? Because I would much rather you try and explain to me how McCain’s plan of getting us out of debt by cutting taxes will actually work? Or, how cutting taxes will pay for McCain’s health plan? I’m a little unsure as to how less business regulation is going to help us become energy independent? I’m not really sure how McCain thinks we can pay for a long, protracted war in Iraq by taxing less?

Overall, I don’t understand how your candidate can afford one iota of what he’s promising. If he were to tell me he planned on paying with Monopoly money he would sound like less of a fool to me than he does now.

So… anyway, I’m glad these “important” issues are being addressed for you. For me, the important issues have become totally lost. Our culture lacks the attention span and will to talk about any of the real problems facing them.

Posted by: Max at May 2, 2008 11:37 AM
Comment #251939

Max:

I think you should lighten up a bit. The issues you mention about McCain will be dealt with in all in good time.

Right now, Obama has walked onto the scene as a new person with little experience in the middle of a war.

Excuse me, but any question is fine by me. Actually, just about any question is fine of any FRONT RUNNER. What huge differences are there between Hillary and Obama? When you have one democratic candidate there will be a huge change in this election.

There is a huge compelling drama of the tight democratic race that sucks the air out of the room. It makes for great interest. Hillary is the one with the male hormones on your side, which makes it even more interesting.

It is so hard not to enjoy this contest between a gutsy woman and a not so gutsy man. She just will not go away!!!

I would just enjoy the show as something unique to politics, and then when the show is over we will look to the next chapter. I don’t see the next chapter being nearly as fun as the current one.

It is kind of fun as a republican to root for Hillary!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 3:32 PM
Comment #251941

stephen

it’s like the wizard oz. obamas the wizard, and wrights the man behind the curtain. NEVER MIND THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN ! you argument always seems to be ” your guys worse”. if you think obamas the second comming of christ, than argue on his merrits. trying to argue that one turd smells worse than another makes no sense.

Posted by: dbs at May 2, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #251943

dbs:

I think Obama supporters should be very angry at Obama’s campaign.

Here is what I would be saying behind the “curtain,” if I were Stephen or other loyal Obama supporters.

“Is this how you intend to close McCain?”

Obama seems to be running out the clock and coasting. Instead of a huge victory with all kinds of trumpets, if Obama wins the nomination there will be more of a sigh or relief.

Obama has been a pretty good pitcher in this campaign but he sure isn’t a closer.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #251946

I watched the Hillary interview on the Oreilly show and frankly, was quite impressed with her knowledge, presidential-like presence and good humor.

As a conservative I must admit, this is one helluva lady. If it weren’t for her liberal leaning I could easily vote for her in November based upon her strength of purpose, resolve, endurance, and can-do attitude.

IMO, she is the better of the two remaining democrat candidates. I want a president ready to assume full power based on knowledge and experience from day one. This is no time for on-the-job training and someone of whom we know so little.

With McCain or Clinton we won’t get any unwelcome surprises or baggage from the past that would distract them from the country’s business. I don’t want America to go through 4 years of new revelations, and attempts to answer them, by an Obama administration.

I fear that Obama would be a poll-taker president and have his finger in the air judging public opinion rather than his foot to the pedal and revving up public confidence and subsequently our economy.

Posted by: Jim M at May 2, 2008 4:39 PM
Comment #251947

Craig Holmes

i think obamas past, and present will come back to haunt him. wright will continue to be an issue, the damage is already done, and the fact he refuses to salute or show respect for the flag of the country wishes to lead will offend many. if i were a democrat i would probably be hoping for hillary at this point, although she’s at best a latteral move. it amazes me that they would blow a golden opportunity by allowing these two to carry thier torch. i would think someone like a max baucus,or bill richardson would have been a far better choice. just my opinion though.

Posted by: dbs at May 2, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #251948

Jim M:

I tend to agree with you. The Clinton’s have always driven me crazy, but at the end of the day you gotta admit she is a gutsy lady. I admire here for going to Fox news. If you want to be president you need to be able to go anywhere and handle yourself.

I am worried that Rev. Wright is a parallel of sorts to Bill Clinton’s “Bimbo Eruptions”. His “associations” will be a constant drag on his administration if elected. Can you imagine if this pastor thing were a continual drag to the point where we as a country were forced to think about which was worse, Obama’s associations or Bill Clinton’s?

Let’s see Preachers or Bimbos, which is worse?

As crazy as this race has been, anything is possible.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #251949

Jim M:

We need a cartoon of Rev Wright dressed like a bimbo, with Obama asking Bill Clinton for advice.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #251954

kctim-
You know, you’ve been reading an awful lot of Democratic comments. I guess you’ve become a liberal, since obviously, people completely and uncritically absorb anything they listen to or read, and you’ve probably absorbed the most radical of those beliefs that are only occasionally brought out, despite the fact that most material on the left is relatively reasonable.

Obama is an adult, and came to the church as an adult. Are you going to tell me that the child of a mixed-race family raised by a white mother and grandmother is all that likely to become the next Louis Farrakhan by listening to the milder of a multitude of Reverend Wright sermons?

The Right talks of individual responsibility when it works with the market, but not with politics, not with morals, not with religion. Those we must be given, they say, by their appropriate mentors. As the Right has gone to its extremes, those are more and more people the average American doesn’t see as reliable.

Obama is not his preacher. No mask has fallen down to show a crazy preacher behind Obama’s even-keeled appearance. Few people seriously believe they are the same. So why does this continue?

Let’s call it what it is: exploitation of perceived weakness. But since this doesn’t come down, really, in most people’s serious estimation, to something about his character, it’s only really opportunism. It’s fake, cynical politics. Maybe you haven’t had your fill of that yet, and still have a taste for being manipulated.

I’ve had my fill. I want us to grow up.

Jack-
Oh, I think there is plenty of time for both our candidates to deal with political BS. But I think Barack’s troubles are more manufactured than real, and the opposite is true of McCain.

Obama’s human. You think his charisma is some walk-on-water divinity. No. It’s that he’s a hell of a lot more accessible than other candidates. He seems genuinely intelligent, genuinely honest, genuinely positive in a way that the other candidates aren’t. It is only because of that that he has a rougher time sometimes, I think. He’s not reciprocating with the kind of character assassination that Hillary is.

Now, it might damage him short term, but I think it leaves him with less people alienated by him, and that helps him long term.

I see things in dynamic fashion, but also in contingent fashion. There’s no magic mobility fairy to sprinkle magic dust on people. By definition, people have to break better than even, and the more unlikely you make that the fewer the people who will get ahead.

dbs-
Never mind the pastor behind the curtain. You know, the one that called the Catholic Church the Great Whore. The one who said that God Damned the Gulf Coast for holding a gay pride parade that threatened to be more decadent than any
before. Or the one who said that destroying Islam was the purpose of the foundation of the United States.

McCain’s no saint, anymore than Obama’s a savior. Trouble is, Obama can be human and be a uniting candidate, but people have to see McCain as honest for him to be a crossover candidate, and there’s too much he’s debated himself about for his opposition to Obama to be robust.

Craig Holmes-
It seems to me that all the people who have great experience have lousy performance. Either we can preoccupy ourselves with trying to choke down the moldy-old bread of Washington politics, or we take, for once in our lives, the risks necessary to take a new direction. I’m sick of Bush/McCain Republicanism, sick of Hillary and Bill Clinton Democratic politics. I’m sick of this economic elitist leadership, I’m sick of my own party letting the Republicans push us into acting like lesser conservatives. I will take an unexperienced man of great intelligence and organizational savvy, who even now has an irrevocable lead in elected delegates and states won over the same old toxic, tired politics that I’ve grown to fiercely hate over the last few years. It’s not even a difficult decision for me.

I have seen in great and excruciating detail where the politics of neoliberalism and movement conservatism have lead this country, and I think we will find these days to be sweet memories in comparison to what’s to come if we allow the country to continue heading in this direction, merely because the political difficulties of change aren’t entirely comfortable.

We have to face our problems. No more fear of admitting failures where they actually are, no more fear of taking risks to get somewhere better. I am sick of being a victim of this kinf of politics, and I want to see my candidate do his best to turn this system upside down. That he is not long invested in this system is not a problem for me, it lends credibility to the notion that he can challenge these people and go the distance. No other candidate has the guts to do that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #251955

stephen

you seem to be completely sucked in to the obama thing. thats why i used the second comming of christ as an example. i didn’t mean it literaly. however once again you try to sell obama not by his own virtue, but by the tired old” your turd smells worse than mine”, or the ever popular you guys do it too. not very compelling.

Posted by: dbs at May 2, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #251960

Stephen:

Wow. You are really set up for a fall. Take a look at history. I have read your work for as long as I have been here. You are a capable debater and a clear thinker. I have to tell you I think you are in too far. Obama is simply another man.

Reread what you have written and imagine it written by a supporter of Adolf Hitler. I appreciate your hopes and dreams, and your sincere desire for change. You sound too sucked in to this one man.

I think a lot of liberals feel this way. It is hard because there has not been a liberal president in a very very long time. I can understand your excitment to be actually be able to vote for someone who have value and policy proposals very close to yours that has such a strong posibility to win. The country is looking for change.

I think it far wiser to promote your liberal values. They are what you truely believe in. Any person will let you down.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #251961

dbs-
This Obama thing? Look, it’s nice for once to support a Democrat for president who hasn’t taken PAC money, and probably never will have to. It’s nice for once to have a candidate capable of being a riveting speaker, an intelligent man who can actually sell people on what isn’t immediately politically convenient.

I know many Democrats probably underestimated Reagan using the same reasoning that you did. Yes, this has been an ordeal of a campaign, but very likely the person who will win this trial by ordeal will be the better politician, on any number of levels.

I’ve been following Hillary’s burning of bridges left and right. However nice and smiley and in her element she is now, she’s gotten there at the expense of generating a lot of bad blood within the party. Barack Obama has no such problem within the party. Most Hillary supporters will support Barack Obama at the end of the day. I know thirty percent or twenty percent sounds like a lot, but consider that many of those people will come back to the fold when push comes to shove, and that Hillary’s supporters are only half the party. That means that you cut whatever percentages you have in half.

Also, let me observe something: a vast majority of Hillary supporters will support Obama. Don’t think for a moment that Democrats have forgotten the last 8 years, as painful as they have been. McCain will have to sell a skeptical public and his own broken party on maintaining the line on these things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #251963

Craig Holmes-
He is. But he represents a literal break from the old system. Even if Hillary wins the primary campaign and the presidency, she will have to deal with the legacy of her opponent’s very successful outreach into the other fifty states. He has a vast database of information at his fingertips, which dwarfs hers. He has a vast fundraising apparatus in place, and pull with the next generation of Democrats that she absolutely doesn’t have. And of course, if Obama loses, she will have to do a lot of making up with the African American community, and Obama’s response to that will have a lot of pull with that.

That’s not irrational exuberance, it’s fact. She will start out with a lot less support, missing critical parts of the Democratic party.

I will ignore your violation of Godwin’s law. If Obama starts pulling crap like that, don’t think that we won’t react poorly to it.

Maybe you’re unfamiliar with what positive support looks like. God knows it’s been a long time since I’ve had a candidate who I be enthusiastic about. You’re seeing what it looks like when people are protective about a candidate.

As for liberal values?

Look, Hillary Clinton and Bill are politically aligned with the DLC. The Democratic Leadership Council is basically the Neoliberal faction whose modus operandi was and is triangulation. In short, acting more like the Republicans in order to exploit their political dominance.

After eight years of Bush, many of us just can’t stand that anymore. Obama is unapologetically a Democrat, and not afraid to stand for our values. Why pass up the opportunity?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 2, 2008 8:20 PM
Comment #251965

Stephen

now thats what i was talking about accentuate the possitive. i could never support obama, but if i was a hillary supporter, you’de at least had my attention.

Posted by: dbs at May 2, 2008 8:58 PM
Comment #251970

In his great speech on racism that all children should hear in school (or so the obamabots told us) Obama told us he could no more disown Wright than his White Grandma.

Well, Obama has kicked both Grandma and wright under the bus. Do children still have to read that great Obama speech now that it’s been recalled?

Posted by: Stephen at May 2, 2008 10:42 PM
Comment #251973

charles ross. Your statement that the black community supports wright is off base. You believe it to be true because Wright preaches the politically accepted hate and racism of the “progressive” left.

A well known liberal commentator, Juan Williams who is a black progressive liberal has indicated that Wright in NO WAY represents the majority of black people or black churches. Juan has states on national TV and public radio that there are many black churches if not most (90%) that would never allow Wright to stand in their pulpit.

Preaching propaganda as fact does not make it fact. Wright’s bigotry and hatred for whites and America is not the stance of the average black person. But I’m sure you want it to be.

Posted by: StephenL at May 2, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #251980

Stephen:

I see your point. Clinton was a great Republican president in many ways. Actually he taxed like a democrat and spent like a Republican is suppose to, and between the two fiscally he did pretty well.

I would expect liberals struggled with welfare reform.

What I like about you is that you are proud of your beliefs. You are clear and unashamed of your thoughts. I can actually work with people when I know where they are. I can guess at issues where there is agreement and build bridges.

I certainly don’t want to take away from you being excited about a candidate because you have someone you believe in. Actually, I am happy for you.

I feel a bit the same way with McCain. Well to a point. My whole adult life I have worked with Democrats. (Try to get something done in public education without democrats). I’m roughly the RLC. (Republican leadership council?).

As a Moderate Republican, I was always for what worked. (In my own mind). Not so much driven by ideology, but rather by research. Given solid proof that a program benefits kids, I can campaign for a tax increase, as long as we have a reputation in place for being tight. I’m a fiscal conservative who can be persuaded, and can give criteria when I can be negotiated with.

My fear of Obama is that we will move too much in the direction of Europe. I see no reason to increase taxes and spending right now. If you go above and look at what I just said, we obviously do not have a reputation of being tight with our money. But McCain does!!!

For instance with health care. I think it’s a crime that we are have so many unisured young people at the same time when we are subsidizing the wealthy for their health care. I agree with McCain. I think we should first cut health care for those who make over $150,000 in retirment. Why are we helping them while our young and poorest go without?

Obama would tax first. See the difference? I can be convinced to pay more taxes, but not until after we cut from the affluent. The left wont do that.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 2, 2008 11:58 PM
Comment #251984

Stephen:

Just another thought on liberal values.

By the way, your response to me was excellent. One of the best I have ever read. Thank you.

I don’t have any qualms with liberal values. I wish it were not viewed as a four letter word by some, because the term is very useful. For instance I would view countries like Canada and most of Europe as more “liberal” than we are in America.

That tells me what society would be like if liberalism were to grow in power. We would be more like Europe. Well, that is a fair debate. Millions are born, educated, have families, live and die in Europe/Canada all of the time.

There are trade offs. Instead of painting people as “evil” it is just that there is a different priorities, and values, which create different problems. It is obvious that people with different values would be interested in voting for different people.

You and I probably can never agree on a candidate. We can agree on a way of doing business. I think that is part of what Obama is trying to do. There is a difference between what we believe and want, and our tactics.

I would really like to drill down into some of the questionaires about why American’s believe we are headed in the wrong direction. I would be curious what percentage of the concern is specific policies/budgets etc, and what percentage is how our leaders treat each other.

Anyway, thank you for your last response up there. I fully respect why you are supporing Obama.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 3, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #251985

Craig Holmes

“For instance with health care. I think it’s a crime that we are have so many unisured young people at the same time when we are subsidizing the wealthy for their health care.”

i would rephrase that. it’s a shame that those who want, and need health care cant afford it. remember many choose to go with out intentionaly. i’m also not opposed to means testing for gov’t benefits that includes soc.sec.. i think the kicker though would be deciding where to draw the line.

Posted by: dbs at May 3, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #251990

Stephen

We do need to pay attention more to particular aspects of Obama’s character because we know so little about his experience. Each particular piece of data is relatively more important since there is little of it.

I can feel the frustration in Obama supporters. They are coming to hate Hilary in a way they once hated Bush, but they feel so bad about doing that to another Democrat. In your tone to me, you seem to imply that I should defend Hilary. I can if I want, or not. She is a Democrat. She is doing what Democrats do. It is entirely an internal Democrat civil war. Democrat on Democrat violence.

That is another reason why bringing up McCain is not appropriate. He is not the one creating this. This is a Democrat creation.

You are trying like mad to make the Clinton’s Republican. It is interesting that you consider the only successful Democratic president since Harry Truman or maybe even FDR, more of a Republican than a Democrat. I guess you won’t be pointing to the Clinton record as a good thing.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2008 6:11 AM
Comment #251995

Stephen-
His White Grandma did not go on national TV and publically humiliate her Grandson. She did not essentially go on a book tour and undo all the benefit of the doubt that Obama had gotten for him. There were people among us supporting him right to the end. Even some of us (I’m not one of them) suspect he intentionally made a fool out of himself to force Obama to disown him. Personally, I think he did it because he’s a proud, insecure man who’s attitude towards the cariacture they were making of him was to throw it back in their face. You want crazy? I’ll show you crazy! I think he had unrealistic expectations that Obama could defend him further than he already did. I mean, when’s the last time you saw a politician go that far NOT to throw a potential political liability under the bus?

By the way, about that Grandma: He was using her as an example of good, non-racist folks who nonetheless have certain issues sometimes with those of other races. His aim was to humanize his pastor, to reach out an olive branch to those who aren’t perfect on race, but aiming to be tolerant.

Another noteworthy thing to consider: she wasn’t offended by her grandson’s comments, despite the political correct worries of many on the right wing. She went and did a commercial for her grandson.

StephenL-
Hate and racism of the progressive left? The truth is, our attitude is pretty much like Obama’s for the most part. There are some real resentments to deal with, but what we want is for the problem to work itself out, for society to become color-blind. Some want more aggressive measures, others would use more conciliatory methods. Obama falls in the latter category.

We don’t mind. That’s what we want with him: am end to pointless divisions.

Craig Holmes-
It’s good to be excited for once. And there’s reason to be.

What I like about his position in the current gas tax discussion is that I don’t have to rationalize it: it’s rational to begin with! It won’t save people much money, and in the process will lose people hundreds of thousands of jobs, our roads will get worse, and nothing permanent will be done. So I can say I agree with him, without having to invent a BS political reason for that agreement. He’s not perfect, but you get the sense that he’ll choose practical solutions over political ones. We need that.

At this point, taxes need to go up. The current low taxes are dysfunctionally low. They’re driving up inflation, and their cost is not being taken out of surplus, so essentially taxpayers will have to pay back the money they pay in now and more. That will mean one of three things: we pay more taxes in the future to make up for what we didn’t pay now, we get less for actual government operations than we do now, or we run a chronic deficit. Not attractive options. The sooner we get our ship tighter, the better for all involved.

As for your political thoughts? I think we would do things differently from Europe, but certainly certain resemblances would grow. Europe, though, is not so perfect in its liberalism as some would think. Open racism exists there that would be objectionable to even some on the far right here. They are far more autocratic in their sensibilities. When you talk about Democrats making the country more like Europe, keep in mind there’s a side of Europe that Bush and his people are helping to bring closer to America.

One of these aspects are Guest-Workers. When I first heard about those from Bush, I already knew about the kind of program he was proposing from hearing about it from my brother, who has travelled through and studied about Europe. What that’s done is created enclaves of immigrants across Europe that aren’t integrated into those societies, and those have recently become flashpoints for Islamic Radicalism and even terrorism. There’s a good reason for calling the terrorists who attacked America the Hamburg Cell. America does not need to repeat the mistake it once made of making a population second class citizens for the long term.

Another mistake he’s making that’s similar to Europes is the greater government powers and the colonial attitudes. Neither did the Europeans or the rest of the world much good. The country whose civil war we’re refereeing right now is a product of their intervention into three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The Neocons would have had us commit many of the same errors; you could say Europe may have tried to hold us back not out of spite, but out of sad experience.

Additionally, European countries already tried to get tough on immigration, get tough on ethnic groups perceived to be trouble makers. All that’s done is make many of their problems worse. We can learn things from Europe concerning what they’ve done well, but their more important lessons might be in what they have tried and failed to do.

Jack-
We do not hate Hillary the way we would Bush. Hillary we’re willing to vote for to keep McCain out of office. But we’re no longer all that open to her candidacy. Many of us who might have been willing to support her if she won now are decidedly against her. I think it’s ironic that people call her a good politician, since she seems to pay such a terrible price for the way she does business.

The Clintons are taking on your tactics, doing things their way. They didn’t have to. They’re making people more fearful about things than they ever needed to be. We remember how the beginning of this race was, how we felt. I think the toughening was unnecessary. Obama was a plenty good candidate to start with. My hope is that he can relax a little bit when Hillary’s out of the race and get rid of that tension. He doesn’t need to be tough for the race ahead, he needs to be his old inspiring self. People want that, and I think they miss it from him.

As for bringing up McCain? It relates. This whole thing is about congratulating Barack Obama over his severing of ties to Wright. Okay. But can we make the same celebration about McCain severing ties to Hagee and Parsley, folks he’s hardly so close to? Obama could sever his relationship with Wright, despite his long history with the man. Why can’t McCain, who in the past has had little to do and little respect for these men, depend upon them as spiritual advisors? How can he beat up Obama over Wright having not parted ways with these people?

The truth is, to put it politically incorrectly, is that McCain is politically dependent on his religious eccentrics, and Obama is not. His was a personal connection, a religious connection. Why can’t McCain once more be the Maverick he was and tell these men to get lost? Obama’s cut off his Wright hand, so to speak, because it offended him. Can McCain do what little he has done to match Obama’s move, or is there a double standard here about associating with controversial religious figures?

As for the Clinton’s record? I think we would see it as a better thing, not a good thing. We lost a lot of ground on many issues, and he let Congress do a lot of disastrous things. He kept the worst from happening, the horrors of the Bush administration as they happened, but his administration was part of a downward trajectory for us.

We look at him as being more of a Republican for good reason: he made it a policy to triangulate on those things. We might have judged him better if Republican politics hadn’t lead to such an incredible series of disasters, if his political legacy hadn’t been such a net negative for Democrats, if the DLC hadn’t essentially let Bush have free rein in their triangulating ways.

To be blunt, we want people who will proudly stand for what they believe, and against the Republicans with their excesses and errors. We don’t want people looking to imitate the right anymore.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 3, 2008 10:13 AM
Comment #251996

Probable Rpblcn ad using BHO owns words against him, turning him into W2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLllifAyXLM

I wonder how many times we will see something like this before the November caucuses, with the proportional representation, that will be sure to select college town favorite BHO as POTUS.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 3, 2008 10:52 AM
Comment #251998

There is also electoral college reapportionment math involved in election years:

Years ending with 8 (before reapportionment)
1908 Taft, 1928 Hoover, 1948 Truman, 1968 Nixon, 1988 Bush41, 4 R 1 D
Years ending with 0
1900 McKinley, 1920 Harding, 1940 FDR, 1960 Kennedy, 1980 Reagan, 2000 Bush43, 4 R 2 D
Years ending with 2 (after reapportionment)
1912 Wilson, 1932 FDR, 1952 Eisenhower, 1972 Nixon, 1992 Clinton, 3 D 2 R
Years ending with 4
1904 TR, 1924 Coolidge, 1944 FDR, 1964 LBJ, 1984 Regan, 2004 Bush43, 3 R 2 D
Years ending with 6
1916 Wilson, 1936 FDR, 1956 Eisenhower, 1976 Carter, 1996 Clinton, 4 D 2 R

Truman was the only Democrat to win in a year ending with an 8 in the last hundred years.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 3, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment #252000

And then there’s the whole Annie Oakley thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7zl00fKOZc

Posted by: ohrealy at May 3, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #252007

Stephen

McCain has many supporters. It would be foolish of him to make a big deal about any of them and do the mea culpa like Obama

In Obama’s case he had a very close relationship to Wright for 20 years. He was Obama’s mentor. That is why we might suspect they share ideas.

It is like that old joke re the difference between being involved and committed. If you look at the chicken and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed.

McCain has had millions of supporters. Over the last 20 years, Obama has had only one mentor and pastor - the crazy man Wright.

Re Clinton - she is using Clinton and therefore Democratic tactics. The Clinton’s perfected the politics of personal destruction in the 1990s. They didn’t need to learn it from anybody else. It is a Dem tradition.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2008 1:41 PM
Comment #252011


Jack: Another Jack Tale— “The Clinton’s perfected the politics of personal destruction in the 1990’s.” You must be talking about Whitewater Gate, Travel Gate, Foster Murder Gate and Monica Gate amoung others.

Are you sure you didn’t mean to say that the Republicans perfected the politics of personal destruction in the 1990’s. Haven’t the Republicans continued in that same vein in the 2000’s with the swift boaters for non truth and slogans like Osama Obama.

How about one from that paragon of virtue John McCain, Obama, the candidate of Hamas.

When competing in the arena of deceptions and lies, The only politician that can defeat a Republican is another Republican.

Posted by: jlw at May 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #252019

Stephen:

At this point, taxes need to go up. The current low taxes are dysfunctionally low.

I am not sure what you are using as a measure for this. Look here:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf


According to the congressional budget office, federal revenues are higher than the 1970’s and about the average of the 1980’s and the 1990’s. the only time when revenues have been higher was Clinton’s second term. From a historical prospective, revenues look absolutely fine.

If your side wins the election, you will be raising taxes at new historical levels for our country. They will then be above average for our society.

If you raise taxes closer to Europe’s our economy will start to be dysfunctional like Europe’s.

Take a look at Europe’s GDP growth relative to USA. They have a much higher tax burden and also much higher unemployment. It is very important to not trade away our children’s economic future with more socialism through higher government spending.

Europe is really set up to struggle going foward.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 3, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #252024

BHO, with a southern Hawaii accent, on Wright, a great leader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzHQ_PC1uI

Posted by: ohrealy at May 3, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #252025

Craig,

If we do not raise taxes how do we pay for:

1) the war against terror,
2) the war in Iraq,
3) rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq,
4) rebuilding the infrastructure in America,
5) pay down the debt we owe China?

Do I need to go on?

McCain has been criticized for being against Bush’s tax cut. McCain was very specific about why, yet was pilloried at the very thought of being “against a tax cut”.
Where exactly is the money going to come from to pay for the above?
You guys want to do these groovy things, but at the rate we are spending, how could even the government qualify for a credit card, or better yet, a mortgage?

Posted by: Rocky at May 3, 2008 7:50 PM
Comment #252027

Obama’s problem is not that Wright was not taken in context. Or, Obama himself is incapable of taking Wright in context after 20 years of worshiping at his feet. If Obama can’t understand Wright in proper context then who wants Obama taking that 3am call?

The other option here is that Obama dumped Wright to fool the voters. To DECEIVE the voters. Wright himself suggest this is exactly what Obama is doing.

Obama’s problem is that as we move away form simplistic nonsense of “change” and start to learn who Obama is, we learn Obama is what he said he is, a “progressive”. And surprise surprise, he believes in and repeats some of the “Progressive left’s” most hate filled propaganda.

He looks down on those fly over states filled with “Bitter” people who “Cling to relgion”, “Cling to guns” and “Cling to the idea of securing the boarders and stopping the lefts wide open support of illegal immigration.

He believes black on white hate is justified and proper. He believes it’s right to not be proud of America. His pastor preaches it, his wife acknowledges it, and that’s why he couldn’t dump Wright. Wright speaks the far left hate filled agenda he believes in.

Obama still hasn’t told us why he spent 20 years accepting this bigot’s hate and he still hasn’t left the church and he still hasn’t applogized to all of us whose life style he spit on in front of his far left friends to gain an applause line. He instead tried to “clarify”, “recontextualize” and to JUSTIFY his words. Thinking he could make a slick speech and full the “stupids” whose vote he needs.

Obama’s problem is what he believes in, and that he doesn’t have the common sense to know which of his beliefs are hateful and repulsive to the masses.

I’m not finding Obama to be particularly capable as a politician or bright. We were told by you folks time and time again in the last presidential election cycle how brilliant Kerry was. Then, after he lost, we learned his grades were worse than Bush and the left ripped into Kerry for being an outright boob of a candidate. Shades of Kerry, and shades of Gore…her comes Obama…another not so bright far left “progressive”.

Posted by: StephenL at May 3, 2008 7:55 PM
Comment #252036

Jlw

I remember the Clinton times. The Clinton machine was doing to Republicans what it is now doing to Obama, although with less constraint. At that time, you may not have noticed, since it was being done to the other side and you might have seen it as “justified” But if you think Clinton is being nasty now, I don’t find it much different from the Clinton machine of the past – except it is a little less nasty and the press is not on board to push it through.

In any case, any Clinton dirty tricks are Democratic dirty tricks. The Clinton’s represented the party leadership. If you don’t like them, that is your business, but they are Democrats.

So remember the simple formula. Clintons are prominent Democrats. Clintons are engaged in dirty tricks. That means that prominent DEMOCRATS are engaged in dirty tricks. THis is entirely a Democrat problem. I enjoy watching it but it is your problem.

Posted by: Jack at May 3, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #252038

But Jack,

Be reasonable. Clinton’s are neocons, these are thus neoco dirty tricks! Like neocons always do!

Laugh.

And of course all the hate, smearing, and attacking the left is doing for Obama is justified because they are having to respond to neocon attacks, otherwise they would never do this.

Except, it’s what they always do.

Posted by: StephenL at May 3, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #252064

Rocky:

If we do not raise taxes how do we pay for:

1) the war against terror,
2) the war in Iraq,
3) rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq,
4) rebuilding the infrastructure in America,
5) pay down the debt we owe China?

The same way we paid for:

1. WWII
2. Korean War
3. Vietnam War
4. Landing on the moon.
5. The cold war.

Need I go on?

Both Tax revenues and expenses are at historical levels. My assumption is that we would do so the same way we have the last 50 years.

We just have to hold the line on Spending. I suppose if we did it for the cold war we can do so for entitlements.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 4, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #252073

ohrealy-
Southern Hawaiian accent?

There’s a such thing? Good heavens man, I don’t see much problem with him praising his pastor back when they were on good terms.

And you know what? We’re facing a Keating Five survivor who despite his rhetoric surrounds himself with lobbyists and lets them lead his campaign. He’s not invulnerable. We’ll have to ask him why Obama is forced to dissociate himself from a man who said God Damn America, while men who called damnation on America in White churches can remain with McCain’s campaign

Is it because he’s black? I’m beginning to think that’s the case. The black guy has to prove he’s not a danger, while the white guy who talks about starting a war with Iran, consorts with preachers advocating apocalyptic war in the Middle East, are considered safe.

I don’t play the race card, and the fact is, neither does Obama. Race never was brought into things by Obama, except as something to get beyond. The only reason this is an issue is that his opponents, looking to bring old resentments into play, sought to use Barack’s pastor, outrageous in the clips, to get people anxious about Obama.

This is about raising suspicion, creating doubts, and not from substance, but from fallacy and prejudice. Barack Obama is not being criticized or bashed on the Wright affair for what he has said or done, but for a mere association. Just like he’s being criticized in the Rezko affair for being merely associated. No proof, in either case, has arisen to demonstrate that the offensive views of the pastor or the corruption of the developer are shared.

This is the pattern of political opposition to him: you don’t know him.

Of course, his opponents can spin this fear of the unknown in any direction. They’ll do this to distract from all the old knowns we have about them. If this campaign is any indication, then neither Hillary nor McCain have learned from their pasts. McCain’s still heavily involved with the corruption of Washington, and Hillary’s still abrasive and needlessly divisive, and not merely because others paint her that way. What I know about Obama so far is better than all that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 9:57 AM
Comment #252076

Southern Hawaii accent is a joke, like the way BHO was talking at Hampton U. He is an actor playing the role of a fictional character, The Candidate. My fear is that BHO will get McCain elected POTUS. Caucuses are not elections. People who win votes from political activists don’t win elections. This is not only conventional wisdom, but has been demonstrated repeatedly this year.

This is RFK jr. The beginning is about lobbyists, then more about what happened to the Rpblcn party between Goldwater and Bush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WonM34-OpuY

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #252078

Jack, you remember the Clinton times? Good. do you remember them well enough to be a little more specific as to what the “Clinton machine” did to the republican party. Let’s take the election of 1996. You have talked in the past about what the “clinton machine” did to Dole. What exactly did the Clintons do to Bob Dole that was dirty, underhanded, unfair?
Did they tell the rubes in the South that he fathered a black baby, illegitimate?
Did they tell the world that he really didn’t earn his medals and that his injuries really weren’t that bad?
How about running adds with a crippled Bob Dole pictured side-by-side with Bin Laden?

I guess my memory isn’t as sharp as your’s, Jack. I know somebody’s party did all these things. Which one was it??

Posted by: charles ross at May 4, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #252082

Well, I remember the ‘pushing grandma off of the chart’ ad, the Republicans want to starve your children ads, the ‘Bob Dole is a cripple’ discussions, the suggestion that Dole’s bid was “part presidential race, part Alzheimer’s awareness campaign.”, how Dole was mean tempered, etc…

Of course, those are just normal Democratic tools, many of them already being used against McCain, so it probably didn’t rattle too many feathers, which is why I’m sure you don’t remember them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 12:00 PM
Comment #252084

ohrealy-
I think the caucus-goers would disagree with you. They are voters, just taking an approach.

It’s elitist to look down your nose at Democrats because they’re in red states, because they’re caucus goers, because their young, because essentially, they don’t support you. We’re all Democrats, rich or poor, degreed or dropout, young or old, Caucus-goer or primary voter. Hillary is playing a game of turning one part of the Democratic party against another in order to secure her victory, playing short-sighted politics that does the other party’s work for them. Even now, with her nomination unlikely, she plays these divisive politics. It’s not even really arguable that what she gains from turning white voters against Obama helps her any, since she loses people on the other side of the racial divide

There are two visions of politics here, the politic of zero-sum division, and the politics the equilibrium point, where groups come together around acceptable compromise. I believe this party is better off taking that approach and being strengthened, rather than availing ourselves of the repeatedly failed approach of employing caustically divise politics to win marginal victories.

We’re addicted to this nasty kind of campaigning, and for us, it doesn’t even have the virtue of representing what we truly are as a party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #252085

Bill Moyers eloquently sums it all up:

Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright’s transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I’m not a psychologist. Many black preachers I’ve known - scholarly, smart, and gentle in person — uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course I’ve known many white preachers like that, too.

But in this multimedia age the pulpit isn’t only available on Sunday mornings. There’s round the clock media — the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content. So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help — people who for their own reasons set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn’t running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher, who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee’s delusions, or thinks AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God’s judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of a preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Which means it is all about race, isn’t it?

Wright’s offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn’t fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone’s neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. Politics often exposes us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I’ve never seen anything like this — this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said “beware the terrible simplifiers”.

ohrealy:

My fear is that BHO will get McCain elected POTUS.

Really? I haven’t gotten this sense at all. Seems to me that you’ve been working pretty hard in this blog for months attacking Obama at every single opportunity — thereby increasing the likelihood of a McCain win in some small measure. I guess I always expected Democrats to stop that kind of thing once it became clear who won the nomination, because any candidate from our side of the aisle would be considered a far better choice than four more years of stay the Republican course.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at May 4, 2008 12:14 PM
Comment #252086

Stephen,

Didn’t Obama go negative in Pennsylvania just to eek out a double-digit loss? Following your (and HIS) stated beliefs, wouldn’t he have been better served to have stayed above the fray and lost by 12% rather than 10%, instead of proving that he is no different than any other politican? That he is NOT Jimmy Smits in the West Wing?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #252089
Which means it is all about race, isn’t it?

No, and to suggest it does is a disgusting tactic not at all averted by those who support someone who says he wants to heal the divide. Par for the course, typically.

The real issue is that because of his lack of experience we are told that we are to vote for Obama because of his superior ‘judgement’. And when we call him on that judgement he displays, we are told we aren’t supposed to care about those sorts of things.

McCain has enough baggage and his party has not been spending decades blasting Republicans for dealing with crazy preachers. It’s expected. It is NOT expected in a man who says he wants to heal the divides and then spends time receiving sermons and being married by someone who IS that divisive.

And there is a big difference between seeking support from a large voting block of idiotic voters and belonging to a church who’s pastor is a firebrand racist…

That you choose to deflect the issue to one of racism tells the whole tale, IMO, and puts an explamation point on the problem Obama had in figuring out how ‘middle America’ thinks about politics.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Comment #252092

“Jimmy Smits in the West Wing” is part of the basis for the BHO campaign. Remember who the advisors were for the whole series. For the last 3 seasons after coke and shroom Sorkin left, the same people were still shaping the message.

Irony, thy name is V V. BHO should pull out of the race before he ends up resigning his senate seat. He is already sick of campaigning, and it’s only May. He’s on a synthetic surface, and is going to break his 3 year old legs running.

Carping about legitimately pointing out a candidate’s inexperience and inflated resume, and the innacurate statements made by his supporters, seems more divisive than anything HRC has done.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 1:22 PM
Comment #252095

Rhinehold-
Your distinction is binary, and therefore worthless in the real world. He’s not going to be perfect. He’s human.

I would rather have somebody in office who occasionally yields to this temptation than somebody who has permanently given themselves over. He has fought a remarkably clean campaign, and because of that, his failures to remain positive stand out more clearly.

But think about it: Hillary’s negative campaign doesn’t get so much attention for that, the way a speck of dirt doesn’t grab too much attention on a truck that’s gone mudding. She’s coated with the dirt and grime of a negative campaign. Should I judge her a superior candidate because Barack got his hands a little dirty?

Obama can wash his hands of whatever negative campaigning he’s done a great deal easier than Hillary can clean herself of the putrid mess she’s been wallowing in.

What bugs me is that you guys peg him as an elitist because considers all these character attacks distractions. You throw the dirt yourselves, gleefully, and then make such a big deal of it when he brushes it off your way.

And no he’s not some television character who can be written to perfection, who can represent an ideal because he’s imaginary. He’s a real human being who has to fight and plan and take real action in order to keep his campaign clean.

As for the added attention being about race? Yes it is. The whole point of this exercise is to make Barack Obama, who never once said anything like this, look like a racial separatist. That’s he’s secretly some black panther sleeper, who when he gets into office is going to take out centuries of white oppression out on The Man.

Never once during this controversy have see seen somebody come out with some tape or some meeting minutes showing Obama acting out any such attitudes. Yet Obama is expected to be his pastor’s clone, or at the very least infected with all his negative points of views. No matter what he says or does, you folks will say: He’s contaminated.

Yet, he shows greater willingness to separate himself from this than John McCain, who while defending pastors he hardly knows and hardly likes, can’t summon up the political courage and sense to separate himself from white pastors who are basically saying the same things as Wright’s pastor. Didn’t Jerry Falwell say the same thing that Reverend Wright did, that America’s chickens had come home to roost, only blaming it on the Average Liberal instead of a destructive foreign policy abroad? Haven’t right wing pastors been damning America for the last generation over their sins? These people have prayed for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices, called for the assassination of world leaders, yet the Republican Party still pays them honor to get the votes of their parishioners.

The racial and political questions are mixed up in this. Sean Hannity publically supports this black minister, but only because the minister says things about black people that would cause folks to call a white minister saying them a vicious racist. If you doubt me, try this quotation on for size:

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

This is Hannity’s idea of a good black pastor.

Wright’s failures are evident, if exaggerated. I don’t blame Obama for his response. He has consistently, publically put himself out for a politics of unity, and will suffer politically if he deviates from that in office. Having promised fairness, he will be held to that promise.

But Obama is his own man. Wright may have taught hateful things sometimes, but Obama evidently didn’t learn those things, or come into agreement He wouldn’t be the first student to break ranks with his teacher. Such is the nature of change.

Now you can allege character defects in me for pointing out that racial tensions play a role in this strategy, but without those racial tensions, pointing out what Wright said is meaningless.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #252096

VV:

God bless Bill Moyers. He gets right to the heart of it.

Rhinehold:

You can read it, but you really don’t get it do you? Either those fiery, controversial preachers are bad support, or they are not. If they are for one but not the other, the only perceived difference is their race. Get it? If it is a judgment call, it is for both. Get it?

Posted by: womanmarine at May 4, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #252098

ohrealy-
A character in a TV show can be unflaggingly patient, and virtuous without exception, because they are merely figments of somebody’s imagination. I would take issue with Sorkin’s tendency to turn his characters into mouthpieces for issues at times, but he’s a pretty good writer nonetheless.

Regardless, though, Smit’s character is fictional. He’s played by an actor who gets second takes. This actor only has to square against other actors, and the course of the scene is pre-determined. If the writers decide liberals are going to win, then, by God, they win! Obama’s no character. Hillary and many Democrats had a script, and Obama improvised his own story instead. People like you complain about what a terrible campaign he’s lead, despite the fact that he’s got the lead in states, pledged delegates, and delegates overall. Very soon, he might just have the lead in Superdelegates as well.

Obama has proven his capacity to change the game. Hillary has proved her capacity to lose a nomination and alienate large sections of the Democratic party that were otherwise hers. She is a loser in the literal sense of the term. That she regains some pull now is not terribly useful. It’s one thing to be a comeback kid, it’s quite another to rely on the notion that you can always fight your way back from self-inflicted troubles to sell your candidacy. At some point people will notice this alarming tendency to shoot oneself in the foot. Obama hasn’t had his people feuding all over the place. He doesn’t have his followers pushing a line that rational thought might see as fruitless. She has far less reason to continue than he does, and more justification in most people’s eyes. He’s earned his victory, and she’s trying to get it essentially by sabotaging him with the party elders. It’s the kind of pointless, vicious, unproductive politics people hate.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #252100
You can read it, but you really don’t get it do you? Either those fiery, controversial preachers are bad support, or they are not. If they are for one but not the other, the only perceived difference is their race. Get it? If it is a judgment call, it is for both. Get it?

And you didn’t get what I wrote either, get it? Or are you calling me a racist for seeing an issue in Obama’s association with Rev Wright (and others) as it deals with his Judgement, which is what he is running on, and paying lip service to a preacher that someone doesn’t know in order to get their constiuent’s votes?

Apparently, it’s about race. Even though I am an athiest and support none of the 3 candidates, I’m a racist. Because I don’t buy into the HYPE about Obama, I’m a racist…

Get it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment #252102
complain about what a terrible campaign he’s lead, despite the fact that he’s got the lead in states, pledged delegates, and delegates overall. Very soon, he might just have the lead in Superdelegates as well.

And in comparison to Kerry, he’s hard a harder job to do the same thing and done a worse job at it… And how did Kerry’s nomination turn out for the Democratic Party?

That was the PURPOSE for the superdelegate system, to avoid the mistakes of nominating a candidate that will divide the party further and lose in the general election. And the system has already failed, the party is divided and neither candidate is looking good for November. There are those that will not vote for Hillary if nominated and those that will not vote for Obama if nominated, or at least that is what they state.

Perhaps it speaks more to how Democrats have a problem with managing something this complex? They haven’t fared too well running BOTH houses of congress and can’t get devise a system, very convoluted, that still can’t get them a good candidate nominated without a divisive campaign.

As an outsider looking in, that’s what I take from the whole debacle. Perhaps that is why McCain is still leading in the polls against either candidate in the polls at this point?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #252103

Rhinehold:

Prove to me and everyone that I ever called you a racist. Not true. You termed your concern as judgment and I also addressed that.

Don’t feel free to put such words in my mouth (fingers).

Posted by: womanmarine at May 4, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #252104
Your distinction is binary, and therefore worthless in the real world. He’s not going to be perfect. He’s human.

I’m sorry, I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I read it right…

So, as long as you support your candidate, it doesn’t matter if he goes back on his word, talks about change and does the same and puts himself above the party by doing so. Hey, he’s only human. (But my god don’t let your opponent do that… Heck, even David is telling us that we need a leader that is willing to cross the aisle and unite, but McCain flip-flopped when he did it so it makes him unelectable. The stunning partisanship that I see is astounding.)

Well, doesn’t that make him just the same as every other politican that runs? They are in it to win, they will go negative when they need to and will denounce people that they disagree with but have known for decades only after the polls tell him he should?

The excuses ring hollow, Steven. The fact is that he was damaged from the beginning because he presented himself as something he is not. He has people convinced he is a uniter, not a divider, just as Bush did 8 years ago. Again, how did that turn out?

The problem, to be honest, is not Wright. It is not his association with Ayers. It is not that he doesn’t understand why middle America is bitter (he doesn’t, his *borrowed* views are invalid). It’s not that he is a hypocrite when it comes to running a hard campaign (this is the first one he’s had to run, btw).

The problem is all of it put together displays someone who does not have SUPERIOR Judgement. Which is what he is selling. Not that his judgement is as good as other candidate’s, but that he is superior to them. He does this because he has very little record to run upon, has very little campaigning experience, has very little at all except a great speaking quality, good speech-writers who know how to sell a product and is charismatic. If that is all you want in a president, by all means vote for him.

If, however, you want someone who has positions that you agree with, a long proven record of working with members of the other party and really tries to be a uniter… Well I don’t know if you are going to find all of that in this campaign. But you have to look further than the surface. Unfortunately, too many people either don’t want to or are afraid of the label that they will get (witnessed here) of doing just that.

Yet Obama is expected to be his pastor’s clone, or at the very least infected with all his negative points of views. No matter what he says or does, you folks will say: He’s contaminated.

“you folks”? Sorry, I’m just an individual who has questions and does not like what I see. Apparently, that puts me into a ‘group’ that can then be lumped together with, guilty by the association… Ironic, isn’t it?

If he had came out immediately and said “Pastor Wright is a friend of mine but has some beliefs that I do not share…” etc, when the question was FIRST asked, not over a month later after he had time to attempt deflection, hope it will go away and/or use the race card, then it would have been meaningful to me. But he only did so after it became apparent that this was not going away and Wright was not going to shut up.

Character would have been to answer, with his heart, when it was first asked and get it right. Being a politician is doing what he has done. And has done in every other case like this as well. A pattern is an example of a person’s character and judgement. And we are supposed to elect him on that superior judgement, remember?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #252105

Spin spin spin. Hillary bad, Obama good. Sam sh*t, different bullsh*tters. “pointless, vicious, unproductive politics”? Where, in Imaginationland? BHO’s supporter are awfully sensitive about any criticism of their guy, and then turn the Drudge on HRC, and blame her for legitimate questions about his lack of any substantive experience. This guy is W, with a better management team. How do people even fall for this crap? His supporters might try to vote “present” on election day.

Anyway, 2008 is most likely a loser for the Democrats. 2012 will be a winner, after reapportionment. TX should provide a lot of entertainment there.

///
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I’ve enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.

Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #252107
Prove to me and everyone that I ever called you a racist. Not true. You termed your concern as judgment and I also addressed that.

You agree with what Moyers said. Moyers was calling anyone who sees a difference between the Falwells, Hagees, etc who are not denounced by the right as the same as Wright, who was Obama’s personal pastor for decades, are racists.

I disagree that they are the same. There is a world of difference that the supporters of Obama want to dismiss.

Therefore, I am being called a racist by both Moyers and you, who stated “God bless Bill Moyers. He gets right to the heart of it.”

Unless you disagree with Moyer’s assessment, which I don’t think you have stated yet. If you did and I missed it, I apologize. Otherwise, it still stands, judgement statement not withstanding.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #252108

Oh, and to further take issue with Bill Moyer’s ‘view’.

Here are a list of reasons that one person might think it is ok for Republicans not to denounce idiotic religious leaders but not ok for Obama not to denounce his personal pastor of several decades, that are not racist:

They are partisan Republicans
They support Hillary Clinton
They support John McCain
They support (insert name of other candidate)
They do not like people with ears like Obama’s
They do not like people who were trained at a Madrass for any period of time
They do not support anyone who is for raising taxes
They do not support anyone who is under 50 being president
They do not like the idea of someone from Chicago/Illinois, a part of the corrupt political machine that it is, being president
They do not like the Obama’s wife
They support the underdog
They think we should not abandon Iraq regardless of how we got there
They think we should not abandon Iraq BECAUSE of how we got there
They don’t trust someone who talks too well
They don’t trust someone who promises things without telling how they will provide them or even if they have the power to do so
They don’t trust someone with the name Hussein anywhere in their name
They don’t trust his calm demeanor
They don’t trust his fiery demeanor
etc…

I could go on but I hope I’ve made my point… Though I doubt it.

BTW, I never said any of these reasons were GOOD or VALID reasons, only that they may be the ones that people have, other than, “I don’t like him because he’s black”.

Of course, these reasons are not as powerful as pulling the race card, is it?

Bill Moyers is a lazy hack.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #252109

Rhinehold-
How many people on the right told blacks that they should move on from racial divisions of the past? How many of those same people will not let Obama move on from that over Reverend Wright, despite the fact that he’s publically repudidated those discordant racial views? The question for each person on the right who takes such a contradictory approach is whether in their hearts of hearts, they’re really wanting to let go their racial grievances or prejudices.

If not, are they not just like Reverend Wright, unable to move past a racial divide?

This all comes down to one thing: When a man preaches unity, some are inclined to fight back by introducing discord. That’s where Obama broke with his pastor. That’s why the Republicans, who depend on many of the working class resentments to keep people who sell out their constituents in office, go after Obama trying to make him look like a hypocrite on tolerance and other issues. That’s why the Clintons, who also depend on the same people, take the same approach.

It’s not that complicated: modern politics has become parasitically dependent on division, on feeding resentment and hatreds. Racial hatred is just one of a number of exploited divides.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #252110
Racial hatred is just one of a number of exploited divides.

Yes, I agree. And is evidenced by the sheer number of people who suggest that anyone who does not support Obama must, by inferrence, be racist.

I am not judging him by his skin, nor am I letting him have a pass. His long time association with Wright is a singular issue, not a defining one, but part of a whole.

Initially you did just want Obama did, tried to play it off. You/he said it was none of our business and that Wright’s words were taken out of context. They were not who he really was. Then he himself said that was what he was and has always been that and Obama was knew it. Then the story shifted, people who brought up the topic were trying to play the game of ‘guilt by association’. I personally have never suggested that Obama shared the views of Rev Wright. But he didn’t repudiate them either, not at first. It took quite a while for him to finally say speak against his long time friend, and then his friend, possibly correctly, said that this was Obama playing politics. It makes people think.

And, to me, if it had been the only issue, I would give him a pass. Speaking out about your friends is hard, especially one you’ve known for that long. But there are other issues that come into play that start to show the chinks in the armor, the real Obama. You yourself say that he is not Jimmy Smits on The West Wing, though I think that you will find many people who support him who think he is just that character. They WANT it to be so, but it isn’t.

Obama is a human. He is a politician. And nothing, NOTHING, suggests that he is the ‘real deal’ and not just another politician calling for change and saying what he thinks needs to be said (or is told by his handlers to say) to get elected. He is not the super-candidate that we’ve all been told he is, his judgement is not superior to those of his opponents and his experience is lacking.

For example, he is going to get us out of Iraq, right? This morning I listened to his words to make sure that I got them right. His plan in a 16 month drawdown plan, one that can, and will, be reversed if genocide or severe human rights violations start to occur. Does anyone think that won’t happen now? Of course, there are those that think that the Bush administration is in Iraq no matter what for the long haul. And while I may disagree with that, McCain certainly isn’t saying much different, only that will would and should retain a minimum presence there, as we do with our other allies, to help Iraq in their future.

So, I don’t see where he really differentiates himself from the other candidates running for the Democratic and republican party, other than some techincal details. It’s the same song, different dance, end result… no real change.

Where is the change? Convince me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #252111

I like BHO and voted for him twice, and still don’t want him as a candidate. He’s in way over his head. The military, the bureaucracy and the Congress would chew him up and spit him out, if he ever got that far. He can’t even decide who his friends are, until someone else tells him. Then he acts like someone is betraying him, by being who they are. Moyers did one good thing. He showed more of Wright’s most famous sermon.
I had more sympathy for the guy until that. Now Jon Stewart has turned Wright into a clown in a minstrel show.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #252112

Rhinehold-
It helps when you listen to my arguments not to read in unnecessary additions of your own. That said, I don’t think it’s racist not to like Obama, and to oppose his candidacy. If, however, Republican politicians and political groups use Wright, it will not only be wrongful, it will be an exploitation of the racial divide. Wright only matters if you ignore the ready evidence, and imagine Obama holds attitudes no quotes or soundbites exist to back up.

Drop Wright, if you’re interested in knocking him down on the substance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #252122
it will not only be wrongful, it will be an exploitation of the racial divide.

What a complete load of crap and I expect a lot more from you, Stephen.

How is it exploiting a ‘racial divide’ to question the judgement of someone running on their judgement as the prime reason to vote for them, when they supported the church their pastor was in charge of for over two decades? I am 100% positive that Obama gave money to that church (though I will admit probably not as much as he could have, considering he gave the least of the three candidates to charity) and specifically to the pastor at some point in the past. His wedding comes to mind, you pay the pastor for that service. And his presence supported the church as well, especially someone with the clout he managed to obtain… Yet did continued to attend and support the church, and the pastor, for that time and up until it became political expedient to drop him. That not only speaks to judgement but to character, IMO.

It is perfectly right for people to question that judgement. Telling them that they are ‘exploiting racism’ simply because the candidate and pastor are black is beyond reprehensible.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 4, 2008 9:39 PM
Comment #252127

I bet we are seriously overestimating BHO’s attendance at Trinity UCC. He has been in Springfield and DC mostly, when not vacationing in HI. That might be the next thing that comes out of this neverending story.

Wright is supposed to be seriously pissed, and doesn’t want to go away quietly. Northwestern withdrew their offer of an honorary doctorate, which probably hurts. He supposedly taught at Garrett, probably about the church and the black experience. I took some classes there about 1970-71 before his time.

http://www.garrett.edu/content.asp?A=3

Posted by: ohrealy at May 4, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #252129

ohrealy:

Unitl the next interesting associating shows itself

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 4, 2008 11:17 PM
Comment #252135

ohrealy:

Huckabee had an interesting take on Wright. One that seems obvious once explained. If Obama wins, all the hate Wright has preached in useless. How can you keep hating America if we elect a black president? Just like Jackie Robinson ended the negro leagues of baseball. obama is a huge threat to the Wright’s of the world.

Wright has to either destroy Obama or give up his hate. If it turns out that America can elect a black man, what does that to the Black liberation theology? Doesn’t it drive a stake in it’s heart?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 4, 2008 11:52 PM
Comment #252138

Craig Holmes,
It would mean that the last 35 years of Wright’s life have been to some purpose. If he hadn’t said G D America 3 times in that sermon, I would feel very sorry for the guy. To be a panderer, you have to have clients, and Wright built his clientele up from under 100 in 1972 to over 10,000 this year. He wass giving people want they wanted, and is now retired.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 12:14 AM
Comment #252140

Craig…thats about the only positive I see coming from an Obama win in Nov. But the pessimist in me feels like the Wright’s of this country will just find a new spin of hate. Doesn’t the Black liberation theology say you can only follow a God that prefers blacks and brings death, or at least bad things, to whites? That doesn’t seem very reasonable. I would never choose this mentor. At best he was his mentor so he could move up the political ladder locally but should such decisions be rewarded nationally?

I still stand by my earlier comment on here that I will stand behind Obama if elected…but he really has a chance huh? This is wild. I guess Bush pissed off people more than I thought.

Posted by: andy at May 5, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #252176

Andy:

I see another positive from an Obama victory.The prayer breakfasts will be more intereting.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 5, 2008 1:20 PM
Comment #252183

Craig, andy, Orealy, you are so far out in left, sorry, right field on your analysis/interpretation of who Wright is, how it affects the race between Clinton and Obama, how it would affect a potential race between Obama and Senator McCain, and finally, how the relationship between Wright and Obama affects and reflects Obama’s world view.
Instead of having a constructive debate on the issue of race relations in this country, you attempt to label Wright, and by association, Obama, as being “racist”, “divisive”, “hating America” etc., without a fair examination of his life and work.
Stop for a moment and think about what Wright is saying, not just the 30 second clips shown on fox, cnn, but a more comprehensive look at where the man is coming from.
Consider why it is that his views, many of which are extreme and inaccurate, are widely accepted in the black community (I don’t really care if you trot out a poll that suggests a certain percentage of blacks believe otherwise) His church has a huge memebership and he has a loyal following. Why is that?
Is all this noise coming from you guys just a sort of prep for the coming campaign between McCain and, most likely, Obama? If it is, it is not much, I have to say. Republicans are hanging by a very thin thread if Rev. Wright is going to be the center piece of your argument of why Obama is the wrong choice for president.

Posted by: charles ross at May 5, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #252189

Charles

You justify Wright’s craziness by saying it is widespread in the black community. What does that matter? Wrong is wrong; stupid is stupid. Hitler managed to sell his racist theories to a large % of the German community. The KKK was locally popular a generation ago. Some people believe you get a bunch of virgins if you kill yourself killing others. Those who believe that AIDs is a USG creation or the trade center was the chickens coming hom to roost are ignorant in need of education. We should respect all people, but we have no responsibility to respect stupidity.

Isn’t this sort of what Obama said, BTW?

Posted by: Jack at May 5, 2008 3:38 PM
Comment #252191

charles ross, you might be a little confused about which field I play. I agree with Wright on drugs, prisons, and three strikes. He just did not need to push the boundary into the G D America silliness. His church is relatively upscale, so much of what he was doing was just theatrical foolishness. Most people find that unacceptable, including prosperous black citizens, and black immigrants from foreign countries where the church is not as engaged in the politics of conspriacy theories.

He is not even a good example of the black church, so making generalized statements about that is irrelevant. I genuinely feel sorry for him about losing the honorary doctorate, which would, to me, be the worst of what has happened. This is a year old clip of the Freshman Fifteen from Northwestern singing the National Anthem at Wrigley Field. If you watch this, and are not moved or filled with pride for our great country, the negativity is all yours:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c8AgX9XQUF4

Posted by: ohrealy at May 5, 2008 4:08 PM
Comment #252192

Charles:

You must have misheard what the right thinks about Obama, as you sure don’t discribe my thoughts at all.

I just think Obama is very liberal and inexperienced.

I think when you get out on the fringe you attract interesting people. I also think we are not done. This Wright thing looks like a steady diet of issues from the far left. You can’t live there for 20 or more years without it effecting you, and then become a presiential candidate and say “I’m a moderate!!”

His proposals are liberal.He wants to increase taxation on every American. He is a nice enough person and he certainly can give a sermon. But wow is he planing on raising taxes on the middle class!!

So the issues in the fall will be patriotism and taxes, and yes, Obama’s crazy friends.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Comment #252225

Craig Holmes-
Guess what convicted felon is giving McCain an endorsement?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 5, 2008 9:20 PM
Comment #252236

Stephen,

Really? G. Gordon Liddy is the best you have? The guy who organized a BURGLARY in order to retrieve compromising information about a senator’s wife from the DNC HQ is the same as someone who organized a terrorist organization, bombed government buildings and says he didn’t do enough?

*sigh*

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 5, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #252237

Oh, and I don’t recall G. Gordon Liddy organizing the campaign organization event at his home for McCain…

As for the rest of the piece, Steve Chapman is hismelf throughout, that’s about all I can say about that.

(and no, I am not voting for McCain in Novemeber)

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 5, 2008 11:33 PM
Comment #252265

From yesterday’s Redeye.chicagotribune quoting a Newsweek interview: “Oprah is now saying she stopped attending Wright’s Trinity UCC during the 1990s in part because of the tone of his sermons. (She) was never comfortable with the tone of Wright’s more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing.”

“Obama’s attachment to Wright flowed in part from the role the pastor and church provided in the fatherless Obama’s search for identity as a black man. Early on, he was in search of his identity as an African-American man. Reverend Wright and other male members of the church were instrumental in helping him understand the black experience in America.”

Posted by: ohrealy at May 6, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #252270

I still think it is important to understand why people think the way they do. It helps us overcome it, whether it be the 30 second clips of inaccurate, divisive speech of a Rev. Wright (and the accompanying sentiment in the black community) or Al-Quaida and the war in Iraq.
It goes to the suggestion made by Kerry that we needed to fight a more “sensitive” war on terror. The success of the surge in Iraq isn’t due to the presence of 30,000 more troops, but the coalitions formed by Petreus with the Sunni Tribes and the cease fire with Sadr and his militias (with Sadr it’s the threat that he can’t be a part of the government if he maintains a separate militia).
By simply taking 30 second clips out of his speeches, saying how horrible it all is, puts a big roadblock in the way of understanding how he and other could have this point of view.
Does everybody agree that 9-11 was a horrible tragedy?
Google ‘the magnificent 19’ for the answer to that. It is a date that is celebrated by millions in the world. We don’t have a big enough army, or enough planes or aircraft carriers to defeat that.

Posted by: charles ross at May 6, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #252278

“I still think it is important to understand why people think the way they do. It helps us overcome it, whether it be the 30 second clips of inaccurate, divisive speech of a Rev. Wright (and the accompanying sentiment in the black community) or Al-Quaida and the war in Iraq.
It goes to the suggestion made by Kerry that we needed to fight a more “sensitive” war on terror.”

I don’t need or even want to understand evil. Defeating it is enough for me.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 6, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment #252721

Obama = Lost Elections
It seems that Obama & Obamatics are drinking their champagne before the real party has started…
Obamatics have become so blind, they can not see further than their noses…
Ideological rhetoric without any solid plan of how to deal with those three major issues (1. the WAR; 2. weak Economy; 3. the Environment) that are affecting our lives is just a hole in the water…
With the help of media that artificially build him up, where empty promises were not backed up by substance, he might think that he will win…
Just wait!
When his affiliation for 25 years with a racist anti American church, where Farrakhan & Wright were his “uncles”; his elitist out of touch comments regarding blue collar American working class people; his direct & indirect derogatory comment directed towards Bill Clinton’s successful presidency; his naive approach of the war in Iraq based mostly of his pull-out-without-a-plan plan; Tony Rezko & Co deals; his wifes comments about being “proud for the first time” of USA; all of these will come back to haunt him and will suffocate his candidacy and leave DNC in chaos disarray for not making the right choice…

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at May 13, 2008 3:24 AM
Comment #252807

Clinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.

The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates

If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama

If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com

Obama Supporters:

Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…

Clinton Supporters too …. !

It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !

Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…

Posted by: Kathy at May 14, 2008 6:14 AM
Comment #252830

Osiyo (hello)

What exactly is Obama’s vision and what are his positions and policies? Why does he not want his middle name used?

He still has yet to define what he really is and what “changes” he intends to impose on the country.

Tsalagi Ditlihi (Cherokee Warrior)

Posted by: Cherokee Warrior at May 14, 2008 12:28 PM
Post a comment