Rev. Jeremiah Wright: not the madman we were led to believe?

[small axe]

Did anyone else catch the Reverend Wright's hour on Bill Moyers/PBS, or his speech to the NAACP on CNN?

This is just my opinion, but the man seemed very thoughtful and sensitive ... far from the raving radical ALL the media seems to have painted him as or ALLOWED him to be painted as.

I don't want to claim a conspiracy afoot, but something very important was allowed to go unexplored (if not uncorrected) for weeks in the American mass media, in an important political campaign.

Here's a comparison of the soundbites we all heard looped and played to death, and then the sermon and context from which they came (or from which they were pre-meditatedly removed, for injurious political propaganda effect?)

What d'ya think?

Were the soundbites a fair representation of the Reverend Wright's points?

Does hearing the context change your perspective of Wright?

* I apologize for the lengthy QUOTE here, but feared cutting it apart, since much of the debate -- or scandal -- involved HOW the sermon was cut apart and taken out of its full context.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-transcripts-webmar29,0,705161.story

[VIDEO] Sound bite:
"We've bombed Hiroshima, we've bombed Nagasaki, we've nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. . . . We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."


[SERMON] Excerpt:
"Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had, in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families. And God's guidance upon the selected presidents and our war machine as they do what they do and what they got to do.

"Paybacks. There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back. A move if you will from worship to war. A move in other words from the worship of the God of creation to war against those whom God created. And I want you to notice very carefully the next move. One of the reasons this psalm is rarely read in its entirety because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

"Look at the verse, Verse 9: 'Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.' The people of faith, by the rivers of Babylon, how should we sing the Lord's song if I forget thee? The people of faith have moved from the hatred of armed enemies, these soldiers who captured the King, those soldiers who slaughtered his sons and put his eyes out, the soldiers who sacked the city, burned their towns, burned the temple, burned their towers. They moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. The babies. The babies. Blessed are they who dash your babies' brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be.

"Yet that is where the people of faith are in 551 B.C. and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 A.D. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge. We want paybacks and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.

"Now, I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act? But before I share with you what the Lord showed me, I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes. Visitors, I often give faith footnotes so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture. Let me give you a little faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say 'faith footnotes.'

"I heard Ambassador [Edward] Peck on an interview yesterday, did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. Did you see him, John? A white man. He pointed out, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/arts-culture/malcolm-x-PEHST001256.topic) said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/arts-culture/elijah-muhammad-PEHST001414.topic) was in fact true, that America's chickens are coming home to roost.

"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/economy-business-finance/apache-corporation-ORCRP001033.topic), the Iroquois, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel; we bombed the black civilian community of Panama, with stealth bombers, and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers. We've bombed [Moammar] Gadhafi's home and killed his child.

"Blessed are they who bash your children's heads against the rocks. We bombed Iraq; we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back an attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home.

"We've bombed Hiroshima, we've bombed Nagasaki, we've nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards.

"America's chickens are coming home to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who's trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don't have the military capability we have but they do have individuals who are willing to die, to take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that. Let me stop my faith footnote right there. And ask you to think about this for the next few weeks if God grants us that. Turn back to your neighbor and say: 'Footnote is over.'

"Come on back to my question to the Lord. What should our response be right now in light of such an unthinkable act? . . . This is a time of self-examination. The Lord said to me: 'How is our relationship doing, Jeremiah? How often do you talk to me personally? How often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me? Or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?' This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is it something you do for the sake of the public or is it something you do for the sake of eternity? This is a time to examine my own relationship and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God. Self-examination."

[cethklein]

I have to disagree. I still support Obama but there is no doubt in my mind Wright is a lunatic, in fact the parts of the Moyers interview I caught made that even more clear. He's your typical paranoid Black Panther-style quack. The world is always out to get him. I'm not saying he's not intelligent but he's definitely not right in the head. Forget about the GD America bit, look at some of the other things this guy said. "The government invented AIDS to kill black people"??? Come on.

The man is trying to save his own skin right now. Also him using the "they took it out of context" excuse makes it worse. That argument has NEVER worked for me. Anyone who uses it is desperate. We all heard what he said. What other context can there be for "god damn America"?

[KTC]

I have to disagree. I still support Obama but there is no doubt in my mind Wright is a lunatic, in fact the parts of the Moyers interview I caught made that even more clear. He's your typical paranoid Black Panther-style quack. The world is always out to get him. I'm not saying he's not intelligent but he's definitely not right in the head. Forget about the GD America bit, look at some of the other things this guy said. "The government invented AIDS to kill black people"??? Come on.

The man is trying to save his own skin right now. Also him using the "they took it out of context" excuse makes it worse. That argument has NEVER worked for me. Anyone who uses it is desperate. We all heard what he said. What other context can there be for "god damn America"?

I agree.

[johnnysannie]

The man is trying to save his own skin right now. Also him using the "they took it out of context" excuse makes it worse. That argument has NEVER worked for me. Anyone who uses it is desperate. We all heard what he said. What other context can there be for "god damn America"?


I never thought he was a madman. And it is not an excuse - his words WERE taken out of context as anyone who bothered to either 1. watch the entire sermon or 2. read the text thereof would know.

[donroc]

Yea, verily, believe what you will. The "out of context" argument imo is a specious argument. Please give context for the govt. deliberately created AIDS to kill blacks. The man is an actor and can create from the angry to the benign role to suit the occasion.

[xhouseboy]

I never thought he was a madman. And it is not an excuse - his words WERE taken out of context as anyone who bothered to either 1. watch the entire sermon or 2. read the text thereof would know.

"out of context" snake-speak for: 'Holy shit, batten down the hatches and pray that there's enough collective gullibity out there to somehow bail us out of this mess.'

[MattW]

He found out we created AIDS?!?!?

Quick - assemble the Secret Lily White Cabal that runs the Shadow Government!

[Jcomp]

Regarding the AIDS thing:

"A national survey in 2002 and 2003 by researchers at Rand Corp. and Oregon State University indicated that about half of African-Americans believe the virus was created on purpose."

Now, I personally think that's probably a bit skewed, just given the black folks I know. I wouldn't say we would outright accuse the government of that, because if half of black people truly thought that then there'd be more of a move towards some sort of a move toward rebellion (God, I'd like to think we wouldn't just stand around waiting to get obliterated at least*), but I do think that probably half of black people wouldn't be terribly shocked if it was revealed to be a government conspiracy.

* - note that this is within the context of assuming that 50% of black people really believe that the government created AIDS and freed it upon the public in the interest of getting rid of black people. I don't advocate violence or rioting, but if that many of us really fervently believed such a thing then I'd kind of expect us to do something about the perceived extermination.

[WendyNYC]

Given what happened with the Tuskegee Experiment (and that didn't end until 1972), it's not such a leap in logic. Not that I think AIDS was created and spread on purpose -- I don't -- but there are many examples throughout history of humans being that cruel to one another.

[Norman D Gutter]

I watched all of his keynote address to the NAACP convention. No, he is not a madman; he seems to be highly intelligent. His speech was certainly well prepared.

But, he seemed to be making the case for segregation. He gave four or five examples from studies 40 to 60 years ago that showed how Blacks are inherently different from Whites (i.e. not culturally different), but I can only remember two: Blacks learn differently, not because the education given them is deficient, but because they are different in their nature. Their music is different; hence they cannot learn and apply music as Whites do. I believe he was tryinging to make the case, knowing a national TV audience was watching, that Whites should do a better job of understanding the differences between Whites and Blacks ("different is not deficient"), but, taken to logical conclusions, his message was that Blacks and Whites should be separated for education, separated for music, etc.--not for the good of the Whites, but for the good of the Blacks, for their best development.

[Bird of Prey]

AIDS was brought over to this country by a white guy: a flight attendant. It was thoroughly traced. It afflicted the gay community, and killed a lot of gay men long before it seeped into ghetto areas.

Now, I know most people know this, but there's a point where inflammatory rhetoric such as Wright's is purely self-serving. Without racial tension, men like Wright fade away.

I think he's unethical.

[donroc]

More a leap to paranoia than logic regarding AIDS without evidence. What is the context for Farrakhan and Khadaffi? Judged by the company one keeps trumps guilt by mere casual association.

[donroc]

Blame Canada -- I believe the attendant was Canadian. Bath houses in SF and L.A. too. Yeah, a real plot.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Regarding the AIDS thing:

"A national survey in 2002 and 2003 by researchers at Rand Corp. and Oregon State University indicated that about half of African-Americans believe the virus was created on purpose."

Now, I personally think that's probably a bit skewed, just given the black folks I know. I wouldn't say we would outright accuse the government of that, because if half of black people truly thought that then there'd be more of a move towards some sort of a move toward rebellion (God, I'd like to think we wouldn't just stand around waiting to get obliterated at least*), but I do think that probably half of black people wouldn't be terribly shocked if it was revealed to be a government conspiracy.

* - note that this is within the context of assuming that 50% of black people really believe that the government created AIDS and freed it upon the public in the interest of getting rid of black people. I don't advocate violence or rioting, but if that many of us really fervently believed such a thing then I'd kind of expect us to do something about the perceived extermination.

actually, what annoys me the MOST about this sort of theory isn't the fact that governments are, usually, very ineffective at keeping conspiracies secret...

... it's the continuing fight against ignorance.

Rev. Wright putting this theory out there AGAIN makes it sound like AIDS is so easily contracted that you can pass by someone in the street and catch it - which is what a theoritical government invention to destroy all the African-Americans would do.

As we know - that is NOT how you get AIDS. Princess Diana and many other outspoken advocates worked for years and years to convince and educate the public that you do NOT get it by shaking hands with an AIDS patient; that you don't get it by walking by them in a crowded room; that there is SO much more to catching this disease (which, thankfully, is nowhere near as lethal as it had been in the past) than just being in the general vicinity.

These advocates spent/spend years teaching the public that you don't get AIDS as easily as that and then this man steps up and pours out this crap about it being a government conspiracy. Folks, if you set out to create a bioweapon to wipe out ANYONE, would you really pick AIDS? It's a slow, horrible death that can take years to finally kill you; it's transmittable only by a certain number of ways (sexual contact, blood contact, using needles, etc.) and now not necessarily fatal. And it's NOT CAUGHT BY JUST BEING NEAR SOMEONE.

I'm surprised some AIDS activist group hasn't hauled off the good Rev. and given him an education on what exactly this disease is. Instead he's continuing the same ignorant spiel that had AIDS sufferers evicted from apartments and homes and forced away from family and friends. When Princess Diana cuddled that poor child in her lap or held that AIDS patient's hand while she sat next to his hospital bed she was trying to help educate people EVERYWHERE that this disease doesn't discriminate and isn't as easy to catch as some would think.

That's my beef.

time for tea.

[Appalachian Writer]

About the "not batting an eye" thing over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents: Robert Oppenheimer looked at what the atomic bombs had done and said, "Now, I am become death." That quote has circumnavigated the globe. Americans carry some level of shame over the incident, and it is widely expressed. The success of "The Hiroshima Diaries" alone should verify that thought.

Reverend Wright's conscience is his own, however, dark and cluttered it may be. IMO, he is an opportunist seeking fame, the worst kind of individual to be given the "bully pulpit." His sole purpose seems to be the advancement of Jeremiah Wright, no matter what sullied stones he uses to reach the heights he desires. Now, through the inexplicable efforts of the American media, he's finally getting the national attention he's always wanted. He has become the big fish in the big pond, so to speak. This morning, almost every national news organization is following a series of speeches he's giving, one at the National Press Club.

It seems that to gain national acclaim or notoriety all one has to do is engage in bashing America, making unsubstantiated claims of criminal activity within the government, and shouting "racism" from the rooftops. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. must certainly be spinning in his grave! The numbers of brave souls who lost their lives during the Civil Rights movement must be weeping great tears when they hear a man, standing in the national spotlight, suggest that all their efforts to homogenize the American society were flawed because they failed to recognize that, not only the color of skin separates the races but that the races, themselves, should be separated because of biology and culture. I weep with them.

In his "I Have a Dream Speech," King asked that all men be judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." If we hold Wright to King's standard, then he falls short, not because he's black but because he's a segrationist who seems to be trying to undo all things done in the name of equality.

"There endeth the sermon for the day."

[Jcomp]

Rev. Wright putting this theory out there AGAIN makes it sound like AIDS is so easily contracted that you can pass by someone in the street and catch it - which is what a theoritical government invention to destroy all the African-Americans would do.

As we know - that is NOT how you get AIDS. Princess Diana and many other outspoken advocates worked for years and years to convince and educate the public that you do NOT get it by shaking hands with an AIDS patient; that you don't get it by walking by them in a crowded room; that there is SO much more to catching this disease (which, thankfully, is nowhere near as lethal as it had been in the past) than just being in the general vicinity.

These advocates spent/spend years teaching the public that you don't get AIDS as easily as that and then this man steps up and pours out this crap about it being a government conspiracy. Folks, if you set out to create a bioweapon to wipe out ANYONE, would you really pick AIDS? It's a slow, horrible death that can take years to finally kill you; it's transmittable only by a certain number of ways (sexual contact, blood contact, using needles, etc.) and now not necessarily fatal. And it's NOT CAUGHT BY JUST BEING NEAR SOMEONE.

I'm surprised some AIDS activist group hasn't hauled off the good Rev. and given him an education on what exactly this disease is. Instead he's continuing the same ignorant spiel that had AIDS sufferers evicted from apartments and homes and forced away from family and friends. When Princess Diana cuddled that poor child in her lap or held that AIDS patient's hand while she sat next to his hospital bed she was trying to help educate people EVERYWHERE that this disease doesn't discriminate and isn't as easy to catch as some would think.

That's my beef.

time for tea.

I'm going to disagree as far as how his putting out the conspiracy makes it seem that AIDS is so easily contagious. I don't think anyone in the black community suddenly believes that being near someone with AIDS will give it to you. Otherwise the whole of Africa would be extinct by now.

I'm pretty sure everyone still believes you get it primarily through sex. We've known that at least since Boyz N' the Hood when Ice Cube reminds his friend that you can still catch AIDS from certain alternatives. Arthur Ashe taught us sadly that it can come through blood transfusion and hospital screw-ups, and any number of junkies remind us that needles can transfer it as well.

[Jean Marie]

Regarding the AIDS thing:

"A national survey in 2002 and 2003 by researchers at Rand Corp. and Oregon State University indicated that about half of African-Americans believe the virus was created on purpose."

Now, I personally think that's probably a bit skewed, just given the black folks I know. I wouldn't say we would outright accuse the government of that, because if half of black people truly thought that then there'd be more of a move towards some sort of a move toward rebellion (God, I'd like to think we wouldn't just stand around waiting to get obliterated at least*), but I do think that probably half of black people wouldn't be terribly shocked if it was revealed to be a government conspiracy.

* - note that this is within the context of assuming that 50% of black people really believe that the government created AIDS and freed it upon the public in the interest of getting rid of black people. I don't advocate violence or rioting, but if that many of us really fervently believed such a thing then I'd kind of expect us to do something about the perceived extermination.
I would hope, if it were even remotely true that at least some whites would be alongside the blacks in questioning this. I believe they would.

AIDS was brought over to this country by a white guy: a flight attendant. It was thoroughly traced. It afflicted the gay community, and killed a lot of gay men long before it seeped into ghetto areas.

Now, I know most people know this, but there's a point where inflammatory rhetoric such as Wright's is purely self-serving. Without racial tension, men like Wright fade away.

I think he's unethical.
Quite polite, Bird. The guy's incredibly divisive, which is exactly what we need to get away from. He's attempting to take us down the wrong road. Someone must have told him, he's MLK's standard bearer. How awfully wrong they were. Whoever, upthread said he's more like his Black Panther brothers, is correct.

He's a nut job who's going to damage Obama's chances.

Obama needs to do another speech, quickly and distance himself, entirely, or he's finished.

[NikeeGoddess]

this thread alone is proof that there are good arguments on both sides.
but here is the problem - the RNC is running wright ads in north carolina and may still use them in the general election if it comes to that and/or if mccain doesn't get them to stop them.

wright just wanted to clear his name (as anyone who has been attacked by the media would want to do) so he went back into the limelight to prove he was a decent fellow. it's a three-edged sword for obama. 1. the controversy would have died down but now he's back! 2. now, that he's back 1/2 of the people who thought he was a madman no longer think he is. 3. wright is to obama and bill is to hillary: every time he speaks... makes you wanna roll your eyes and tell him to shut up already.

[robeiae]

Regarding the AIDS thing:

"A national survey in 2002 and 2003 by researchers at Rand Corp. and Oregon State University indicated that about half of African-Americans believe the virus was created on purpose."

Now, I personally think that's probably a bit skewed, just given the black folks I know.
Oh, I don't know. I mean, big chunks of the overall population believe all sorts of ludicrous things. Big chunks can't find Mexico on a map. Big chunks can barely read. Big chunks think dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside of people. Big chunks think the world is gonna end , sometime in the next twenty years. Big chunks watch American Idol. Big chunks watch the NFL draft. Big chunks vote democrat.

As a group, people just aren't all that bright

[Seaclusion]

Big chunks don't vote at all.....Maybe that's a good thing.

Richard

[robeiae]

Big chunks don't vote at all.....Maybe that's a good thing.

Richard
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah...yeah, it probably is.

[Jcomp]

Big chunks watch the NFL draft.

What the hell is up with the Cowboys drafting another TE in the 1st round yet again, and a running back in the 2nd round after grabbing one in the 1st? We're perpetually too deep at these positions. We couldn't take a chance on a WR? Bad enough we gave Crayton an extension. God's sake...

As a group, people just aren't all that bright

True that.

[cethklein]

He found out we created AIDS?!?!?

Quick - assemble the Secret Lily White Cabal that runs the Shadow Government!

Damn, I hope word doesn't get out about the Secret AIDS Cannon (SAC) being built at Area 51.

AIDS was brought over to this country by a white guy: a flight attendant. It was thoroughly traced. It afflicted the gay community, and killed a lot of gay men long before it seeped into ghetto areas.

Now, I know most people know this, but there's a point where inflammatory rhetoric such as Wright's is purely self-serving. Without racial tension, men like Wright fade away.

I think he's unethical.

Exactly. Wright apparently forgot that aIDS was mainly a gay issue when it first came into the spotlight (although I find it hard to beleive he doesn't know that as many pastors and surely him given his bigotry, commented that AIDS was "punishment from God" back then.)

[Little Earthquake]

I have to disagree the that "taken out of context" statement is a load of baloney. People often quote the sentence or sentences from a speech, a textbook - the BIBLE - that are convenient for their cause, disregarding the rest of the context. Someone could copy and paste one or two statements from my posts here, or from my blog, or from my personal emails, and paint a very unflattering picture of me. Another person could select different passages and paint a very DIFFERENT picture.

After reading the full quote above, I have to say there are SOME things I agree with Rev. Wright about. Not everything; but rarely (if ever) do I agree with EVERYTHING someone believes. Now, that's only one speech of his that I've read, so I don't have a full opinion on him yet. But I'm inclined to say that he could very well NOT be the monster we've been lead to believe he is.

Now, I know most people know this, but there's a point where inflammatory rhetoric such as Wright's is purely self-serving. Without racial tension, men like Wright fade away.

Bird of Prey, you seem to be implying that racial tensions are purely the result of inflammatory rhetoric from Black preachers. I have to disagree. Racism is still pervasive throughout America, and to expect Black leaders not to talk about it is foolish. To shame Black people for being mad about racism is not only foolish but unkind! Shall we sweep unattractive prejudices under the rug and hope they die a slow, painful death? That's not how paradigms are changed.

[Bravo]

I don't think anyone in the black community suddenly believes that being near someone with AIDS will give it to you. Otherwise the whole of Africa would be extinct by now.


just because it doesnt make sense, doesnt mean that people dont believe it.

i dont have time to look up studies on this, but there's lots of anecdotal evidence that shows widespread misinformation about AIDS in africa. lots of people believe it can be cursed on you by someone else, some believe you can step on something and get AIDS, it goes on and on. in fact, s. africa's health minister, the guy in charge of handling HIV in his nation has said such ridiculous things like those with "HIV should eat garlic and beetroot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5319680.stm)."

i think wright's statements were unfortunate but way overblown.

people might want to wish away the tuskegee experiments, but the simple fact is that they did exist and they did traumatize the black community.
add that to everything else this govt has done to blacks and you have created a cycle of mistrust and animosity.

so should wright have tried to bridge that gap and tried to "change" things? of course.

but the media is holding him to a different standard of other preachers, preachers who are rampant in evangelical churches, southern baptists, etc. many of those preachers teach hate, fear, etc. many of president bush's "spiritual mentors" from robertson to falwell have made far far worse statements than what wright said.

[cethklein]

I'm not saying things can never be taken out of context, but in a case where a guy says "AIDS was invented by the government to kill black people", it's kind of hard to find legitimate context for that.

But if it WAS taken out of context then by all means, someone inform me as to what Wright ACTUALLY meant by it.

[Jcomp]

just because it doesnt make sense, doesnt mean that people dont believe it.

i dont have time to look up studies on this, but there's lots of anecdotal evidence that show lots of misinformation about AIDS. lots of people believe it can be cursed on you by someone else, some believe you can step on something and get AIDS, it goes on and on. in fact, s. africa's health minister, the guy in charge of handling HIV in his nation he's said such ridiculous things like those with "HIV should eat garlic and beetroot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5319680.stm)."

True that. I suppose I guess I was trying to say that I don't see the relation of Wright's comments to a sudden belief that AIDS is some airborne contagion or something. I'm guessing (just an opinion here) that people who believed that already bought it before hearing Wright's comments.

[Appalachian Writer]

Bird of Prey, you seem to be implying that racial tensions are purely the result of inflammatory rhetoric from Black preachers. I have to disagree. Racism is still pervasive throughout America, and to expect Black leaders not to talk about it is foolish. To shame Black people for being mad about racism is not only foolish but unkind! Shall we sweep unattractive prejudices under the rug and hope they die a slow, painful death? That's not how paradigms are changed.

In Bird of Prey's defence, I think you misunderstand. Racial tension is and always will be a problem. Anytime a majority group faces a minority, tensions arise. That's an unfortunate response in many cases, especially so in the case of race. However, inflammatory rhetoric can only cause increased tensions. The language Wright employs has no healing effects; his unfounded and often misleading accusations can not have a positive effect on tenuous race relations in general, and his effect on the Obama campaign has been devastating. IMHO, no one is attempting to "sweep unattractive prejudices under the rug and hope they die a slow, painful death." If Wright is interested in improving these heinous conditions, he is obviously confused about the appropriate method to achieve his goal. Inciting hatred is never a viable response. The US has made legal strides toward reparations due to African-Americans; the bigotry that currently infests society comes from individual responses to members of another race, whether it's African-American attitudes towards white Americans or vice versa. Supporting the underlying anger of some African-Americans toward white Americans places the two groups in direct opposition, creating the "other" as enemy rather than promoting the idea that the path to a "racist free" society comes with healthy dialogue.

[cethklein]

Aaaah who didn't see THIS ONE coming:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/wright-black-church-in-some-ways-invisible-to-the-dominant-culture/

As I expected, Wright has gone the Al Sharpton route and decreed that attacks against him are attacks against black people. I'm not the least bit surprised actually, ubt ifgured I'd mention it. I've noticed this trend with these so-called "reverends" where they deflect any attacks on them as racist attacks on all black people. their egoes know no bounds. Yet no one in the media complains about it. The only one who seemed to not do these deflections was Dr. King and we all know how that ended.

Mr. Ray shot the wrong guy.

[Norman D Gutter]

...there's lots of anecdotal evidence that show widespread misinformation about AIDS in africa. lots of people believe it can be cursed on you by someone else, some believe you can step on something and get AIDS....
And many men in Africa call AIDS "American Ideas to Destroy Sex".

i think wright's statements were unfortunate but way overblown.
I disagree with you on this. Yes, his statements were unfortunate, but they were in no way overblown. If he really believes this, he'd better produce some evidence. Otherwise, this one statement and no other gives him the appearance of being misinformed, dare I say unbalanced, and no amount of calmly answering Bill Moyer's softball questions will overcome that. I, for one, do not believe Wright believes this, but that he purposely stated an untruth to stir up hatred of Whites and of the government.

but the media is holding him to a different standard of other preachers, preachers who are rampant in evangelical churches, southern baptists, etc. many of those preachers teach hate, fear, etc. many of president bush's "spiritual mentors" from robertson to falwell have made far far worse statements than what wright said.
Actually, Wright's statement of America's foreign policy "sins" coming home to roost is the same as Falwell and Robertson's statements saying America's moral sins were coming home to roost. You are right about Wright being held to a different standard. Falwell and Robertson were excoriated by the media, while Wright is pretty much being given a pass.

And I find no evidence that Falwell or Robertson were/are in any way spiritual mentors to GWB.

NDG

[dpaterso]

(although I find it hard to beleive he doesn't know that as many pastors and surely him given his bigotry, commented that AIDS was "punishment from God" back then.)
Given this thread's subject, I'd much prefer to see actual attributed quotes from the right honorable Reverend rather than unsubstantiated tittle-tattle. I'm just sayin'.

-Derek

[NikeeGoddess]

Yes, his statements were unfortunate, but they were in no way overblown. If he really believes this, he'd better produce some evidence.since when do deity have to prove evidence? most people take their word... which is the word of the bible... which is the word of something man made. lol! it's all about faith. imo there's more proof about dinosaurs than jesus. at least they've got bones to prove it.

over the years there have been many different theories about the origin of the AIDs virus. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories
and much like this political primary you can pick and choose parts you want to agree with and parts you think is BS to make a case for your argument.

just wondering - how many of you have ever been to a real black church on a sunday? the difference between many of their sermons and a middle-class white protestant sunday sermon is astounding... and the reason why the media and people freaked out by the inflammatory wright soundbites in the first place.

[cethklein]

Sorry Derek, I got lazy. Didn't take the time to dig out the exact quote. Here it is:

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Source http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/

And this one:

"We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58928

As an added bonus, here's another charmer I just discovered while looking for this source:

"Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

I guess the Secretatary of State used "her body" to get where she is right? He said this apparently before Obama's campaign, I wonder if he still believes it. (Ok we all know the answer to that.)

[dgiharris]

I was surprised when I read the entire sermon.

I know it is human nature to have an opinion then use all logical means to hold on to that opinion. In the sermon excerpt I read, I didn't hear a mention of aids.

But in my opinion, the CONTROVERSIAL statements were what he said about America in regards to the terrorism.

In that context, the excerpt was actually reasonable. What he said for the most part is true. It is also probably true (in some form) for every major power in the world.

Now if you want to focus on the AIDS comment or other red herrings, I suppose there is nothing I can do to stop you. If you read the entire excerpt and have not changed your opinion of him, then I question your powers of observation and deduction.

I love this country, I served for this country, and I despised the initial media report of his comments. But after reading the entire excerpt, I have to reevaluate my opinion of this man and downgrade him from lunatic to a reasonably impassioned person. His comments, when taking into full context, pass the logic and reason test IMO.

As far as the AIDS comments, I have not read that excerpt containing those comments, so I will not comment on a comment out of context.

Mel...

[William Haskins]

if i'm reading this correctly and rev. wright is a cuddly little teddy bear who was not only treated unfairly, but indeed was correct in what he said, my question to the obama supporters would be whether or not they are disappointed in their candidate for joining in the condemnation of his remarks:

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

[Jcomp]

I still think he's a bit whacked, but not extravagantly so. As Bravo said, other famous preachers have said equally offensive and outlandish nonsense without so much scrutiny.

Some of what he said had been taken out of context (particularly the "Chickens coming home to roost" part) while other things are just his crazy rantings.

[Jcomp]

Wright Says Criticism is Attack on Black Church (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright)

I really don't feel like looking it up right now, but I'm wondering if he actually used the word "attack."

[Bravo]

And I find no evidence that Falwell or Robertson were/are in any way spiritual mentors to GWB.


he's definitely gotten support from them, and has actively courted the likes of franklin graham:

As a evangelist, Franklin Graham stirred controversy when he was chosen by George W. Bush to offer a prayer at Bush's January 20, 2001 inauguration:

"Now, O Lord, we dedicate this presidential inaugural ceremony to you. May this be the beginning of a new dawn for America as we humble ourselves before you and acknowledge you alone as our Lord, our Savior and our Redeemer.
We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
American Jews, Muslims and citizens of other faiths were not included

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham

Franklin Graham is the son of Billy Graham and a far more influential figure in the evangelical Christian community than Jerry Falwell or even Pat Robertson. Graham is viewed as the torch-carrier for his father, who is still among the most beloved figures in American Christianity. Moreover, the Graham family is close to Bush. Billy Graham led Bush to Christianity in the 1980s; Franklin Graham delivered the invocation at his presidential inauguration.

In addition to being publicly allied with the Bush administration, Graham also happens to be stridently anti-Islam. His list of anti-Islam comments is long; his most succinct was that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion."
http://www.slate.com/id/2081432/

Franklin Graham and four other religious leaders were invited into the Oval Office to pray with the President. Bush pointed out a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and said it was a reminder of his own calling to extend freedom and bring the nation together.

http://www.cephasministry.com/nwo_church_state_marry.html

[cethklein]

but the media is holding him to a different standard of other preachers, preachers who are rampant in evangelical churches, southern baptists, etc. many of those preachers teach hate, fear, etc. many of president bush's "spiritual mentors" from robertson to falwell have made far far worse statements than what wright said.

This part I disagree with though. The media have torn people like Falwell and Robertson apart in the past, in fact even worse than Wright. Those guys may not be any more bigoted than Wright but they aren't any less either. Wright isn't getting a bad rap in the media. And even if he were, he has no right to complain. The man is an attention whore of the highest order. HE asked for this attention now he needs to accept it.

[jst5150]

I can't choose a side on this issue on way or another. By the amount of discussion here, it's apparent that he is polarizing.

I will say this though: the portion of his speech where he talks about marching bands is probably one of the 10 best pieces of oration I've listened and enjoyed in my life. Go FAMU and Grambling bands.

I'll close with this: it's baffling how quickly we ravage Tom Cruise for his beliefs, esp. following the release of that video where he voraciously speaks of his church's stance. Whatever you may believe, Mr. Cruise deems them religious beliefs. So do many others while many others deem them kooky pyramid scheme beliefs. In any case, we're led to believe they are his beliefs.

I wonder how often we simply cast aside another person's belief scale in order to make them demagogues for a cause. That always seems how these things shape up. If we're all just in the room and sharing things we believe, it's not a catalyst for raucous discussion or perpetual rolling of eyes. We're just in the room talking and we walk away still believing and feeling the same things.

What aggravates this is an agenda: by the politico. By the media. On either side, they want us polarized. One side or the other. "Your either with us, or the terrorists." That moves the agenda and ratings. There's no room for people with a broad based opinion or those that want deeper analysis. There's simply not time. There's also the idea that there's some sort of "Big Think" leading us along by the nose -- religion, politics or business.

So, just to close this point out, I find it difficult to hear anyone called anyone else a bigot, a whack job, or anything else based on press coverage and ESPECIALLY during an election year. In both of the said agendas above, the idea of demonizing your opponent (al la Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the like) into something people hate as much as, say, Darth Vader with a lit lightsaber in front of a nursery school, is standard fare. It might be helpful in all cases to gain context and deeper meaning by 1.) Being involved and 2.) Discovering first hand. And then if the guy's a whackjob, then by all means, pummel away.

[Captshady]

Wright Says Criticism is Attack on Black Church (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright)

I really don't feel like looking it up right now, but I'm wondering if he actually used the word "attack."


Yep, he did:

"It is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright — it's an attack on the black church," he said to applause.

[Gravity]

What a maroon. This guy had better zip his yapper, like now. Otherwise I see these sound bites showing up big time in McCain's October media ads. Maybe duct tape...?

[small axe]

if i'm reading this correctly and rev. wright is a cuddly little teddy bear who was not only treated unfairly, but indeed was correct in what he said, my question to the obama supporters would be whether or not they are disappointed in their candidate for joining in the condemnation of his remarks:

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

I'm not 'disappointed' in Obama at all ...

I wish he'd been even MORE plain-spoken about it so that MORE Americans would be clear about the possibility that Obama can agree with and admire PARTS of Rev. Wright's works and words ... and still DISAGREE with other parts and not be DEFINED by Rev. Wright's works and words.

I thought Wright made a wonderful impression on Bill Moyers, and the next day I'm hearing GOP perspectives complaining (if not attacking) that Wright has just dragged the controversy out again and how badly Wright has damaged Obama again ...

And I'm thinking: No ... Thanks to BILL MOYERS, Wright finally got to show us how he ISN'T the rabid "g-ddamn America" fanatic others painted him as. He is a fiery speaker, in a sermon (or a cultural) style that by its very nature may confuse or frighten many white folks unfamiliar with its intensity.

Now, I started this thread based on TWO NIGHTS of hearing Rev. Wright on TV ... I'll admit that I haven't heard his comments at this morning's Press Club or where ever he was -- and it seems he's riled the media up again and done Obama NO favours.

Obama needs to do another speech, quickly and distance himself, entirely, or he's finished.

I really agree with that: Obama has to get ahead of the ball on this whole thing, if only to make PLAIN what most of us here would probably be cool enough to grant him (and would grant him by default) -- that Obama shouldn't be tarred and feathered with Wright's NEW and FUTURE comments ad infinitum! Obama needs to make it clear that Wright is his OWN man with his own attitudes, and everytime Wright opens his mouth it ISN'T to be used to beat Obama and his Presidency over the head widdit!

A clever politician can say that fairly, without betraying a pastor he still agrees with on some things.

Wright has a point: Wright says the things a Preacher "has" (possesses in his perspective) to say ... and Obama as a Politician "has" (possesses according to a Politic perspective) to say.

That doesn't mean "Politicians have to lie, to get votes" (as I've heard it interpretted by Obama foes) ... it means Preachers have one perspective to speak about, and Politicians have another Perspective, a political one. Obama says the perspective a Politician has to say, in that sense.

Only the FALSE ASSUMPTION that Politicians are untruthful or hypocritical shades that negatively, imo ...

*sigh*

Wright's "AIDS" comments I agree imo are just silly, but people here also make a good point too: if that's the SUSPICION or MISUNDERSTANDING that many share in a certain USA community ... the Rev. Wright is voicing that. It doesn't necessarily reflect on Barack Obama ... but he needs to hear people's concerns and worries too.

I wish Obama would pick up the phone and ask Rev. Wright to hush up until after the Election, simply because (and I mean this in a good way) MAYBE it's true: Rev. Wright is saying rational things (mostly) that sound right to the African American and the Church Sermon ear and the Black Experience ear ... that the White voters hear and sincerely think "What the heck? Hearing this leaves me worried" ...

And Rev. Wright seems far too thoughtful NOT to understand that Obama needs WHITE blue collar voters (and others) to be able to hear OBAMA'S MESSAGE right now ... NOT some other guy's confusing (to their ear) comments ... and NOT the message the media will mangle just for ratings and controversy.

Anyway, thanks all for the thoughtful replies so far! :Hug2:

[dgiharris]

if i'm reading this correctly and rev. wright is a cuddly little teddy bear who was not only treated unfairly, but indeed was correct in what he said, my question to the obama supporters would be whether or not they are disappointed in their candidate for joining in the condemnation of his remarks:

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

I think this is what is wrong with politics in America. We want everything to fit in a nice tidy little box while we play the 'gotcha' game with sound bites and quotes out of context.

As a thinking rationale human being, nothing is black and white. Just because I think that the Reverands statements are reasonable does not mean I agree wholeheartedly with them. It means that given the evidence and facts, it is reasonable for him to state what he stated. So, just because I think his comments are reasonable and the Obama denounces them does not mean that I automatically hate Obama because he can reasonably denounce those comments. But if anything, I admire him as someone with character who is trying to discuss (with openness and candor) the taboo subject of race in a manner befitting adults discussing the difficulties and shades of grey of life in this country.

(IMO) This is a prime reason why the 800lb gorillas run amuck in this country. We just have this fundamental inability to discuss shades of grey, acknowledge real problems, or focus on the real issues instead of letting red-herrings or potential red-herrings dominate our time and attention.

In summary, it is not so much a matter of me being a blind Obama supporter. It is a matter of me looking at the facts and context and determining if an action or response is reasonable. And just because I determine something to be reasonable doesn't necessarily mean I agree.

Mel...

[Bravo]

great posts, dg.

[Magdalen]

just because it doesnt make sense, doesnt mean that people dont believe it.

i dont have time to look up studies on this, but there's lots of anecdotal evidence which shows widespread misinformation about AIDS in africa. lots of people believe it can be cursed on you by someone else, some believe you can step on something and get AIDS, it goes on and on. in fact, s. africa's health minister, the guy in charge of handling HIV in his nation has said such ridiculous things like those with "HIV should eat garlic and beetroot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5319680.stm)."

i think wright's statements were unfortunate but way overblown.

people might want to wish away the tuskegee experiments, but the simple fact is that they did exist and they did traumatize the black community.
add that to everything else this govt has done to blacks and you have created a cycle of mistrust and animosity.

so should wright have tried to bridge that gap and tried to "change" things? of course.

but the media is holding him to a different standard of other preachers, preachers who are rampant in evangelical churches, southern baptists, etc. many of those preachers teach hate, fear, etc. many of president bush's "spiritual mentors" from robertson to falwell have made far far worse statements than what wright said.


I'm skipping the AIDS comments because others have covered it and there's only so much ignorance I can seek to dispell at one time.

When someone starts out with "I have a black friend(s) . . . I often don't give the rest of the statement much weight so I won't be surprised if my little story falls flat. That said, I did discuss the whole Rev. Wright thing with my friend of color and the "context" issue did rear its head. But what I was surprised to wrap my head around was the idea of the Black Christian Pulpit as "group motivator". My friend indicated that the very nature of many sermons in many black churches took the form of "unite brothers" even if that indicated a de facto "against whitey" course of action. And I'm not just talking about the "black militant theology" or whatever. So I can see how the basic "preaching style" of the guy and the common content that tries to uplift the congregation can seem a little weird to christian whites, although Bravo touched on this with his remarks about how "non-Christian-like" some evangelicals are and also how distant from the core beliefts any "extremist theology" is. So. I'm reading this guy "in context" and I have a fair understanding of the bible, and I'm also allowing for the cultural shift in how the message is delivered and I still think the guy is Divisive with a capital "D" and not my idea of "Christ-like" at all!

[CDarklock]

what I was surprised to wrap my head around was the idea of the Black Christian Pulpit as "group motivator".

This is much the same function Hitler served in Germany. Not that I'm drawing a direct comparison - just talking about a pattern of human group behavior. It's also the function Lincoln served for the Union troops.

There's a large element of society that is unhappy and doesn't really know why. They like to gather around central figures - political, religious, philosophical, etc. - who can point to something and say "THAT is why you're unhappy". Then they can go "yeah!" and be mad at that, whatever it is. The selection of a target rarely has anything to do with any actual guilt or responsibility, but is motivated almost exclusively by the existing prejudices of the audience.

Regardless of what you think about the target and how it's demonised, this is a valid and necessary social function. It's the actions that come out of it which should be examined, and to my knowledge Rev. Wright's finger-pointing stays exactly that... finger-pointing. I'm fine with that.

[donroc]

At one level, Wright remains as irrelevant to me as a Falwell and other preachers of their ilk.

My concern is this. Has Obama stated specifically what he disagrees with regarding Wright's statements and preachings, or does it remain a general disagreement, thus open to each of our interpretations? "I disagree with some of his statements" does not necessarily mean Obama disagrees with the AIDs statement or any of the others that offend/concern voters. We have to be mind readers and assume, presume, and guess what he means.

After 20 years listening to Wright, to what degree does Obama accept Black Liberation Theology? Those are questions I would ask.

[William Haskins]

obama has parsed his wright talking points to a degree that makes bill clinton look like a rank amateur.

there's really no positive to wright's media tour. it's just keeping him in the public eye. and, aside from hopelessly deluded apologists and sycophants, nobody who's paying attention is coming away with a fuzzy feeling about it.

even obama made damn sure he weighed in against wright today, even as some of his supporters tried to spin him into a good guy:

“I have said before and I will repeat again that what some of the comments that Reverend Wright have made offend me and I understand why they’ve offended the American people. He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign and so he may make statements in the future that don’t reflect my values or concerns.”

[Bird of Prey]

You know, Wright could be worth a double digit lead for Clinton. I think he should continue his tour.

Gosh dang, America!!

[cethklein]

You know, Wright could be worth a double digit lead for Clinton. I think he should continue his tour.

Gosh dang, America!!

I thought you supported Nader. If that's the case, what difference does it make whether Clinton or Obama gets the nod? Nader's performance will be the same either way I assure you. You'd think Clinton or Obama would be a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation.

Call it morbid curiosity I guess. I'm just wondering why so many people here who aren't voting Democrat seem to be the most violently opinionated on the Democratic race. Does it really make a difference? Both candidates are essentially the same issues-wise.

[small axe]

“I have said before and I will repeat again that what some of the comments that Reverend Wright have made offend me and I understand why they’ve offended the American people. He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign and so he may make statements in the future that don’t reflect my values or concerns.”

Good for you, Senator Obama!

But I don't hope for a moment that his explanations can settle this, when it's such a fine propaganda tool for dirty and unethical politics!

I read that 15% of the public still cannot get it into their ignorant skulls that Barack Obama isn't a Muslim! :(

Nevermind those who cannot be reached with the more enlightened concept that -- in America -- it shouldn't MATTER whether he were a Muslim or not!

I hope Obama can just keep reminding people that Wright doesn't speak for him or define him. Those of good conscience will eventually hear it ... but the Sean Hannitys and the Rush Limbaughs and their dirty politics buddies will NEVER let that go, I suppose.

Does that bear factual political consequences in the November election?

YES.

But so does the fact that Barack Obama is a white man with a black father! :)
Should the Democratic Party fear nominating him because of THAT fact which also has real political consequences (given the residues of racial bigotry and discomfort in America)?

NO, imo.

I guess Indiana and North Carolina get to decide (if not finally, then at least next), and the TV and Press and Poll pundits have been wrong before, so ...

[InfinityGoddess]

*sigh* Poor little Rev. Wright. Being made to look so bad must have not been enough attention for him.

[NikeeGoddess]

good attention/bad attention - matters not. just so someone is paying attention.
"don't ignore me, ya fool! i got something important to say."

[Gary]

Call it morbid curiosity I guess. I'm just wondering why so many people here who aren't voting Democrat seem to be the most violently opinionated on the Democratic race. Does it really make a difference? Both candidates are essentially the same issues-wise.

I don't care who the Democrats nominate, since I won't vote for either of the two being offered. My only interest is in the way they've voted on issues, and what they say they will do if elected.

[Bird of Prey]

I thought you supported Nader. If that's the case, what difference does it make whether Clinton or Obama gets the nod? Nader's performance will be the same either way I assure you. You'd think Clinton or Obama would be a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation.

Call it morbid curiosity I guess. I'm just wondering why so many people here who aren't voting Democrat seem to be the most violently opinionated on the Democratic race. Does it really make a difference? Both candidates are essentially the same issues-wise.

They're certainly not the same in terms of substance. I think if people are going to vote a politician, they should vote for a politician that knows how and thus, can master the game, and get the best he/she can for the American people and hopefully, the world at large.

Obama is a man that will say anything. . .anything to win a presidency that he hasn't earned: in experience, credibility or hard work. His platform shifts constantly, and all we have to really go on - the potentially most powerful person in the world, now - is his woefully short and lazy public record and of course his affiliates: Wright as a racist and an illogical, frankly disloyal, combative, and disreputable American who served as Obama's twenty year mentor, and yet another: an outrageously crooked thug of a business associate on trial. You put his snotty, never been proud to be an American wife until now into the mix, and what have you got? A man who surrounds himself with people who have utter disdain for average, hard-working Americans. That's what you've got.

And I have every interest in seeing to it that - if my candidate doesn't win, as I know he won't because few have the guts to vote with sincerity - at least a big, materialistic, power-hungry, damn near anti-American bullshitter doesn't achieve the inconceivable.

[brittanimae]

Yay for Reverend Wright. I am utterly floored that for the first time in decades people are actually discussing race/racism instead of sweeping it under the rug. Part of me thought it would never happen. I'm so glad to see people sharing their views, talking about things, having the discussion.

Sure there's lots of disagreement, but there's a huge portion of the population that hasn't considered these issues in any detail EVER (places with no/few black people in particular--I know because I spent a good chunk of my childhood in one).

No matter what happens with Wright and Obama, I think these video clips, released with ill-intent though they were, will have the net impact of making this an issue that comfortable, sheltered people are forced to confront for the greater good of America forever. YAY REVEREND WRIGHT! Don't stand down!

[cethklein]

They're certainly not the same in terms of substance. I think if people are going to vote a politician, they should vote for a politician that knows how and thus, can master the game, and get the best he/she can for the American people and hopefully, the world at large.

Obama is a man that will say anything. . .anything to win a presidency that he hasn't earned: in experience, credibility or hard work. His platform shifts constantly, and all we have to really go on - the potentially most powerful person in the world, now - is his woefully short and lazy public record and of course his affiliates: Wright as a racist and an illogical, frankly disloyal, combative, and disreputable American who served as Obama's twenty year mentor, and yet another: an outrageously crooked thug of a business associate on trial. You put his snotty, never been proud to be an American wife until now into the mix, and what have you got? A man who surrounds himself with people who have utter disdain for average, hard-working Americans. That's what you've got.


But see Hillary is the same. Let's break it down:

Credibility - What credibility? The woman will, like Obama "say anything to get elected" We saw that with the Bosnia thing.

Experience - Experience with what, exactly? She laid on her back for the ex president (when he wasn't laying up with one of his countless mistresses of course.) The only two major issues you had anything to do with were NAFTA and her healthcare plan and we all know how those worked out.

Hard work - Again, what hard work? What has she done? (other than follow George W. Bush on most everything he's said including his war in Iraq).

and yet another: an outrageously crooked thug of a business associate on trial.

You mean the one whose associates were pardoned by Bill Clinton?

a racist and an illogical, frankly disloyal, combative, and disreputable American

Are we talking about Bill Clinton here? Racist? Check. Disloyal, DEFINITELY check, Combative? Oh yeah, check. Disreputable? Again, check.


they should vote for a politician that knows how and thus, can master the game

Wait, hold on. You support NADER, whose whole platform is "working outside the system". yet you want a politician who "masters the game"? That's like being a Klansman and liking black people. It doesn't mix. What is it you like about Nader since you clearly disagree with his ideology? Hillary Clinton stands for everything Nader opposes. So yes I question your loyalty to nader.

The bottom line is both of these people are the same. Every negative thing you can say about Obama is true about Clinton and vise versa. Which is why I'll gladly vote Hillary come November if she wins the nod. But for now I'd rather hope for the one who at least has less to do with the Washington in-crowd. (But go ahead and fire off the usual "you're just a blind stupid Obamaniac" bit and get it out of the way.)

[cethklein]

Yay for Reverend Wright. I am utterly floored that for the first time in decades people are actually discussing race/racism instead of sweeping it under the rug. Part of me thought it would never happen. I'm so glad to see people sharing their views, talking about things, having the discussion.

Sure there's lots of disagreement, but there's a huge portion of the population that hasn't considered these issues in any detail EVER (places with no/few black people in particular--I know because I spent a good chunk of my childhood in one).

No matter what happens with Wright and Obama, I think these video clips, released with ill-intent though they were, will have the net impact of making this an issue that comfortable, sheltered people are forced to confront for the greater good of America forever. YAY REVEREND WRIGHT! Don't stand down!

Agreed 150%. People have for so long tried to act like racism is a figment of our imaginations. As long as there are people like Wright, no matter if every person in the country stopped being racist, people like Wright (and Sharpton/Jaackson/David Duke et. al.) will keep it alive for their own means.

I honestly beleive these people don't want racism to go away because it's been their meal ticket for decades. If we as a society don't start confronting it more openly, nothing will ever change.

[johnnysannie]

But see Hillary is the same. Let's break it down:

Credibility - What credibility? The woman will, like Obama "say anything to get elected" We saw that with the Bosnia thing.

Experience - Experience with what, exactly? She laid on her back for the ex president (when he wasn't laying up with one of his countless mistresses of course.) The only two major issues you had anything to do with were NAFTA and her healthcare plan and we all know how those worked out.

Hard work - Again, what hard work? What has she done? (other than follow George W. Bush on most everything he's said including his war in Iraq).



You mean the one whose associates were pardoned by Bill Clinton?



Are we talking about Bill Clinton here? Racist? Check. Disloyal, DEFINITELY check, Combative? Oh yeah, check. Disreputable? Again, check.



Wait, hold on. You support NADER, whose whole platform is "working outside the system". yet you want a politician who "masters the game"? That's like being a Klansman and liking black people. It doesn't mix. What is it you like about Nader since you clearly disagree with his ideology? Hillary Clinton stands for everything Nader opposes. So yes I question your loyalty to nader.

The bottom line is both of these people are the same. Every negative thing you can say about Obama is true about Clinton and vise versa. Which is why I'll gladly vote Hillary come November if she wins the nod. But for now I'd rather hope for the one who at least has less to do with the Washington in-crowd. (But go ahead and fire off the usual "you're just a blind stupid Obamaniac" bit and get it out of the way.)


Outstanding post! I applaud it!

[Bird of Prey]

But see Hillary is the same. Let's break it down:

Credibility - What credibility? The woman will, like Obama "say anything to get elected" We saw that with the Bosnia thing.

Experience - Experience with what, exactly? She laid on her back for the ex president (when he wasn't laying up with one of his countless mistresses of course.) The only two major issues you had anything to do with were NAFTA and her healthcare plan and we all know how those worked out.

Hard work - Again, what hard work? What has she done? (other than follow George W. Bush on most everything he's said including his war in Iraq).



You mean the one whose associates were pardoned by Bill Clinton?



Are we talking about Bill Clinton here? Racist? Check. Disloyal, DEFINITELY check, Combative? Oh yeah, check. Disreputable? Again, check.



Wait, hold on. You support NADER, whose whole platform is "working outside the system". yet you want a politician who "masters the game"? That's like being a Klansman and liking black people. It doesn't mix. What is it you like about Nader since you clearly disagree with his ideology? Hillary Clinton stands for everything Nader opposes. So yes I question your loyalty to nader.

The bottom line is both of these people are the same. Every negative thing you can say about Obama is true about Clinton and vise versa. Which is why I'll gladly vote Hillary come November if she wins the nod. But for now I'd rather hope for the one who at least has less to do with the Washington in-crowd. (But go ahead and fire off the usual "you're just a blind stupid Obamaniac" bit and get it out of the way.)


Well, Ceth, maybe you should count how many countries she's visited, and what she's been doing the past forty years of her life, versus him. It was Hillary Clinton that went to China and made a speech about human rights. She's been in eighty some odd countries, many promoting - as in keeping - with her actual RECORD on human rights, anti-racism, anti-sexism, money for poverty, etc.

Now, she's also crafty, which - if I'm stuck with a politician, which is what she is - I want the smartest politician. I want the one that keeps us out of stupid wars, that's calculated enough to keep our enemies off kilter, to manage the economy by being practical and bolstering the middle class - because ultimately, it's the middle class that supports the whole enchilada - and a smooth, patriotic, mature individual that turns into a pit bull if my country is compromised. Now, she's been at it long enough to understand her mistakes and her husband's mistakes and rectify them. And I have no doubt that's her agenda. So, essentially, I want the top chess player if I'm stuck with the game. That shouldn't be hard to understand, Ceth.

And I certainly don't think that Hillary Clinton would sit in front of Reverend Falwell for twenty years while he spewed his hateful nonsense and then claim to have aspirations for the presidency.

And btw, Bill's top advisors? You should take a look before declaring him a racist.

[cethklein]

Well, Ceth, maybe you should count how many countries she's visited, and what she's been doing the past forty years of her life, versus him.


I've travelled to a lot of countries too, will you vote for me to be president? Didn't think so.

It was Hillary Clinton that went to China and made a speech about human rights. She's been in eighty some odd countries, many promoting - as in keeping - with her actual RECORD on human rights, anti-racism, anti-sexism, money for poverty, etc.

Yeah as we can all see with recent events in Tibet, her speech in China was totally effective *rolls eyes*


Now, she's also crafty, which - if I'm stuck with a politician, which is what she is - I want the smartest politician. I want the one that keeps us out of stupid wars, that's calculated enough to keep our enemies off kilter, to manage the economy by being practical and bolstering the middle class - because ultimately, it's the middle class that supports the whole enchilada - and a smooth, patriotic, mature individual that turns into a pit bull if my country is compromised. Now, she's been at it long enough to understand her mistakes and her husband's mistakes and rectify them. And I have no doubt that's her agenda. So, essentially, I want the top chess player if I'm stuck with the game. That shouldn't be hard to understand, Ceth.
No and I agree with all that. (somehow I dobut you'll accept that though.)

And I certainly don't think that Hillary Clinton would sit in front of Reverend Falwell for twenty years while he spewed his hateful nonsense and then claim to have aspirations for the presidency.

Neither would anyone else in the Democratic party I'd wager. And I somehow doubt either Clinton spends much time in anyone's church anyway.

And btw, Bill's top advisors? You should take a look before declaring him a racist.

So? Ted Haggard (the Evangeilical minister) was sleeping with a man for years. Just because someone acts one way in public doesn't mean that's who they actually are. And given Bill Clinton's track record when it coems to honesty, don't be surprised if a lot of people have trouble taking him at face value.

Again, it seems you are far more supportive of Clinton's politics than you are of Nader's. Why even bother voting for the guy? You know he can't win and you clearly don't agree with his ideals. He's fighting the system and you're supporting his polar opposite. John McCain is more like Nader than Clinton is. And that says something.

[NikeeGoddess]

why is it that when ever anyone speaks out about hillary's accomplishments and abilities obama supporters cannot come back with a well, "obama's done this or obama's done that" to counter... and your only response is to slam her or bill. methinks obama supporters know that obama has done very little and that is the reason why. they can't think of anything.

hey, but i can think of something. he talks about his time working with the people on the south side of chicago. well, that place is still a ghetto dump. if you can't help "part" of a city how can one expect you to help all of a country? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-2I4WVe2UQ

[johnnysannie]

Well, Ceth, maybe you should count how many countries she's visited, and what she's been doing the past forty years of her life, versus him. It was Hillary Clinton that went to China and made a speech about human rights. She's been in eighty some odd countries, many promoting - as in keeping - with her actual RECORD on human rights, anti-racism, anti-sexism, money for poverty, etc.

.

All of the above is so nice and heartwarming but none of it really qualifies Hillary - or anyone else - for the Presidency.

[Norman D Gutter]

As usual, we stray from Rev. Wright and his comments, and their effect on Sen. Obama's campaign--but that is the way of all threads.

While racial prejudice still infects America, it is not near as much as years ago. America will elect a Black president one day, and we are probably there now. Public policy has been anti-discriminatory for over 40 years. While the application has been imperfect, government at all levels has been moving in the right direction, too slowly at times, stupidly at times, excessively pushing at times, but always moving in the right direction. The question now is not one of public policy, but rather private acceptance.

And the question is no longer primarily one of skin color, but rather of cultural difference. I maintain that "diversity" is unnatural, and no amount of public policy will ever change that. Television and radio commercials that declare we have to accept diversity may have some effect, but only on a few and in a relatively small extent. Only assimilation through a general blending of cultures will result in acceptance of a "lesser" diversity. All immigrant groups to this country, such as the Irish, Germans, and Italians, retained some aspects of their culture, but generally assimilated into the broad American culture. Granted these were all White immigrant groups, and mostly voluntary. That no doubt makes a huge difference.

I think Whites in America have, for the most part, come to realize the color of one's skin makes no difference; but the acceptance of the Black culture is very, very difficult. Rev. Wright seems to embody what we think that culture is like, or at least a big part of it. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, Wright, in stressing differences, seems to make the case for segregation and continued prejudice.

So I see his impact on the Obama campaign as two-fold:
1. Given that Wright thinks what he thinks, and given that Obama was a part of that religious-political culture for such a long time (and presumably still is), to what extent does he believe--perhaps down deep and mostly well-hidden--what Rev. Wright is saying? Might Obama be harboring thoughts that will result in his pushing policies that his supporters wouldn't support if they knew he would push them? Was his statement about clinging to religion and guns a small look through his public armor into the real Obama?
2. Rev. Wright has given a reason, and maybe permission, for White America, which desperately wants to absolve itself of the sins of our ancestors for their part in world-wide slavery, to vote against Obama for racial reasons.

my two cents,
NDG

[Bird of Prey]

All of the above is so nice and heartwarming but none of it really qualifies Hillary - or anyone else - for the Presidency.

Well, I stand corrected. I guess we should vote Obama because even though he's utterly unqualified - by your own admission - he's a better bullshitter, and. . .and. . .and. . . he's got neat fashion sense.

Lordie.

[Appalachian Writer]

As usual, we stray from Rev. Wright and his comments, and their effect on Sen. Obama's campaign--but that is the way of all threads.


And the question is no longer primarily one of skin color, but rather of cultural difference. I maintain that "diversity" is unnatural, NDG

Straying again, Norman. Diversity is one of the most natural things I can imagine. We see it throughout the natural world. Different species, different colors, different plants. It makes our world so beautfiul.

However, segregation is also natural. Like things tend to group together. You never see a Blue-jay roosting in a pigeon coop. You never see a fox den where a wolf cub also dwells. People from the Appalachians who out-migrated, looking for work during WWII seemed to look for and find other Appalachians, creating small mountain communities in each city in which they took up residence. The wealthy live in high rent districts. You will never see a used mobile home pull onto the lot next to a million dollar home. You won't find a doctor looking for slum housing. That guy with the PhD in philosophy probably won't be living next door to the high school drop-out who works down at the MacDonalds.

People and segregation? Now that's a different story. There is that "natural" segregation and then there's forced segregation, a system in which certain groups are denied the rights and priviledges of other groups. Boo-HISSS! From my interpretation of Jeremiah Wright's comments, separation of races is almost necessary. Screaming, "We are different, so therefore, we must form tight knit groups and sort ourselves out" seems like regression to me, a turning back to the days when there were "black" communities and there were "white" communities. Not so good. At least I believe that's not so good. Not so good for our children, who need to be aware of differences in color, practice, and culture, and not so good for the "adults" of this world, who need to understand that difference doesn't imply inferiority, that Heaven is certainly not color-coded and if God doesn't make that choice, who are we to do so.

This is certainly not an indictment of your comments. I do now and have always found you to be an insightful, deeply moral person and a gifted writer. The concept of diversity, however, is far more a natural element that the concept of bigotry. And bigotry is what Jeremiah Wright preaches.

[Don Allen]

The honorable Rev. Wright has just hit the lottery, or better yet, experianced the preverbial wet dream of fanatical wannabe's where ever they aspire to spew gobs of bullshit from a pulpit where the mainstream is forced to listen to them. This man cares not for Obama or the state of racism in the country, he is for himself. He loves one thing and that is the creation of Rev. Wright, national spokesman for the liberation of the black man from the bondage of white America. What the pundits say about the Rev. are correct: He hates America, he isn't real fond of whitey, and he could care less about the importance of this election to black's in America, as a matter of fact it is my guess that he would rather see Imus elected to the presidency before Obama, because Obama would marginalize his hatred and rantings to the few homeless and derilicks that he should be preaching to.

However, I have to admit that this casts a terrible light upon Obama which at this point may very well cost him the Presidency. To some that may be a blessing, to others it may be considered unfair, to the black community it may be the first time in the history of the United States that a black man did unto a brother, what the reverands and preachers in black churchs across America said could only be done by the MAN.... How ironic...

[Roger J Carlson]

However, I have to admit that this casts a terrible light upon Obama which at this point may very well cost him the Presidency. To some that may be a blessing, to others it may be considered unfair, to the black community it may be the first time in the history of the United States that a black man did unto a brother, what the reverands and preachers in black churchs across America said could only be done by the MAN.... How ironic...And yet, if this does happen, Wright won't be blamed, the MAN will.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I wonder what the good Rev. really thinks about Obama, given that Barack has a white mother...

[robeiae]

Hillary Clinton'e record is essentially her list of Senate votes, nothing more. It boggles my mind that this is held up as evidence of something, other than her position on the various matters that were voted on.

Of course, this is a problem with all three candidates: they're all legislators. They vote. They don't do jack sh*t.

As to Hillary being a great politician, she's really not. In fact, she's bloody awful. She's only a Senator because she was married to a very popular President. She's only in this race because of that, too.

If she was any good at the "game," she would have polished off an upstart like Obama a long time ago. But she's not any good at it. The Bosnia trip alone is one of the most hysterical screw ups I've ever seen. She's just awful. Awful.

[GeorgeK]

After 20 years listening to Wright, to what degree does Obama accept Black Liberation Theology? Those are questions I would ask.


There is a reason that it is referred to as "Sunday Obligation". Just because Obama was in a room with the guy doesn't mean he believed or was even listening. I've sat through some sermons that were of questionable value. Obama is a senator and he's running for president. He's obviously not a separatist. I think trying to use Wright, regardless of what he says or does, to discredit Obama is simply unfair. They are not the same person.

[cethklein]

why is it that when ever anyone speaks out about hillary's accomplishments and abilities obama supporters cannot come back with a well, "obama's done this or obama's done that" to counter... and your only response is to slam her or bill. methinks obama supporters know that obama has done very little and that is the reason why. they can't think of anything.

hey, but i can think of something. he talks about his time working with the people on the south side of chicago. well, that place is still a ghetto dump. if you can't help "part" of a city how can one expect you to help all of a country? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-2I4WVe2UQ

Yeah because Hillary supporters (especially you) NEVER reply with "Obama hates America" or anything stupid like that. Hillary supporters always give honest responses. *rolls eyes again*.

Seriously Nikee I don't think you're the right person to be making this argument about "bashing" people.

[cethklein]

Well, I stand corrected. I guess we should vote Obama because even though he's utterly unqualified - by your own admission - he's a better bullshitter, and. . .and. . .and. . . he's got neat fashion sense.

Lordie.

Weren't YOU just the one saying we should vote for Hillary because she's "mastered the game"?

[johnnysannie]

I wonder what the good Rev. really thinks about Obama, given that Barack has a white mother...

Judging by the light color of the Reverend's own skin, I would hazard a guess that he has a good measure of Caucasian blood himself.

[cethklein]

Judging by the light color of the Reverend's own skin, I would hazard a guess that he has a good measure of Caucasian blood himself.

I noticed that too. Of course it may just be because he's old.

[johnnysannie]

[QUOTE=Appalachian Writer;2305807]Straying again, Norman. Diversity is one of the most natural things I can imagine. We see it throughout the natural world. Different species, different colors, different plants. It makes our world so beautfiul.

However, segregation is also natural. Like things tend to group together. You never see a Blue-jay roosting in a pigeon coop. You never see a fox den where a wolf cub also dwells. People from the Appalachians who out-migrated, looking for work during WWII seemed to look for and find other Appalachians, creating small mountain communities in each city in which they took up residence.

In most cases, yes, but not in all. Some of my own kinfolk were part of that migration.

The wealthy live in high rent districts. You will never see a used mobile home pull onto the lot next to a million dollar home. You won't find a doctor looking for slum housing. That guy with the PhD in philosophy probably won't be living next door to the high school drop-out who works down at the MacDonalds.

Again, not necessarily so.

People and segregation? Now that's a different story. There is that "natural" segregation and then there's forced segregation, a system in which certain groups are denied the rights and priviledges of other groups. Boo-HISSS! From my interpretation of Jeremiah Wright's comments, separation of races is almost necessary. Screaming, "We are different, so therefore, we must form tight knit groups and sort ourselves out" seems like regression to me, a turning back to the days when there were "black" communities and there were "white" communities. Not so good.


No, not good. I grew up in a neighborhood that mingled various colors, races, etc. Thus I have an outlook that is primarily color blind. But today the small town neighborhood where I live is short on minoritories and those we do have are looked upon with suspicion by many of my neighbors. Yet, the young African-American male who shares the bus stop with my kids is a new friend - for me and my kids.At least I believe that's not so good. Not so good for our children, who need to be aware of differences in color, practice, and culture, and not so good for the "adults" of this world, who need to understand that difference doesn't imply inferiority, that Heaven is certainly not color-coded and if God doesn't make that choice, who are we to do so.

[Seaclusion]

Of course, this is a problem with all three candidates: they're all legislators. They vote. They don't do jack sh*t.


Yes, they do nothing but claim to work very hard. They all claim to be in 'public service'. Public service is when you voluntarily do a public function for NO PAY.

These legislators get paid well (including the perks). They are our employees and should be treated as such. The 'public service' ruse is to confuse that fact.

Before you vote, treat each candidate as a job applicant. Then it is easy to pick the right one to vote for.

Richard

[johnnysannie]

I noticed that too. Of course it may just be because he's old.

Nope, I don't think age is a factor in how light Rev. Wright appears.

[cethklein]

Hillary Clinton'e record is essentially her list of Senate votes, nothing more. It boggles my mind that this is held up as evidence of something, other than her position on the various matters that were voted on.

Of course, this is a problem with all three candidates: they're all legislators. They vote. They don't do jack sh*t.

As to Hillary being a great politician, she's really not. In fact, she's bloody awful. She's only a Senator because she was married to a very popular President. She's only in this race because of that, too.

If she was any good at the "game," she would have polished off an upstart like Obama a long time ago. But she's not any good at it. The Bosnia trip alone is one of the most hysterical screw ups I've ever seen. She's just awful. Awful.

Agreed. I notice how so many of Hillary's diehards keep talking about what a sorry piece of crap Obama is and what a saint can-do-no-wrong she is, yet she's still losing. Of course the argument is "waaaah the media sided with him" which is true (to a degree) but a good politician could have gotten around that. (Her own husband did when the media turned on him during Lewinski.)

She lost Iowa and that was well before Obama started getting drooled on by the media. If this woman can't even take out a "stupid bullshitter" like Obama, how can she expect to beat McCain? Have any Hillary supporters even considered that?

[johnnysannie]

Well, I stand corrected. I guess we should vote Obama because even though he's utterly unqualified - by your own admission - he's a better bullshitter, and. . .and. . .and. . . he's got neat fashion sense.

Lordie.

Well, he does have a nice sense of style ;) but nowhere did I say that Obama was unqualified. He is as qualified as Clinton - actually more so.

[Don Allen]

And yet, if this does happen, Wright won't be blamed, the MAN will.

EXCELLENT OBSERVATION......

[cethklein]

I'll say this again, I still can't fathom why some people are saying "I'll vote for Clinton but not Obama" and vise versa. They are so similar it really doesn't matter. Neither one of them has any more actual experience than the other. Neither one has ever held a foreign policy-related job, neither one has ever been involved in anything political on a national level other than being a senator. They're the same bloody thing. Hell I'd be supporting hillary right now were it not for her dirty tactics and lies. (they've all lied but she's abused the piriviledge). Plus her means of getting to universal healthcare are flawed. (but in the end, both believe in universal healthcare.)

There are only two major differences, race and gender. That's it. So anyone who says they would vote for one but not the other obviously has some issues they need to overcome.

But anyway back on the subject of Wright. The man is a racist, anti-semite, bigot, and overall piece of garbage. I'm not saying everything he says is wrong. But the things he says that are wrong trump everything else.

But I don't think Wright should be an issue here. During the late Clinton years didn't all of Bill's blowhard supporters say "his personal life doesn't matter"? So why do the personal lives of politicians matter now? What changed?

[Roger J Carlson]

I'll say this again, I still can't fathom why some people are saying "I'll vote for Clinton but not Obama" and vise versa. They are so similar it really doesn't matter. Neither one of them has any more actual experience than the other. Neither one has ever held a foreign policy-related job, neither one has ever been involved in anything political on a national level other than being a senator. They're the same bloody thing. Hell I'd be supporting hillary right now were it not for her dirty tactics and lies. (they've all lied but she's abused the piriviledge). Plus her means of getting to universal healthcare are flawed. (but in the end, both believe in universal healthcare.)

There are only two major differences, race and gender. That's it. So anyone who says they would vote for one but not the other obviously has some issues they need to overcome.I think much of this attitude comes from people who are fervently for one or the other candidate and see the other as a spoiler.

[cethklein]

I think much of this attitude comes from people who are fervently for one or the other candidate and see the other as a spoiler.

which is ironic as at the beginning of this election, most Democrats said they'd be happy if either one of them got the nod. They should have formed a dream ticket when they had a chance.

[Bird of Prey]

Hillary Clinton'e record is essentially her list of Senate votes, nothing more. It boggles my mind that this is held up as evidence of something, other than her position on the various matters that were voted on.

Of course, this is a problem with all three candidates: they're all legislators. They vote. They don't do jack sh*t.

As to Hillary being a great politician, she's really not. In fact, she's bloody awful. She's only a Senator because she was married to a very popular President. She's only in this race because of that, too.

If she was any good at the "game," she would have polished off an upstart like Obama a long time ago. But she's not any good at it. The Bosnia trip alone is one of the most hysterical screw ups I've ever seen. She's just awful. Awful.


In your opinion.

She's had an uphill battle for a very basic reason, far more fundamental than any reason you've come up with. The reality is that she's had to deal with sexism, and a shocking level of it, far worse than racism may have played in Obama's campaign, until of course his twenty year mentor introduced it. Clinton's experience in the White House has been invaluable and it's not been dismissed by rational pundits. Beyond that, the people who can't stand her husband seem to forget that the country wasn't mired in economic duress and a fruitless war under his leadership. All they seem to want to remember is Monica Lewinsky and how Hillary didn't leave him for it.

She also spent many years supporting his efforts, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and yes, it counts as experience.

[cethklein]

In your opinion.

She's had an uphill battle for a very basic reason, far more fundamental than any reason you've come up with. The reality is that she's had to deal with sexism, and a shocking level of it, far worse than racism may have played in Obama's campaign, until of course his twenty year mentor introduced it. Clinton's experience in the White House has been invaluable and it's not been dismissed by rational pundits. Beyond that, the people who can't stand her husband seem to forget that the country wasn't mired in economic duress and a fruitless war under his leadership. All they seem to want to remember is Monica Lewinsky and how Hillary didn't leave him for it.


In your opinion.

[William Haskins]

I notice how so many of Hillary's diehards keep talkngi about what a sorry piece fo crap Obama is and what a saint can-do-no-wrong she is...

link?

[NikeeGoddess]

Yeah because Hillary supporters (especially you) NEVER reply with "Obama hates America" or anything stupid like that. Hillary supporters always give honest responses. *rolls eyes again*. that's right. i NEVER do. i NEVER have. and you'll NEVER a post where I slammed obama or wright. i do however slam his supporters who can NEVER give relevant examples of obama's experience.

which is ironic as at the beginning of this election, most Democrats said they'd be happy if either one of them got the nod. They should have formed a dream ticket when they had a chance.true and in fact i still have hope for the dream ticket. but since the campaign has turned ugly it probably will not happen. however, i do believe that the dems will come together after the convention. it all comes down to the loser and how he/she handles it. they will have to convince 49% of the voters to vote for their opponent who is NO LONGER their opponent but an ally in the race for the white house. both candidates have vowed that they will do this and i believe them as much as i believe their both capable of winning or losing.

She also spent many years supporting his efforts, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and yes, it counts as experience.obama supporters need (lol!) to dismiss her first lady experience because they've got NOTHING to counter or compares as obama experience.

[InfinityGoddess]

In your opinion.

She's had an uphill battle for a very basic reason, far more fundamental than any reason you've come up with. The reality is that she's had to deal with sexism, and a shocking level of it, far worse than racism may have played in Obama's campaign, until of course his twenty year mentor introduced it. Clinton's experience in the White House has been invaluable and it's not been dismissed by rational pundits. Beyond that, the people who can't stand her husband seem to forget that the country wasn't mired in economic duress and a fruitless war under his leadership. All they seem to want to remember is Monica Lewinsky and how Hillary didn't leave him for it.

She also spent many years supporting his efforts, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and yes, it counts as experience.

While I agree that there has been an unreasonable amount of misogynistic bile tossed Clinton's way (especially coming from the likes of Tweety Matthews and the good ole folks at Fixed News), that is not why she is losing. She is losing because people want a fresher face, someone who is not so entrenched in the Beltway Establishment, and a case of Clinton fatigue, not to mention her husband's (and other surrogates) race-baiting that's pissing off the African-American community (who are among the most important voting bloc in the Democratic Party). Her strategy was failing early on because she was taking the advice of Mark Penn, a man who was criticized by many labor unions (another important voting bloc) as being a union-busting lobbyist in bed with corporate interests.

People aren't stupid. Obviously there were those who were very much appalled by the misogyny, but they chose not to vote for her for other reasons nonetheless. To say that she is losing entirely because of misogyny is rather intellectually dishonest because there are certainly feminists who prefer Obama over her.

[cethklein]

that's right. i NEVER do. i NEVER have. and you'll NEVER a post where I slammed obama or wright. i do however slam his supporters who can NEVER give relevant examples of obama's experience.

Never said you did. Show me where I mentioned YOUR name. If you can use generalizations why can't I? In fact I know you haven't attacked Obama like that. But other Clinton supporters do. And that's the point. The rules go both ways.

obama supporters need (lol!) to dismiss her first lady experience because they've got NOTHING to counter or compares as obama experience

They've offered plenty of examples of his experience you just choose not to listen. Also, do you think Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan would make good presidents? They were first ladies too.

[InfinityGoddess]

that's right. i NEVER do. i NEVER have. and you'll NEVER a post where I slammed obama or wright. i do however slam his supporters who can NEVER give relevant examples of obama's experience.



He was a legislator longer than she was, a civil rights lawyer, and a Harvard grad. That's not enough for you?

[cethklein]

While I agree that there has been an unreasonable amount of misogynistic bile tossed Clinton's way (especially coming from the likes of Tweety Matthews and the good ole folks at Fixed News), that is not why she is losing. She is losing because people want a fresher face, someone who is not so entrenched in the Beltway Establishment, and a case of Clinton fatigue, not to mention her husband's (and other surrogates) race-baiting that's pissing off the African-American community (who are among the most important voting bloc in the Democratic Party). Her strategy was failing early on because she was taking the advice of Mark Penn, a man who was criticized by many labor unions (another important voting bloc) as being a union-busting lobbyist in bed with corporate interests.

People aren't stupid. Obviously there were those who were very much appalled by the misogyny, but they chose not to vote for her for other reasons nonetheless. To say that she is losing entirely because of misogyny is rather intellectually dishonest because there are certainly feminists who prefer Obama over her.

Exactly. Hillary isn't losing because of sexist people any more than Obama is losing because of racist people. Those are cop-outs by people that don't want to admit their candidate's failings.

[NikeeGoddess]

He was a legislator longer than she was, a civil rights lawyer, and a Harvard grad. That's not enough for you?no, it's not enough for me and many other hillary supporters. many, many senators, governors, and even some congress reps have done this much.

They've offered plenty of examples of his experience you just choose not to listen. Also, do you think Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan would make good presidents? They were first ladies too.they don't have resumes like hillary though. it's a complete package and her experience in the white house (where she didn't just bake cookies and redecorate) is part of that package. it's a job interview and EVERYTHING should be considered.

[Norman D Gutter]

Straying again, Norman. Diversity is one of the most natural things I can imagine. We see it throughout the natural world. Different species, different colors, different plants. It makes our world so beautfiul.
AW: Ah, yes, I rather botched that writing, did I not? I grovel in mortification. Diversity in nature is the rule, and is obvious. What I was trying to say was that the embracing of diversity is not natural. I see, in your next paragraph, that you concur.

However, segregation is also natural. Like things tend to group together. You never see a Blue-jay roosting in a pigeon coop. You never see a fox den where a wolf cub also dwells. People from the Appalachians who out-migrated, looking for work during WWII seemed to look for and find other Appalachians, creating small mountain communities in each city in which they took up residence. The wealthy live in high rent districts. You will never see a used mobile home pull onto the lot next to a million dollar home. You won't find a doctor looking for slum housing. That guy with the PhD in philosophy probably won't be living next door to the high school drop-out who works down at the MacDonalds.
In a couple of years my son will have a PhD in philosophy. I may just run this by him. I don't think he would have any trouble living next to a high school drop-out. They probably won't be able to converse much, though, not even about the weather and their health. My son would make even that an exercise in vocabulary.

People and segregation? Now that's a different story. There is that "natural" segregation and then there's forced segregation, a system in which certain groups are denied the rights and priviledges of other groups. Boo-HISSS! From my interpretation of Jeremiah Wright's comments, separation of races is almost necessary. Screaming, "We are different, so therefore, we must form tight knit groups and sort ourselves out" seems like regression to me, a turning back to the days when there were "black" communities and there were "white" communities. Not so good. At least I believe that's not so good. Not so good for our children, who need to be aware of differences in color, practice, and culture, and not so good for the "adults" of this world, who need to understand that difference doesn't imply inferiority, that Heaven is certainly not color-coded and if God doesn't make that choice, who are we to do so.
I agree with this. This was the whole point of my previous posts in this thread. Rev. Wright says that Blacks and Whites are so different, in the way they learn, in the way they do music, and in other ways, it leads to the logical conclusion that we'd better segregate ourselves to enhance our education. Yet, that will cause the cultures to grow farther apart, which will work against embracement of diversity and good race relations.

This is certainly not an indictment of your comments. I do now and have always found you to be an insightful, deeply moral person and a gifted writer. The concept of diversity, however, is far more a natural element that the concept of bigotry. And bigotry is what Jeremiah Wright preaches.
Amen, Sister. Although, I remain unconvinced that embracement of diversity is natural.

NDG

[dgiharris]

People get their panties all in a bunch over this experience talk.

If politicians were voted on strictly by merit, we'd have the best government on the planet.

The fact is, there are a HOST Of factors for why we, the people, vote for people in office. Using the logic of 'experience' as the sole criteria would mean that any president would automatically be re-elected because who could possibly have 'more presidential experience' then whomever the current president was???

I always find it funny how we as human beings, have this need to demonize another side. In effect we are saying that our sense of logic and reason is beyond reproach and that if someone else disagrees with our choice, then they must OBVIOUSLY be flawed.

There are valid reasons to want Hillary to be president. Same with Obama and McCain.

Stop thinking that there is only one right choice. That is how we get to Orwell's 1984 (god i love bringing that up don't I :) )

The same logic that enables you to demonize options or choices that you do not agree with is the same logic that blinds you to the 'reasonableness' of an opposite position which then is the same logic that enables and justifies actions (both reasonable and unreasonable) against that opposition.

Before you know it, there are no options, just 1 choice that you must agree with.

If you can't acknowledge any merit in the candidates that you oppose, then you are blinded by your own ego and opinions.

It's so tiring hearing, "The ONLY reason why people vote for Obama... The ONLY reason why people hate Hillary... The ONLY reason why...."

Human beings are complicated. there is no ONLY reason for anything. There are a host of factors we all interpret differently and use to come up with position or decision that many times is reasonable given a certain frame of reference or point of view.

Mel....

[robeiae]

In your opinion.Yes and no.

What "record" does she have, apart from her Senate voting record? The role of First Lady carries no power. All that she can say in that regard is that she supported the admin. The same is true for their time in Arkansas politics. And you really don't want to go into Bill's actual record there, I think. That's something she's gonna have to defend in the General Election, too--if she persists in claiming First Lady experience as a part of some nebulous record.
She's had an uphill battle for a very basic reason, far more fundamental than any reason you've come up with. The reality is that she's had to deal with sexism, and a shocking level of it, far worse than racism may have played in Obama's campaign, until of course his twenty year mentor introduced it.How did she ever win a Senate seat, then? Again, she won it largely because of her name. She's still in this race largely because of her name. Clinton's experience in the White House has been invaluable and it's not been dismissed by rational pundits.I'm not dismissing it, at all. I'm just not accepting that it's as significant as others think. Beyond that, the people who can't stand her husband seem to forget that the country wasn't mired in economic duress and a fruitless war under his leadership.Yah, exactly. People that love her seem to forget that it was HER HUSBAND'S leadership, not hers. All they seem to want to remember is Monica Lewinsky and how Hillary didn't leave him for it.Nah. There are plenty of other things people hold against Clinton. Personally, I still think he was an effective President. But there's plenty to criticize, still.

She also spent many years supporting his efforts, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and yes, it counts as experience."Counts as experience"? What kind of experience? PR experience?

[robeiae]

they don't have resumes like hillary though. it's a complete package and her experience in the white house (where she didn't just bake cookies and redecorate) is part of that package. it's a job interview and EVERYTHING should be considered.
Complete package? You're fooling yourself.

You know, there's a reason why governors tend to beat sitting Senators in general elections. It's a pity all we have are Senators, really.

Governors are actually executives. They actually make real decisions, not just flop along in Party-line. All three of these turkeys lack this kind of experience in the public arena. Sad.

[cethklein]

Complete package? You're fooling yourself.

You know, there's a reason why governors tend to beat sitting Senators in general elections. It's a pity all we have are Senators, really.

Governors are actually executives. They actually make real decisions, not just flop along in Party-line. All three of these turkeys lack this kind of experience in the public arena. Sad.

I was thinking about that too. Senators usually don't make very good presidents. (occasionally they do). So really, none of these candidates has the experience they need. Even Bush had more executive experience gonig into his first term than any of these candidates will. (not that he actually used it or anything.)

[Don Allen]

I'm deleting my post before I write it so it dosen't become deleted for becoming a three-way he said, she said, something about he said.

[Don Allen]

Gooffy me, I wasn't involved in that for a change.

[Don Allen]

Seriously, (love dawno) Something occurred to me that hasn't been even touched upon in this issue of Wright. How pathetic must it be, to have your spiritual mentor take sides and confront you in a public forum that basically pits your very personal beliefs, your childrens spiritual teachings, and the beauty of your marriage into a heap of garbage to be viewed and debated by the world. I thought about this all morning, and from a personal non-political view, it really is pissing me off. The leader of your church, (Whatever that may be,or not) has a moral responsibility to protect every memeber of thier flock,,,,but not J. Wright. In my view, this man, as the leader, should be contrite and if nothing else apolgetic and remorseful to the personal pain he is causing Obama as well as the political embarrasment.

Don't misunderstand me... Obama is more than responsible for attending Wright's church and made his choice of free will, that can be debated thru-out the election with good cause, but I think all would agree that the last person you would have to defend yourself from-- should be the words of your minister.

[Bird of Prey]

While I agree that there has been an unreasonable amount of misogynistic bile tossed Clinton's way (especially coming from the likes of Tweety Matthews and the good ole folks at Fixed News), that is not why she is losing. . . .

But she's not losing. She's winning, according to recent polls . . winning.

[NikeeGoddess]

You know, there's a reason why governors tend to beat sitting Senators in general elections. It's a pity all we have are Senators, really.this is true.
but now you've just given hillary that much more weight. as she was 1st lady to a governor as well. ;)

[johnnysannie]

But she's not losing. She's winning, according to recent polls . . winning.

In which ones?

I'm asking because in the polls I've seen, Obama is ahead........
not to mention he's ahead in delegates, super delegates, and popular vote.

[GeorgeK]

While I agree that there has been an unreasonable amount of misogynistic bile tossed Clinton's way ...

It's not misogyny to distrust one particular politician who happens to be female any more than it is to be racist to not like any one particular person who happens to be of a different race. While I agree that there are misogynists, yes, they do exist. I've met some of them. However, I've not seen anything regarding Hillary that I'd regard as strictly misogynistic, but rather non-hillary. Granted, I miss a lot of news, and I may have a poor sampling error, but if you have a link to something you consider specifically misogynistic, I'd like to see it. Even though I'm not planning on voting for any of the top 3, I've been pleasantly surprised with the media not dragging race and gender into it, but displeased in the lack of actual issues. It all seems to be a lot of he said, she said, rather than "I plan to do X."

Don't take this as an attack IG, I tend to enjoy your posts. I'm just ranting in general.

[InfinityGoddess]

But she's not losing. She's winning, according to recent polls . . winning.

She can't win. She does not have enough delegates and unless there's some kind of electoral miracle (unlikely to happen), she will never overcome Obama's lead. Coup by superdelegate is also unlikely. At this point, polls don't make a lick of difference.

[InfinityGoddess]

Granted, I miss a lot of news, and I may have a poor sampling error, but if you have a link to something you consider specifically misogynistic, I'd like to see it. Even though I'm not planning on voting for any of the top 3, I've been pleasantly surprised with the media not dragging race and gender into it, but displeased in the lack of actual issues. It all seems to be a lot of he said, she said, rather than "I plan to do X."


You should try watching Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The man is extremely misogynistic, and I've long stopped watching his show because of it.

[NikeeGoddess]

In which ones?

I'm asking because in the polls I've seen, Obama is ahead........
not to mention he's ahead in delegates, super delegates, and popular vote.
here's one -- i pulled from the Indiana thread which has 3 diff polls' links
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRESIDENTIAL_RACE_AP_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[RumpleTumbler]

Sen. Barack Obama said he is "outraged" by comments his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made Monday at the National Press Club and "saddened by the spectacle."

Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday denounced comments made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they also "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.html

[cethklein]

this is true.
but now you've just given hillary that much more weight. as she was 1st lady to a governor as well. ;)

Being first lady is not a qualification. Or do you think Maria Shriver is qualified to be president too? So you claim Obama's service as a local organizer isn't qualification but bedding up with a governor (on occasion) is?

[NikeeGoddess]

so obama is holding a press conference as i type. he is fielding a bunch of wright questions. he has completely severed his ties with wright. said, what wright did yesterday was speak a BUNCH OF RANTS and made a caricature of himself. he understands that wright must be very hurt from this whole spectacle and went out (in a rage - my words) to make things right. also, wright has left his church and has already been replaced but obama has not spoken to the new pastor (Moss) yet. it's a very depressing press conference.

[WendyNYC]

However, I've not seen anything regarding Hillary that I'd regard as strictly misogynistic, but rather non-hillary.

How about the guy yelling "Iron my shirt!" at her rally? And the fact that the few times it was covered in the news, it was suggested that he might have been a plant by her campaign?

[InfinityGoddess]

here's one -- i pulled from the Indiana thread which has 3 diff polls' links
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRESIDENTIAL_RACE_AP_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

That's just Indiana, though. It's not a measure of what's on a national level, and most national polls seem to have Obama leading slightly or a quite a bit ahead. Indiana's going to end up being a close one either way and for Clinton at this point, "close, but no cigar".

[cethklein]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.html

I saw that just now. I personally would have been even more fierce but he's trying to handle this with some class, so I'll give him that. I can't honestly say I'd be reacting in the same manner. Mine probably would have been more to the effect of "I don't give a damn if he's been my pastor, the man if a ****ing moron who shouldn't be allowed to step inside a church."

But then again that's probably why I'm NOT the one running for president.

[GeorgeK]

You should try watching Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The man is extremely misogynistic, and I've long stopped watching his show because of it.


I can't remember why I stopped watching that channel other than that I thought they were a bunch of drooling idiots, (not to slam those with drooling problems) but I have seen the name of Chris Matthews cited a number of times, although I don't follow his stories...Holy Crud...lol...did you just defeat my argument in one post? If Nikee agrees with you, I'll shut up.

[InfinityGoddess]

so obama is holding a press conference as i type. he is fielding a bunch of wright questions. he has completely severed his ties with wright. said, what wright did yesterday was speak a BUNCH OF RANTS and made a caricature of himself. he understands that wright must be very hurt from this whole spectacle and went out (in a rage - my words) to make things right. also, wright has left his church and has already been replaced but obama has not spoken to the new pastor (Moss) yet. it's a very depressing press conference.

I can't blame him. Obama refused initially to toss Wright under the bus when the sermons kept running on tv forever, but then Wright turns around and is the one who throws Obama under the bus instead in return.

There's gratitude for you.

[cethklein]

But she's not losing. She's winning, according to recent polls . . winning.

Except that she's not. You know it's funny, you expect me to back up what I say with sources yet you never back up what you say. CNN disagrees with you:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

As of this moment the results for their national poll are:

Obama 47%

Clinton 43%

Undecided 10%


But hey, they'e CNN, they're part of that "sexist hate machine" against Hillary, right? (And I assume everyone whose poll doesn't reflect her winning are also sexist too correct?)

[icerose]

Here's a link to Obama's speech on Wright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371827

Yet another shining example of why I hate politics.

[GeorgeK]

How about the guy yelling "Iron my shirt!" at her rally? And the fact that the few times it was covered in the news, it was suggested that he might have been a plant by her campaign?

"Some guy" doesn't exactly qualify as a media driven mysogynistic campaign, in my book. If I'd heard "some guy", I would have thought, "Retard" and go on.

[InfinityGoddess]

I can't remember why I stopped watching that channel other than that I thought they were a bunch of drooling idiots, (not to slam those with drooling problems) but I have seen the name of Chris Matthews cited a number of times, although I don't follow his stories...Holy Crud...lol...did you just defeat my argument in one post? If Nikee agrees with you, I'll shut up.


The only show I'll watch anymore on MSNBC is Olbermann. I used to watch Hardball, but during the New Hampshire coverage of the primary there, Matthews was just awful and poor Keith Olbermann looked like he was going to die of embarrassment from having to share the news desk with ol' Tweety.

I stopped watching Hardball and have avoided it since.

[WendyNYC]

"Some guy" doesn't exactly qualify as a media driven mysogynistic campaign, in my book.

No, but the coverage, or non-coverage, of it does in mine. I also agree with IG about Chris Matthews. He's awful.

[cethklein]

How about the guy yelling "Iron my shirt!" at her rally? And the fact that the few times it was covered in the news, it was suggested that he might have been a plant by her campaign?

"some guy" said we never landed on the moon and that it was all filmed in a studio. Guess what, the media didn't give it much attention either. You know why? Because it's stupid.

Come on, seriously.. I'm sure people have shouted racist slurs at Obama rallies too. Guess what, they didn't get media attention either. Maybe the reason is the media doesn't want to focus on that stuff. Had they focused on it then some would be screaming "waaaah the media is giving that one sexist guy too much attention so they must be sexist too!! Waaaah!"

So it's a lose-lose for them.

[WendyNYC]

Come on, seriously.. I'm sure people have shouted racist slurs at Obama rallies too. Guess what, they didn't get media attention either. Maybe the reason is the media doesn't want to focus on that stuff.

I completely disagree. I think the media would have paid attention to it had it happened. It would have at least made an appearance on YouTube, right?

[cethklein]

I completely disagree. I think the media would have paid attention to it had it happened. It would have at least made an appearance on YouTube, right?

Speculation doesn't really hold up. Anything is possible.

[WendyNYC]

Well, it's ok for me to disagree with you, isn't it? That's still allowed, from what I understand.

[Dawno]

Yes, speculation, opinion and reasonable disagreements are *certainly* allowed. Let's not hammer someone for stating them. None of us here is a professional pollster, pundit or politician - most of what we say is opinion and speculation.

[cethklein]

Well, it's ok for me to disagree with you, isn't it? That's still allowed, from what I understand.

Of course. But it's also ok for me to disagree with you. (at least you and I are doing it civily).

[WendyNYC]

I'm always civil. At least, on the outside. ;)

[Seaclusion]

I can't get that old three Dog Night Song out of my head;

Jeremiah was a preacher
Was a good friend of mine
Never liked a single word he said
But I sat there all the time

Richard

[William Haskins]

This is just my opinion, but the man seemed very thoughtful and sensitive ... far from the raving radical ALL the media seems to have painted him as or ALLOWED him to be painted as.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

man, sometimes i feel like i don't deserve to laugh this much.

[William Haskins]

today's headline roundup:

abcnews.com: Obama Slams Rev. Wright: Calls Yesterday's Appearance a 'Spectacle'

cnn.com: Obama 'outraged' by Wright's remarks

msnbc.com: Obama strongly denounces former pastor

cbsnews.com: Obama Rips Rev. Wright: Dem Candidate Says He's Outraged By Ex-Pastor's Remarks, "Saddened" By "Spectacle" Of Recent Appearance

usatoday.com: Obama expresses outrage at Rev. Wright 'spectacle'

[robeiae]

this is true.
but now you've just given hillary that much more weight.
Are you insinuating that she has a weight problem? How cruel...

[Bravo]

he needs another speech ASAP.

[blacbird]

Jeremiah Wright is a blathering egomaniac who commonly lets his mouth get ahead of, or in the way of, his brain. By no means the first pulpit-pounder about whom that can be said. Opinions about him, and about Obama's relationship to him, are pretty well established by now, for good or ill, and not likely to change, regardless of what either of them says from here on in.

But even a blind pig . . . you know the cliché. In his scattergun fashion, Wright did say one astute thing yesterday, when asked about accusations that he isn't "patriotic":

"I served six years in the military. Does that make me unpatriotic? How many years did Dick Cheney serve?"

caw

[robeiae]

Yes, that's very "astute."

:rolleyes:

[donroc]

"Asutute" not. Merely a not new or clever quip, given that Timothy McVey also served.

[Bird of Prey]

man, sometimes i feel like i don't deserve to laugh this much.

Outraged, I say, OUTRAGED that you could laugh at a time like this. . . .

Gee wrightickers. It's just too funny, isn't it?

[William Haskins]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4056168.shtml
“He was never my ‘spiritual advisor,’” Obama said. “He was never my spiritual mentor; he was my pastor.” But he was on Obama’s spiritual advisory committee as recently as March. Wright has since left that position.the pain, the pain of the laughter...

i sincerely hope they stop soon. this is starting to hurt me physically...

[robeiae]

"I never even met the the man."--Barack Obama on his relationship to Jeremiah Wright.

"Thank you for candor, Mr. President-elect."--Keith Olbermann in response.

[Bird of Prey]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4056168.shtml
the pain, the pain of the laughter...

i sincerely hope they stop soon. this is starting to hurt me physically...

Easy now. Pace yourself. He's bound to get funnier.

[Cranky]

Say it ain't so, BoP.

This whole election cycle has been a bust for me, and it's not even over yet. Dammit.

[robeiae]

Breaking news: Jeremiah Wright a ficticious person created by Republican operatives to make Obama look bad!

Barack Obama: I was duped!

Michelle Obama: It's a vast right-wing conspiracy!

[William Haskins]

if it gets any funnier, he's going to join pat paulsen and john c. calhoun as the funniest candidates in history.

[donroc]

"He's not the man I knew 20 years ago."

But five years ago?

[robeiae]

Revealed in the National Enquirer: Jeremiah Wright actually Andy Kaufman! Kaufman claims it was his best joke, ever.

In a related story, John McCain has selected Tony Clifton as his running mate...

[Bird of Prey]

Wright on!!

[William Haskins]

obama: "his baptism of my daughters has been vastly overstated by the media. reverend wright was actually at a neighborhood cookout and tripped near our table and, in an effort to salvage his hot dog, sloshed a bit of sierra mist from his cup that consequently landed on my daughters' heads. as he walked away, he said something that sounded to michelle and me, as well as several others from the congregation, like "your girls are now saved". it was only later that we heard he had been wandering around the park mumbling "the government created AIDS". so, technically, he never baptized them."

olbermann: "senator, you're so brave that you make gene autry look like neville chamberlain."

obama: "thank you, keith."

olbermann: "may i wipe the sweat from your lip, senator?"

[Cranky]

*puts back of hand to William's brow*

You okay there, Haskins? Breathe, man, breathe!

-------------

With that out of the way...I honestly don't know what else to say at this point. It's already been covered. I just have to wait and see what the next few months hold and see how the convention shakes out.

[Bird of Prey]

obama: "his baptism of my daughters has been vastly overstated by the media. reverend wright was actually at a neighborhood cookout and tripped near our table and, in an effort to salvage his hot dog, sloshed a bit of sierra mist from his cup that consequently landed on my daughters' heads. as he walked away, he said something that sounded to michelle and me, as well as several others from the congregation, like "your girls are now saved". it was only later that we heard he had been wandering around the park mumbling "the government created AIDS". so, technically, he never baptized them."

olbermann: "senator, you're so brave that you make gene autry look like neville chamberlain."

obama: "thank you, keith."

olbermann: "may i wipe the sweat from your lip, senator?"

obama: "thank you, keith, but I've always revered Richard Nixon.

[robeiae]

Olbermann: I'd also like to apologize to all my viewers--yes all three of you--for mentioning Wright's name on past shows.

[small axe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2302283#post2302283)
This is just my opinion, but the man seemed very thoughtful and sensitive ... far from the raving radical ALL the media seems to have painted him as or ALLOWED him to be painted as.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obama
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."


man, sometimes i feel like i don't deserve to laugh this much.

It's okay ... hopefully laughter is healing.

But I was referring to the Bill Moyers interview, and the NAACP speech.

Obama (I think) was referring to Wright's comments on the third thing: his later comments at the National Press Club thing (which I said I hadn't seen)

So ... it's like the Church thing, slightly: Obama and I were impressed by what we saw for ourselves ... and not responsible for something "offensive" we didn't see ourselves.

[William Haskins]

gobama.

[small axe]

so obama is holding a press conference as i type. he is fielding a bunch of wright questions. he has completely severed his ties with wright. said, what wright did yesterday was speak a BUNCH OF RANTS and made a caricature of himself. he understands that wright must be very hurt from this whole spectacle and went out (in a rage - my words) to make things right. also, wright has left his church and has already been replaced but obama has not spoken to the new pastor (Moss) yet. it's a very depressing press conference.

I'm thinking it's the 'depressing' press conference that will help Obama move the drooling dogs of war a few squares back, though, help him put Reverned Wright behind him, campaign-wise.

I don't hold Obama's Church against him just like I don't hold Hillary's husband against her, personally.

As we know, the media and their political rivals aren't as generous when it comes to things like that, though ...

[William Haskins]

you are dubious comparison champion tonight, that's for goddamn sure.

and you're acting as if surviving clinton is obama's whole fight. it's not.

it's like rooting for your guy in an olympic semi-final boxing match, and he has an eyeball hanging out and one of his arms duct-taped on.

"hang on, kid! i like your chances in the finals!"

[RumpleTumbler]

you are dubious comparison champion tonight, that's for goddamn sure.

and you're acting as if surviving clinton is obama's whole fight. it's not.

it's like rooting for your guy in an olympic semi-final boxing match, and he has an eyeball hanging out and one of his arms duct-taped on.

"hang on, kid! i like your chances in the finals!"



lol....it's just a flesh wound. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4)

[small axe]

you are dubious comparison champion tonight, that's for goddamn sure.

and you're acting as if surviving clinton is obama's whole fight. it's not.

it's like rooting for your guy in an olympic semi-final boxing match, and he has an eyeball hanging out and one of his arms duct-taped on.

"hang on, kid! i like your chances in the finals!"

Are you kidding? The next guy gets one look at the eyeball hanging out, he starts puking his guts out and he's easy to pick off while he's wretchin' !!! :D

It's odd: people were upset that Obama didn't reject the Rev ... and then when Obama finally reaches the end of his patience and rejects the Rev, they're more upset?

Why can't Obama be tough, why can't Obama finish her off, etc?

Obama has some big guns on his gunship ... he needed to cut loose the loose cannon rolling around on the deck (Wright).

So he did -- splash! -- and now he can bring the other guns to bear on his rivals.

[William Haskins]

http://poisonpen.net/image/image/259/medium/capt.cps.naf62.280408004913.photo01.photo.default-512x341.jpg?1209522241

hope...change... and , you know... stuff...."

[small axe]

Some would choose to mock the very idea of Hope and Change, yes.

Some recognize that first you envision the Goal, and then you realistically work to Achieve it.

*shrug* to each their road, to each their journey, to each their destination.

Some go alone, others find strength in companionship and cooperation.

[William Haskins]

i have nothing against hope and change in and of themselves. when those terms are used falsely, they cease to be what they are supposed to be.

[small axe]

i have nothing against hope and change in and of themselves. when those terms are used falsely, they cease to be what they are supposed to be.

Okay.

But some have found real Hope, and some have found real Change already (if not in the world then within themselves)

Sometimes it's all where you find it, or it finds you.

Drunks can try to stop drinking for years, and then hear a child laugh or finally see themselves in the morror -- and that's all the strength and hope they needed to finally change and stop drinking.

Bigots can remain mired in hate and ignorance and then a dam bursts and they find a way to change from hate and ignorance.

Doubters can cling to doubt like a drowning man clings to some floating wreckage until the wreck begins to drag him down ... and then he can unexpectedly find the hope and trust necessary to swim free.

when those terms are used falsely, they cease to be what they are supposed to be.

Sometimes 'false' or 'real' is only whether WE choose to make it false or real ...

Certainly, Obama cannot and does not promise to fix all of America's problems by himself.

He asks those who agree with his goals, to set aside doubt and stagnation ... and work together in hope, and for change.

That's where people who too-cynically scoff at 'drinking the purple kool-aid" etc miss the point, I fear.

They discount the strength of the American people when inspired and rallied to work together towards a common good goal.

Some find that the burden of their own Doubt ... is a heavier burden than those who choose to bear a burden while working with others to achieve their Hope. :)

[Bravo]

you know there's thing about how mentor/student relationships almost always sour when the student becomes successful.

i wonder if wright's recent media tour comes from a feeling of resentment and anger at obama, and is an attempt to bring him down a notch.

obama needs another speech. one that mollifies people's fears and points to another direction.

this guilt by association thing needs to end.

he didnt seek wright's endorsement, unlike mccain's aggressive search for hagee.

[Joe270]

he didnt seek wright's endorsement, unlike mccain's aggressive search for hagee.

McCain didn't attend Hagee's church for some twenty years.

Somehow, I doubt getting Hagee's endorsement took any 'aggressive' behavior on McCain's part. Hagee is the epitome of the religeous right, who the heck else is he going to endorse?

Obama was 'taken' by Wright, and Hagee would roast on a spit before uttering 'Hillary' in any way but negative. He'd lose more than half of his gold mine congregation instantly if he endorsed Clinton.

There is no comparison between the two, no matter how much folks try to create one.

[cethklein]

Back on the subject of Wright, does anyone know if he was among those "pastors" that are being probed by Congress? Remember how Congress was supposed to be digging into many of their finances?

[Bird of Prey]

Back on the subject of Wright, does anyone know if he was among those "pastors" that are being probed by Congress? Remember how Congress was supposed to be digging into many of their finances?

By now, I'm sure it would be headline news if he was. Too bad. He should be investigated. I wonder if Rezko had anything to do with his million dollar mansion, or whether it was all just church donations: the house that Jeremiah built. . . .

[William Haskins]

as of february, an investigation had been opened.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/irs_investigating_obamas_churc_2.html

there's little doubt, given the video evidence, that wright promoted obama's candidacy and advocated against clinton, from the pulpit.

[Bird of Prey]

as of february, an investigation had been opened.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/irs_investigating_obamas_churc_2.html

there's little doubt, given the video evidence, that wright promoted obama's candidacy and advocated against clinton, from the pulpit.


Well I stand corrected!!

[Bravo]

Somehow, I doubt getting Hagee's endorsement took any 'aggressive' behavior on McCain's part. Hagee is the epitome of the religeous right, who the heck else is he going to endorse?


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

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364


mccain claims that hagee's words were taken out of context:


I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you’d give him a chance to respond. He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/180846.php

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?
MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure. […]
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you no longer want his endorsement?
MCCAIN: I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. And thanks for asking.


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/21/hagee-flip-flop/

and why did mccain only reject hagee's anti-catholic views? does he agree that katrina occurred to prevent a gay rally from happening? does he agree with hagee's apocalyptic views?

[cethklein]

By now, I'm sure it would be headline news if he was. Too bad. He should be investigated. I wonder if Rezko had anything to do with his million dollar mansion, or whether it was all just church donations: the house that Jeremiah built. . . .

Possibly but I doubt it. Wright is shooting himself in the foot though. Did you know his new mansion is in an all-white neighborhood on a golf course? I hope his new neighbors don't expect to be invited over for dinner too often. And not a single "poor black person" within miles of his new home.

Part of me is relieved. At least now we know Jackson and Sharpton aren't the only faux pastors on the black side of things. White faux pastors had the monopoly for so long, it's good so see black faux pastors being crooked pieces of hypocritical trash for a change too.

[William Haskins]

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/04-30-08.gif

[RumpleTumbler]

I keep wondering what Obama did to piss Wright off cause he's really going out of his way to stomp on him.

[Bravo]

he's on a mission from God.

[NikeeGoddess]

I keep wondering what Obama did to piss Wright off cause he's really going out of his way to stomp on him.he didn't embrace him with open arms. but also the media just blasted wright so bad that he felt compelled to respond. not only was his timing bad his bigger problem was poor and caricature-ish delivery. to anyone who doesn't know black frat signals would think he was being a clown.

[POPASMOKE]

Did you know his new mansion is in an all-white neighborhood on a golf course? I hope his new neighbors don't expect to be invited over for dinner too often. And not a single "poor black person" within miles of his new home.

Part of me is relieved. At least now we know Jackson and Sharpton aren't the only faux pastors on the black side of things. White faux pastors had the monopoly for so long, it's good so see black faux pastors being crooked pieces of hypocritical trash for a change too.

How true!!

[small axe]

So ... American politics gets to be about a man's Church now? Really? That's the American position now "We can keep you out of politics because of your (mainstream) (black) (unfamiliar to white folks) church?"

JFK goes to the "wrong" Church, don't elect him America?
Mitt Romney gets mud thrown at him because of some Mormon-offshoot's marriage cult?

This guy goes to a "different" Church so HE cannot be President... another guy doesn't go to another Church every Sunday so HE cannot be elected to fix America's economic or political problems?

That's the game the RELIGIOUS RIGHT plays ... and sadly that's where they go WRONG. :)

Some of you are applying for membership in a club of haters others of us wouldn't want to join, imo.

[NikeeGoddess]

in recent years many candidates have lost because of the religion. catholics and jews will always have a hard time. you can add mormons and muslims to that list too.

one day the atheists will rule!!!

[Seaclusion]

one day the atheists will rule!!!

We can only pray for that day.

Richard

[POPASMOKE]

[quote=small axe;2310171]
That's the game the RELIGIOUS RIGHT plays ... and sadly that's where they go WRONG. Some of you are applying for membership in a club of haters others of us wouldn't want to join, imo.
Or the games the LEFT plays, RE; Bill Maher's statement that the Catholic Church is a cult for pedophiles (paraphrase).

Neither party, and no religion, has a monopoly on love or hate.

[small axe]

[quote]

Or the games the LEFT plays, RE; Bill Maher's statement that the Catholic Church is a cult for pedophiles (paraphrase).

Neither party, and no religion, has a monopoly on love or hate.

My bad, you're correct, both extremes play the same unpretty game, forgetting the fundamental goodness and decency and fairness of the vast majority who remain moderate in the middle. I was annoyed by Maher's comments too.

Left or Right -- It's a cheap, bigotted, ignorant game to throw mud at a political candidate because of his or her spiritual beliefs ... or the comments of another which he or she has rejected repeatedly ... or shown some Christian patience and compassion with and thus not rejected for mere craven political gain.

And still a club of haters most of us here should disdain joining or playing a part in.

[talkwrite]

[quote=POPASMOKE;2310236]


Left or Right -- It's a cheap, bigotted, ignorant game to throw mud at a political candidate because of his or her spiritual beliefs ... or the comments of another which he or she has rejected repeatedly ... or shown some Christian patience and compassion with and thus not rejected for mere craven political gain.

And still a club of haters most of us here should disdain joining or playing a part in.

I am grateful for the historical support we have of the separation between church and state . But I fear it is losing it's foothold in America. I think that the reason for the focus on a candidate's religion has always been the fear that they would impose their own religious ideology on the population in the form of laws.

[sandyn]

...this guilt by association thing needs to end.

he didnt seek wright's endorsement, unlike mccain's aggressive search for hagee.

Does anyone remember the African American Religious Leadership Committee from the beginning of the campaign that Wright was supposed to head and from which he was deposed by Obama after his first set of remarks became public?

Or the remark made by Wright that BO may have to distance himself from his pastor during the campaign..."If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Wright told the New York Times with a shrug. I said it to Barack personally, and he said 'yeah, that might have to happen.'"

And whether he sought Wright's endorsement or not, it certainly seems he got it and did nothing to dissuade it until the proverbial s**t hit the fan.

As for the claim a person known over a period of 20 years is 'not the same person I knew 20 years ago,' that's probably true. But when you associate with that person for the period of 20 years, you've certainly noticed what type of person they've become during that time period.

BO's word just do not ring true. Not arguing, just stating MHO.

[POPASMOKE]

I think that the reason for the focus on a candidate's religion has always been the fear that they would impose their own religious ideology on the population in the form of laws.

I think you're correct, but only to a certain degree. Seems if you're a "mainstream" protestant or catholic, without ties to a fringe element, you generally get a pass. In line with your observation, I was disturbed at the treatment Romney received because he was a mormon. I think that issue was fatal for him. Not saying I would have voted for him, but given the current field, he was certainly a viable candidate.

[talkwrite]

Every individual who decides to run for office is subject to a truly unique form of scrutiny. Part of that journey is to look out over the landscape of the multitude of value systems found in this country and to try to present yourself in an image that will be accepted by as many as possible. That is how the job of image maker came to be a staff position within a campaign. Sometimes you win the hearts of some at the risk of loosing the support of others.
As to the religious perspective: the biggest barrier to accepting a religious ideology that is not yours is when you can and do take offense to the other ideology in part or completely. By taking offense, I mean, that you are personally threatened by said ideology.

[Norman D Gutter]

So ... American politics gets to be about a man's Church now?
You know, it's not really all about Sen. Obama's pastor and what he believes. It's not about the black church culture and how they behave. It is about the meteoric rise of a freshman senator from the obscurity of the Illinois legislature to be a viable candidate for the most important elected office in the land. Who is this guy? What kind of president would he make? What is his character all about? What are his core beliefs? How is an Obama administration likely to comport itself? Is he a good father and husband? Is he a good citizen? What will his foreign policy be like? Is there anything about the man that might be a negative in how he will perform in office? What kind of company does he keep, how much do they influence him, and, in my opinion, is that company likely to be a positive or negative or neutral factor in his performance in office? It's not enough to go to his website and see what he says about his official stands on relevant issues (I've done that, by the way). It's not enough to look at the soundbites from scripted campaign speeches, or watch the slightly less-scripted debates to see if he stays on or goes off message. It's about seeing what kind of man he is in those unscripted, unguarded moments, where the real man comes to light.

All of these are valid questions. If Obama had been in the senate for 8, 12, or 20 years, we would already have answers to most of these questions. But we don't. I'm not voting for him. I have already made that decision. But I am interested in him because he will likely receive his party's nomination, and I will have a second decision to make: Is he so bad that I should financially support his opponent? Or volunteer to work for his opponent? Or go out of my way to talk with people to vote against him.

NDG

[POPASMOKE]

You know, it's not really all about Sen. Obama's pastor and what he believes. It's not about the black church culture and how they behave. It is about the meteoric rise of a freshman senator from the obscurity of the Illinois legislature to be a vialble candidate for the most important elected office in the land. Who is this guy? What kind of president would he make? What is his character all about? What are his core beliefs? How is an Obama administration likely to comport themselves? Is he a good father and husband? Is he a good citizen? What will his foreign policy be like? Is there anything about the man that might be a negative in how he will perform in office? What kind of company does he keep, and how much do they influence him and, in my opinion, is that company likely to be a positive or negative or neutral factor in his performance in office? It's not enough to go to his website and see what he says about his official stands on relevant issues (I've done that, by the way). It's not enough to look at the soundbites from scripted campaign speeches, or watch the slightly less-scripted debates to see if he stays on or goes off message. It's about seeing what kind of man he is in those unscripted, unguarded moments, where the real man comes to light.

Bingo!!

[William Haskins]

But I was referring to the Bill Moyers interview, and the NAACP speech.

since you were referring to the NAACP speech and the very thrust of your thread title is that wright has been unfairly portrayed as a radical (at best) and fucking moron (at worst), i was wondering if, in your awe over his levelheaded comments, you believe the claptrap about black kids and white kids learning, and thus needing to be taught, differently.

and, as a follow up question, if so, how does a mixed race child like obama learn?

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are labeled EMH, DMH and ADD. Those children can say every word from every song on every hip hop radio station half of who’s [sic] words the average adult here tonight cannot understand. Why? Because they come from a right-brained creative oral culture like the (greos) in Africa who can go for two or three days as oral repositories of a people’s history and like the oral tradition which passed down the first five book in our Jewish bible, our Christian Bible, our Hebrew bible long before there was a written Hebrew script or alphabet. And repeat incredulously long passages like Psalm 119 using mnemonic devices using eight line stanzas. Each stanza starting with a different letter of the alphabet. That is a different way of learning. It’s not deficient, it is just different. Somebody say different. I believe that a change is going to come because many of us are committed to changing how we see other people who are different.

[small axe]

You know, it's not really all about Sen. Obama's pastor and what he believes. It's not about the black church culture and how they behave. It is about the meteoric rise of a freshman senator from the obscurity of the Illinois legislature to be a viable candidate for the most important elected office in the land. Who is this guy?
...
All of these are valid questions.

I agree, THOSE are all valid questions, and they should all rightfully be asked.

My point is, the media and the voter tying them to REVEREND WRIGHT runs dangerously close to both religious and racist "bait and switch" and pushing religious&racist buttons as a political tool.

That's just my opinion, I admit that.

But I see people working mightily to keep the "Reverend Wright" bludgeon alive ... because attacking Obama through his black preacher is so very useful for their own partisan and career gains.

I'm disgusted that the next President and the future of out country may be determined according to such disgust-worthy political gaming.

It is the sort of empty "distraction" Obama warned us about in speeches, by which distraction the rich and the powerful delude and distract their thralls and their serfs. :rant:

But your "questions" could indeed be asked in a valid and positive light that doesn't poison the soul of US politics and democracy.

[small axe]

since you were referring to the NAACP speech and the very thrust of your thread title is that wright has been unfairly portrayed as a radical (at best) and fucking moron (at worst), i was wondering if, in your awe over his levelheaded comments, you believe the claptrap about black kids and white kids learning, and thus needing to be taught, differently.

and, as a follow up question, if so, how does a mixed race child like obama learn?

Firstly, I was just pointing out that I'd made my comments having heard Wright's first two comments, and acknowledged that I hadn't heard his third comment. So if your laughter was based upon Wright's third comments ... it had nothing to do with mine.

* * *

I wasn't in 'awe' :) (so you gain no points by falsely characterizing my reaction, sir) ... but I was impressed that he wasn't the raving lunatic the abusive 20 second video loops (distorted out of context and meaning) seemed to lead many to believe he is.

If you think it's 'claptrap' that children from different cultures may benefit by being taught in different ways, to best reach them within their own cultural contexts and experiences ... I don't think it's claptrap.

Experiences and upbringing effect how a child learns. Whether it goes so deep as how the brain is "wired" or not, I don't know. I know musicians who make the distinction between conscious "mind" learning of music, versus "touch & body memory" of playing music etc.

Some children learn visually, others by hearing.

Whether that is a cultural difference, or a racial one, or a socio-economic or family-experience difference ... it needs to at least be considered before being discounted with a shrug that "all people are the same" imo.

Hearing children are not deaf children, autistic children are "different" if not "dificent" etc and obviously other differences demand other teaching-styles.

How does a 'mixed race child' learn?

I dunno. I don't know if Wright would pretend to know. I don't know if the leading experts in genetics or human learning would know.

Genetics is perhaps impossibly complex to give too-easy or too-simple answers.

[small axe]

one day the atheists will rule!!!

So ... you believe the Rapture is coming?
Then the Tribulation.
Then ... no more atheists.

;)

[Norman D Gutter]

...
My point is, the media and the voter tying them to REVEREND WRIGHT runs dangerously close to both religious and racist "bait and switch" and pushing religious&racist buttons as a political tool.

That's just my opinion, I admit that.
It is a valid opinion, and a good observation. In their attempt to get the information before the public, which is the ethical duty of the 4th estate, the media is constantly crossing the line from news to yellow journalism. Of course, some people will see calm, measured dissemination of this information as racist and attacks, rather than as simple journalism

But I see people working mightily to keep the "Reverend Wright" bludgeon alive ... because attacking Obama through his black preacher is so very useful for their own partisan and career gains.

I'm disgusted that the next President and the future of out country may be determined according to such disgust-worthy political gaming.
I agree.

NDG

[William Haskins]

In an act that campaign insiders said indicated an irrevocable break with his former pastor, Sen. Barack Obama today de-friended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Facebook.

Sen. Obama's comments about Rev. Wright on Tuesday seemed to indicate that a total rift with his former minister was underway, but his decision to de-friend Rev. Wright on Facebook underscores the seriousness of his decision.

At a press conference in Gary, Indiana, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that Sen. Obama had to de-friend the Rev. Wright on Facebook "because he was getting really annoying."

"Every day, Rev. Wright was sending Sen. Obama new Facebook applications like 'What Superhero Are You?' and 'What 1980's Toy Are You?'" Mr. Axelrod said. "After awhile, enough is enough."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-de-friends-wright-o_b_99376.html

[brokenfingers]

In an act that campaign insiders said indicated an irrevocable break with his former pastor, Sen. Barack Obama today de-friended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Facebook.

Sen. Obama's comments about Rev. Wright on Tuesday seemed to indicate that a total rift with his former minister was underway, but his decision to de-friend Rev. Wright on Facebook underscores the seriousness of his decision.

At a press conference in Gary, Indiana, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that Sen. Obama had to de-friend the Rev. Wright on Facebook "because he was getting really annoying."

"Every day, Rev. Wright was sending Sen. Obama new Facebook applications like 'What Superhero Are You?' and 'What 1980's Toy Are You?'" Mr. Axelrod said. "After awhile, enough is enough."Wow. This thing is really getting brutal between these two...

[Bird of Prey]

Absolutely childish. Beyond belief, really, that presumably serious-minded adults could act this way. And to think that a potential president of the United States sat in attendance for twenty years to Wright is really disturbing. Obama must be severely hampered in the judgment department. Heaven only knows. . . he's no judge of character.

[robeiae]

In an act that campaign insiders said indicated an irrevocable break with his former pastor, Sen. Barack Obama today de-friended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Facebook.

This is friggin' hysterical. And this guy was trumpeted as intelligent and serious-minded? He's becoming a colossal joke.

Pretty sad, actually. I really thought he had something in the beginning, and made a comeback with his race-relations speech after his troubles with Wright had begun.

But what PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE is farking around with Facebook? Oh, I get it: he's appealing to younger voters, right? Newsflash: that ain't gonna get you there, Obama.

[Bravo]

the article's satirical.

and it's pretty friggin hilarious.

:ROFL:

[brokenfingers]

This is friggin' hysterical. And this guy was trumpeted as intelligent and serious-minded? He's becoming a colossal joke.

Pretty sad, actually. I really thought he had something in the beginning, and made a comeback with his race-relations speech after his troubles with Wright had begun.

But what PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE is farking around with Facebook? Oh, I get it: he's appealing to younger voters, right? Newsflash: that ain't gonna get you there, Obama.Um... have you people getting all huffy actually read the article???

Wow. Way to go, writers.

[Bravo]

seriously, cmon rob.

i expected much much more from our resident dry humorist.

[robeiae]

Um... have you people getting all huffy actually read the article???

Wow. Way to go, writers.
No, I just read William's quotes. I know he would never steer me wrong. He's far too serious-minded and honourable to do that...

Anyway, are you guys actually suggesting that the Huffington Post has a sense of humor. I find that hard to swallow.

















Rotten bastards.

:D

(and oddly enough, I'm listening to "Thick as a Brick" this very moment)

[small axe]

Absolutely childish. Beyond belief, really, that presumably serious-minded adults could act this way. And to think that a potential president of the United States sat in attendance for twenty years to Wright is really disturbing. Obama must be severely hampered in the judgment department. Heaven only knows. . . he's no judge of character.

Dude, it's America: Church is Church and State is State.

Unless you're claiming that President Obama is actually going to make Wright's sermons his Presidential Policy somehow ... maybe Barack was just going for the 8000 other nice people in the congregation, the music, and the Bible stories.

People go to church for many reasons. You're just saying you don't like Obama's pastor ... that's your right, but you "judging" Obama (and 8000 others in the congregation) mayyyyyy speak more of your presumption rather than their "judgement" imo ...

"Judgement" ??? Obama's "judgement" probably would have been to go to church instead of invading Iraq. Sounds good to me ...

[William Haskins]

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." - Barack Obama

[Bird of Prey]

Dude, it's America: Church is Church and State is State.

Unless you're claiming that President Obama is actually going to make Wright's sermons his Presidential Policy somehow ... maybe Barack was just going for the 8000 other nice people in the congregation, the music, and the Bible stories.

People go to church for many reasons. You're just saying you don't like Obama's pastor ... that's your right, but you "judging" Obama (and 8000 others in the congregation) mayyyyyy speak more of your presumption rather than their "judgement" imo ...

"Judgement" ??? Obama's "judgement" probably would have been to go to church instead of invading Iraq. Sounds good to me ...


Oh Lord. You're statements defy your objective: a rational defense of a man that aspired to the greatest of all political achievement while mentored by a kookie, hate mongering racist for twenty years.

Look, you are convinced that Obama is a good candidate. I'm convinced that he's a disaster. So, you can continue to excuse him, and I will continue to do anything I can to bring him into the light. Carry on. At this point, I think your posts - albeit very entertaining and certainly creative - are bizarre attempts at rationalizing the behavior of a fucking loon.

[small axe]

are bizarre attempts at rationalizing the behavior of a fucking loon.

My point would be: if Reverend Wright is a 'f*cking loon' ... that's a statement about Reverend Wright ... but not about the Presidential candidate Barack Obama (or the 8000 other members of the church congregation)

But obssessively fixating as some of Obama's foes do upon some desperate "guilt by association" attack and confusing Church and State, sermon and politics, and one Reverend's comments with Obama's comments REJECTING Wright's words ... may indeed be, y'know, 'f*ckin' loony' all on its own! :)

*shrug*

I care about what Wright thinks only to the extent that others try to use Wright's nutty comments (a few comments among 30 years of intelligent and passionate Biblical sermons, for all we know, but Obama and 8000 otheres in his church would know far better) to attack Obama's uplifting campaign for President.

I suggest Obama's FOES care about Wright only for the same reasons: to use him against Obama.

Thus, some recognize the true purpose and meaning of Reverend Wright: that he is just another a cynical and pre-meditated 'distraction' from far more important political issues.

http://www.oralchelation.com/wednesday/previous/images/dazed11.jpg

AWAKE, AMERICAN VOTER! -- Don't let yerself be hypnotized by silly nonsense.

[William Haskins]

My point would be: if Reverend Wright is a 'f*cking loon' ... that's a statement about Reverend Wright ... but not about the Presidential candidate Barack Obama (or the 8000 other members of the church congregation)

the logical reality you fail to take into consideration if you stipulate that he is a loon is that, at minimum, worshiping at a loon's feet for 20 years, letting a loon marry you, letting a loon baptize your children is vastly incongruent with any claim of sound judgment.

but you're not going to listen... your mind is made up.

[RumpleTumbler]

the logical reality you fail to take into consideration if you stipulate that he is a loon is that, at minimum, worshiping at a loon's feet for 20 years, letting a loon marry you, letting a loon baptize your children is vastly incongruent with any claim of sound judgment.

but you're not going to listen... your mind is made up.

The reality in all this is that even someone who has attended that Church for 2 weeks would be hard pressed to convince me they didn't have a pretty good idea of how Wright felt about a whole lot of things.

I don't know about now that the spotlight is directed on it, but before that I imagine there wasn't any smoke and there weren't any mirrors.

[William Haskins]

The reality in all this is that even someone who has attended that Church for 2 weeks would be hard pressed to convince me they didn't have a pretty good idea of how Wright felt about a whole lot of things.

I don't know about now that the spotlight is directed on it, but before that I imagine there wasn't any smoke and there weren't any mirrors.

obama admitted he had heard such things in his speech that made abe lincoln look like a babbling idiot and jesus' sermon on the mount sound like an amway pitch.

[NikeeGoddess]

true - obama pulled wright from the program a year ago when he announced he was running for president. he knew. he knew back then. this is proof of his naivety about running for the highest office in the land. did he think he was immune to having people dig in his closet? and here's the thing. we've only got what fell out of the closet. no one has dug that deep yet. i'm sure mccain is digging like a dog looking for bones. let's just hope he comes up dry.

[small axe]

Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2320610#post2320610)
My point would be: if Reverend Wright is a 'f*cking loon' ... that's a statement about Reverend Wright ... but not about the Presidential candidate Barack Obama (or the 8000 other members of the church congregation)


the logical reality you fail to take into consideration if you stipulate that he is a loon is that, at minimum, worshiping at a loon's feet for 20 years, letting a loon marry you, letting a loon baptize your children is vastly incongruent with any claim of sound judgment.

but you're not going to listen... your mind is made up.

My mind indeed is 'made up' that you've offered no valid reason to CHANGE my mind in your comment (other than your own bias and opinion, which certainly has no weight to change my mind)

Reverend Wright is a Christian pastor in a Christian church, right?

Thus, in response to your comments:

worshiping at a loon's feet for 20 years,

Obama wasn't worshipping Wright, Obama was worshipping God through Jesus Christ.

letting a loon marry you,

Obama was marrying the woman he loved, in Christian ceremony, in the Christian church and amongst the 8000 members of his church's congregation.

Rev. Wright's "politics" could be loony or not and it wouldn't matter, because the thing that matters would be their MARRIAGE in Christ, not the Reverend.

letting a loon baptize your children

Again, Reverend Wright's politics mean absolutely NOTHING compared to the meaning and import of Obama's children's BAPTISM into Christ.

is vastly incongruent with any claim of sound judgment.


And again, "sound judgement" is a meaningless term here if weighed against the issue of Spiritual Soul Salvation in Christ.

Reverend Wright brought Obama to Christ: Wright's grasp on worldly politics pale in comparison in importance ... :)

http://www.artoftouchny.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tree.jpg

A young spiritual Searcher asked the Mystics the question: Must we wait to find the "perfect" pastor or guru before we give our spirits to God?

The mystics answered: Fool, go out into the field and find a rock, any rock, find a bird or a tree, find the infinite sky above: that is the only guru you need to wisely give your spirit to God.

[NikeeGoddess]

the obama trifecta:
WrightGate
RezkoGate
BitterGate

three strikes your out! because if it comes down to it mccain will attack him full force on these three things.

[Seaclusion]

Although conservative pundits may attack Obama about Rev Wright, McCain probably will not. It seems he has decided to keep religion out of his campaign rhetoric. To change would have him labeled hypocritical which is something i don't think he wants.

Richard

[small axe]

the obama trifecta:
WrightGate
RezkoGate
BitterGate

three strikes your out! because if it comes down to it mccain will attack him full force on these three things.

Or naw.

Come the general election, WrightGate will be tired old news. It's boiled up once, twice, Obama has survived both ... and the next time he'll simply have to point to his recent final public breakup and shrug "Been there, done that, and just how desperate are you politically to have to be rehashing it now?"

(and what can McCain really do, saddled as HE is with his own "the Catholic Church is the Whore Of Babylon"/Bring On Apocalypse Now preacher rants? Remember: Obama just went to the guy's church like a good Christian and got personally betrayed for his devotion to the Wright; McCain sought HIS maniac's POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT)

RezkoGate is ... well, the guy is on trial, right? Come November, that's a pretty good defense: Rezko had the police turning over rocks and nothing came up in the case to hurt Obama.

BitterGate? That was always a false lead anyway: of course Americans are 'bitter' ... played correctly that's Obama recognizing their PAIN. You probably meant "ClingToGate" ... which I admit was badly worded. But OBAMA admits it was badly worded too, and he can explain that until it goes away.

By "goes away" of course, I don't pretend they won't return in pitable "attack" ads ad nauseum. They'll return. But the American public has a short attention span, unless the media keeps stirring the pot. And the media can only stick with a done story for so long before there's another celebrity murder and they move on too.

There's always the M---y C---- sex tapes, waiting until needed to distract the public from the next 'distraction' of Campaign 2008. :)

[johnnysannie]

Wrightgate is about over, damage is done and controlled
Rezkogate isn't an issue for most voters
Bittergate, as Small Axe said, just demonstrated how much Obama understands the voters (unlike Clinton who still really thinks we will fall for her "gas tax" as something that will help us peons).

[robeiae]

You guys are in fantasyland. None of this is over. The general election hasn't even begun.

Ans Small Axe, this:(and what can McCain really do, saddled as HE is with his own "the Catholic Church is the Whore Of Babylon"/Bring On Apocalypse Now preacher rants? Remember: Obama just went to the guy's church like a good Christian and got personally betrayed for his devotion to the Wright; McCain sought HIS maniac's POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT)...is funny stuff.