Unfortunately Obama's association with this "man of God" does concern me as Ted stated above. The fact that James Dobson is not supporting McCain, actually makes me feel better about McCain. If McCain were an avid follower of Dobson, I would definitely think it over before voting for him. I have been pulled toward voting for Obama through my association with several of my friends who support him. I will say that having Wright on the scene and an obvious part of Obama's life, as he obviously has been, gives me great pause about ever voting for him.

I agree about Dobson.

You are a declared Republican ottimista. Would you ever consider voting for Obama without the Wright question?

Yes, I was definitely considering voting for Obama before this "problem" reared its ugly head! I don't care for religion mixing with politics! JR's over-the-top, unfortunate statements might sink Obama in the long run. Is it credible that Obama doesn't have an idea about any of the comments JR has made on the heels of 9/11? I don't think that's possible. I've attended a black church in my home area many times because I find it a truly uplifting experience. I have never heard ANY political-type sermons given there! For Obama to distance himself now after the sermons have been made public just isn't believable to me. JR has been a minister over forty years and his rhetoric is well known by anybody who follows him. Good grief, Jeremiah Wright christened Obama's kids, he married the two of them; they both have to know what he's about. I don't know if it may be too late for Obama to reject JR's philosophy.

Ted, I have a handful of friends and family that are both racists and bigots. I'm not proud of their views, but I still love them just the same. Some of them have even helped me through troubling times in my life. Does that make me a racist or a bigot?

I'm not just talking speeches and words. Look at the entirety of Obama's life (within reason, of course). Is there anything, other than the "guilt by association" card being played here that gives an ounce of credence that Obama even remotely shares Wright's radical views that are on display?

I've read both of his books and read as much as I reasonably can about the guy, and there is about as much chance of him embracing Wright's outrageous statements as there is of him using the Quran at the swearing in ceremony when he wins this thing.

Gee I guess the Dems feel those 14 million poor folks need to pay. Typical TAX TAX TAX –

Interesting that Senate Congress and most Dems just killed a bill to have no “earmarks” for a year. Are we surprised. Do we think any candidate can change this?



Well I am concerned and we all should be. This is the candidate that says he will “unite America” and that he is a “post racial” candidate. How can I believe that when the man who has been his close personal friend, advisor, and was part of his campaign, is a raving anti American bigot? We cannot “pick” our uncles but we can pick out friends. Advisors, mentors and pastors.


Odd as well that the NYT did not have this on page one today. Imagine if we learned that McCain was going to church every week and was good friends with a raving right wink lunatic racist. The NYT and every media outlet in the country would be parked outside the church and the guys house. We would have 60 minuets all over it as well as every biased NPR outlet in the US.

Come on, Aquilla, you can't expect Obama's supporters to abandon the only campaign strategy they've got. Sheesh.


Should Barack Obama get in front of this issue and publicly distance himself from Reverend Wright?

Yes. He should have done so months ago - like, before Wright retired even. Almost a year ago, Wright said, "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Might have to happen? After the primary? How naive are these guys? Obama, were he in possession of this much-touted, but as yet undocumented, judgment, should have disowned Wright then.

He should, by all means, do it now. And I don't mean in the Huffington Post or in the archives of The New York Times somewhere. He should be on every major network and in every national daily, closing this chapter in no uncertain terms. The key to Karl Rove's smear tactics was to take a person's strengths and turn them into weaknesses. Obama has been defined as a candidate one can believe in - his supporters have faith in his ability to effect change. What better way to question all that "change we can believe in", than to question the beliefs of the candidate himself?

They tried it first with the whole Muslim thing (which has presumably only stuck to about 10% of the populace - though, in my experience here in central Pennsylvania, it's more like 40%) and, as that didn't destroy him, they're moving on to the TUCC, which could be far more successful. I mean, his connection to Wright actually exists - and Wright's role in Obama's life is a matter of public record, including the record written by Obama himself. As this is such a faith-based campaign, I'm astonished that they did not anticipate this. Has the Obama campaign learned nothing of Rovian techniques over the past eight years, except how to use them on his opponents?

Does Obama agree with Reverend Wright on some of these issues?

Sadly, I doubt it (as there's much in some of Wright's "scandalous" pronouncements that is worthy of debate), but he'd do well to make that as explicit as possible, 'cause a lot of Wright's sentiments just won't play in an election year. Condemning only "the statements that have been the subject of controversy" thus far (and in a single online newspaper at that) doesn't cut it. Unless his famous judgment tells him it's okay for this sort of story to linger for months and be picked up on by the GOP and its lackeys, it should have been nipped in the bud already.

Is Obama, as the Skeptical Brotha claims, a "craven political operator" for not sticking by his pastor?

Obama is a political operator - a masterful political operator, if little else. I don't see where publicly distancing himself from a man who said "he might have to publicly distance himself from me" adds to or detracts from the cravenness of his political operations.

Will this be a big issue for the remainder of the primary season? Will it be a big issue in the general election?

It will be an issue in both. How big an issue is up to Obama. But he'd wanna get around to this even sooner than he got around to the Farrakhan endorsement. Then he might wanna get around to a bit of transparency on the whole Rezko thing. If he doesn't think that this stuff is going to figure in the national election, he has about as much judgment as I've credited him with.

This stuff has been out there for a while. In fact, as a link I provided earlier indicates, he did address some of Wright's remarks in April, 2008. Here's the link again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140002

This is getting hot because Republicans don't have much to run on after seven years of Bush and a crumbling economy.

If you can't win fairly, then try "swiftboating" again, or looking at this board the past week or so, maybe we should call it "quickboating."

Fwiw, hot off the presses, Obama has posted on Huffington a response to the Wright controversy. Here's an excerpt:

Can I assume you mean 2007? So why did he stay in the church?

This is not “swifboating” – there is no doubt about what this nutcase said on a regular basis and as ottimista points out there is no way he could not have known about it. Would you stay in a church if the pastor was a far right raciest?

Anyone else see how this simple debate is gaining traction?

That why Obama is doing what he's doing. Don't start the debate, say your piece and move on.

The only people who will harp on this for more than three days are people who would never vote Obama, or Democrat for that matter.

The real reason this deabte is so interesting is because of what it shows about race relations in America, the substantial distrust all sides.

Some people will always need to see an black power extremist behind every black candidate with the support of black people.

It's the legacy of our history and culture.

This is discussed at all the "kill whitey" meetings which Obama chairs.

Sorry I made a typo.

Yes, if you had read my original post you would have known that it was April, 2007 - almost a year ago.

It was post #26.

I call it swiftboating Ted. You can call it whatever you want.

Are you accusing Obama or Wright of being a "nutcase"?

That seems to bring us back to guilt by association.

It's a tactic that worked in 2004 and one being employed by a party that has to run on Bush's dismal record.

Heh - we were probably cross-posting, but I cited this item in my respones above, even quoting the bits you bolded:



I've taken your "Fwiw" on board.


turnea: The story is not just gaining traction here - and I think it is a bad strategy to just "move on". God knows, the media and Obama's opposition are not going to move on. I'm not sure about "harping" on this, but if you think there aren't potential Obama supporters - and many self-described "liberal Democrats" - who could be swayed by a meme like this - for more than three days - then you don't know how substantial the distrust in this country is when it comes to race relations.

Seriously, I've spoken to a few lifelong Democrats who weren't going to vote for Obama because of the Muslim thing. And I don't think it's because they're convinced it's true, it's just easier for them to dismiss him as a Muslim than as an African-American. They seem downright disappointed to be disabused of the notion ("Well, I've heard it was just a story, but - are you sure?"). Now, maybe such people wouldn't vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, once they're in the privacy of the voting booth, but if the only reason they're not supporting Obama is because of his race, having what Chris Matthews described earlier today as a "black separatist" as a mentor gives them a good, conscionable reason for pulling the McCain lever come November. And these are people who've vote the Democratic Party line forever, who've supported civil rights, who've allowed affirmative action to be a deciding factor in favor of politicians in the past. Clinton is up against the same thing as a woman. The further these candidates can remove themselves from the Wrights and Steinems of the world, the better (regardless of how much I might agree or disagree with them).

There are a lot of borderline voters out there - and a lot of Democrats who are contemplating a McCain vote, depending on the results of the Democratic Convention. I think stories like this one are going to maintain their traction, however much the candidates themselves may want to blithely "move on" - and they ignore them at their peril.

Oh man, now that you mention it- i am still a member there- and have attended that church longer than Obama has been at his church. Some of the high school mates I have there are still friends too- and I don't agree with them on many things. Depending on what I am making a decision about- oh, say, buying a 318 mopar block- I still consult with one of the deacons- I am not pandering to anyone- but these are the people I did grow up with, and some of them have formed life long associations.

But it is pretty clear that we have a racist double standard going on- especially wtih all the "poor, poor christans being picked on by the liberal media" we hear from the baptist types over and over again.

Seems they are okay with persecution as long as it heads towards a black preacher.

Still, to date, no one has been as hateful in the Wright sermons as anything the religious right has put forth- didn't see that much outrage from Republicans when Jerry Falwell fabricated all that stuff in the "Clinton Chronicles"- I don't see republicans repudiating and casting out Falwell much.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that crap.




Did you watch Borat CW? did you see those congressmen and judges buy into the far right, I mean hardcore extremist. Go to any Baptist church on sunday- Wright's stuff is pretty tame compared to any white church attended by any average white lawmaker on any sunday.

Should Barack Obama get in front of this issue and publicly distance himself from Reverend Wright?
Obama should tell the truth about what kind of beliefs he shares with the Reverend. However, what is going to happen is that he is going to come out and publicly dismiss these comments, which I believe he's already done. This behavior makes Obama no different than any other candidate out there. He's a fraud and a liar, telling the people only what they want to hear. Status quo.

Does Obama agree with Reverend Wright on some of these issues?
I hope that he does, but he would never say that because his vagina is bigger than Hillary's.

Is Obama, as the Skeptical Brotha claims, a "craven political operator" for not sticking by his pastor?
Yes, if you can't stand for what you believe then how are you any different than the rest of the scum that has slimed their way through the White House? The answer is, you're not. Obama has beliefs, but he's not willing to divulge them because they won't win him any elections. Michelle Obama is very critical as well, her dissertation on race relations in America is no longer accessible. For a candidate that talks about change and full disclosure he is acting like all the rest of them.

Will this be a big issue for the remainder of the primary season? Will it be a big issue in the general election?
This won't be the kind of issue that can help Hillary. It will help McCain, but Obama's ascension to the Presidency is almost complete.

Does Obama agree with Reverend Wright on some of these issues?


Hold on barnaby2341. This doesn't make any sense. You are going to have to explain.

Here's another update.

Wright has resigned as a participant in the Obama campaign. This story is confirmed on MSN's homepage.

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/1...obama-campaign/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881

Ah, that is a bit of modern pop culture stuff you may not get BOF, kind of like the misunderstanding Mrs P had over the word "gang-banging" taking it to be sexual instead of modern slang for gang life.

I think he was saying he was a bit more of a biotch than Hillary?

Absolutely. I alluded to this in another thread. I don't think he is at all showing us the real Obama. He must understand that the real Obama wouldn't be elected, and that's sad, that he would toss his integrity out the window for power! Well, he's not the first and he won't be the last.

But his willingness to throw a trusted mentor under the bus for the chance at being president shows that he is nothing different than the usual: a man chasing after power and lying his way there.



I take it to mean Obama is more of a word that starts with a "P" and ends with a "Y". If he was a man he'd bone up and tell America how he really feels about the reverand and how he really feels about the ideology put forth by the church he attended for so many years.

If this is the gutter mentality Obama is running against ...

CruisingRam, above is every word that you wrote in response to my asking whether a black nationalist preacher as close confidante was relevant to Obama (a guy who keeps winning primaries in lily-white states because he 'transcends race'). Did you in any way address my argument, or did you construct a whole bunch of criticisms of someone whom we are not discussing? What do you have to say about the actual argument here? Or would you prefer to rail on about some religious people you don't like? Who are the "they" you keep arguing against? I don't see them here.

Just to be super-duper-crystal clear - "the religious right does X Y and Z" is not an argument in any way against or for the debate questions, which don't include the 'religious right.'

This criticism of Obama's pastor. You don't see the republicans exactly jumping to his defense over where he goes to church, now do you? The republicans where the ones, through Reagan, that really got the "religion" back into politics, in a big way. I see a smear campaign over a fairly benign pastor, in the grand scheme of things- while, as NT pointed out- McCain gets a "pass" for his cozy relationship with Hagee.

In fact- where is the criticism of ALL the republicans that kowtow and pander to extremist religious beliefs- to the point that they make campaign appearances to reiterate those 'values" to the congregation- even with they are extreme? For instance- GW got alot of heat for speaking at Bob Jones university- and, after alot of protest, repudiated some of the anti-catholic ( but not racist or anti-gay stuff ) but made no apologies for appearing there- and it never really became a campaign issue.

Well, now we have Obama, and the double standard is being applied here. I don't see all those congressmen that attend extremist protestant congregations- for years, being singled out here- granted, this is a presidential election- but it appears to me to be more of the same as the accusations of Obama being a 'sleeper agent" for muslim extremists.

There is nothing in this nation more hateful than a "conservative" baptist church. We should be taking those lawmakers to task for thier memberships in these organizations of hate compared to this very benign (by comparison) speaker.

Several posters here seem to think that the Republicans are responsible for this. Have you forgotten Obama's primary opponent?

Growing up in Chicago, black nationalism doesn't really bother me one way or the other. At least they preach personal responsibility, unlike a certain political party... I buy bean pies from the NOI guys all the time. Farrakhan is entertaining. The only reason I find this interesting is because Obama has "transcended race."

Obama is going to have to deal with this stuff sooner or later. He keeps winning the mostly-white states, but Hillary is much more competitive in the mixed-race, more urban states like Ohio, PA or Texas. Could that be because, in places where we have more of a black/white mix, people know that his idealistic move-beyond-race messiah type positioning is "just words?"

.


Wright is the nutcase and this is more than “association:” which you keep saying you didn’t say. Wright is no associate – he is mentor, friend , and spiritual advisor. Are we do believe Obama chose this man because they shared only religious beliefs? I don't buy it.

If Obama was a radical back when he was younger he should just say it – people change - get past it now before it eats him up.


Want to give us some quotes from those “extreme” protestant congregations?


.

Spoken like a man from Alaska with no clue. Back it up or don’t say it.

To those who believe Obama is change should look at the crop of candidates at the top and the compromising they have done to get where they are. Hillary has been on the Armed Services Committee. She has transformed herself into a centrist candidate with false patriotism. Backing flag burning amendments and granting every Bush request to fund this war. John McCain, former maverick, spoke out on torture, then voted against the legislation banning waterboarding. When they first came out, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, now he wants them to be permanent. He's done all that to get elected. He's said numerous times, he wished he wouldn't have done some of the things he's done because he's compromised his integrity in doing so. Obama is the same, yet a younger version of them.

This is more of an indictment against the American people; we make them this way.


Then what? Finish your sentence. Humanity has given us men and women who stand strong for what they believe in, Rosa Parks, Mohandas Ghandi, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, and Muhammad Ali. Barack Obama is not one of those people. He's a politician and a lawyer just like all the rest. Evidence of that is in the fact that he is even a candidate for President. If he were good for the people then he'd be bad for the power and framed as a psychopath or worse, but he has the full support of the media, just as Hillary, and just as McCain.

I heard this Reverend Wright's speech and while I can't stand Christians and their all encompassing lunacy, I enjoyed his message. If Barack Obama believed this stuff, he would have my vote. America is not a great country, we tell ourselves that we are great enough times we start believing that we are. Your point about the economy being in the toilet is great news for me. I would love to see our country collapse and fall into ruin so that people would realize that the house of cards we call the USA is a sham. We should stop saying we're so great and start figuring out a way to get great again.

Actually- grew up in the "faith"- spent my whole life in it- wasn't born in Alaska BTW- as is true with most people of my generation that call themselves such- you don't have to look far for the facts- www.bju.edu/ ( I notice how they have an asian girl as thier web page opener- very interesting coming from one of the most racist places on earth- I know, went there too for orientation- decided to join the army instead.

Here is one in my hometown- the quintessential televangilist- who is also, coincidently- the lead republican delegate on some occasions to the republican national convention. His close associate was Jerry Falwell, heard him speak many times myself, met him in person many times.
http://www.ancbt.org/About_Us/About_Pastor.php

And they are considered pretty "mainstream" by most American standards. However, the face of what they put out in public, and what they say on TV when they don't have a friendly mike on them, are two different things.

I still recall, quite clearly, the sermon of Jerry Falwell at ABT- "Gays would just soon kill you as look at you" and so on.

If you want clueless, I suggest a look in the mirror my man, I grew up around these people, and still know a great many of them. I have been to many, many church services with the fire and brimstone "whore of babylon" and all that (talking about the catholic church) for more times than I can remember.

Ya, I know them, and know them well, apparently, you don't.

Well, thanks for the really obvious metaphor, holdingtheline. "A wolf in sheep's clothing really is a wolf?" No. Really?



It wouldn't be "harping" on Hagee's comments to suggest calling the Catholic faith a religion of "whores" and suggesting a Pope helped Hitler kill the Jews is intolerance and bigotry of the worst sort. It would be the truth, if you had any real interest in it and not simply joining the Obama hit squad of .



What about it? Following The Tuskegee Experiment and COINTELPRO and the CIA support for the drug-smuggling Contras and the poppy-growing Muhajadeen in Afghanistan, it isn't so far-fetched for some to believe the U.S. government has a vested interest in keeping young Black men drugged, tranquilized, committing murder and mayhem in their own communities and then being incarcerated in the prison system. There are many besides Jeremiah Wright who don't buy the official version of the events of September 11 and some of them post right here on this board.



That must have been as satisfying for you Aquilla as a good bowel movement. You unloaded so much rotten bile and raw sewage in one paragraph that you must feel ten pounds lighter.

I'm not really interested in rehashing the Swift Boat Liars and their Karl Rove and friends supported kneecapping of John Kerry. Ancient history. What is relevant is you can parse and pick apart the remarks of Jeremiah Wright over his four decades of preaching and probably find something to offend everyone. It's not particularly honest and it certainly isn't accurate, but honesty and accuracy is in short supply in these Obama hit threads.

Contrary to your opinion, Barack Obama isn't off-limits. He should be and will be critiqued and scrutinized and picked apart by you and the press and Hillary and the GOP should he get that far.

It's just that trying to smear Obama through his pastor is sleazy, low-rent and McCarthyesque in it's approach. However, since that's the way you want to get down, I look forward to returning the favor for John McCain He's only been entrenched in Washington politics for 22 years. Let's run a pipe cleaner or two through him and see how pure and clean he is.

I'm only surprised you mentioned Slow-talkin' Fred Thompson's trophy wife. Your candor is refreshing, if unusual. If only she had slipped a little Viagra in Fred's campaign instead of his milk before bedtime, he still might be in the running.

So much for "hoisting one for Fred." Too much like work for him.




Nope. Not unless someone can draw a clear connecting between the Black nationalist preacher's rhetoric and Barack Obama's positions, beliefs and political career. Nobody is this thread has even attempted to do so. It is possible you know to hold two contradicting thoughts at the same time.



"Vetting." Lord, how tiresome it gets when everybody learns a new word at the same time...

Well, what other goodies did Obama bring back for his peeps and homeys?

• Obama Requested $300,000 To Support The A Child Is Missing (ACIM) Program.
• Obama Requested $1 Million For The Village of Franklin Park To Support Its Law Enforcement Strategic Technology Program.
• Obama Requested $350,000 For Guardian Angel Community Services To Support Its Transitional Housing For Women And Children Suffering Domestic Violence Program
• Obama Requested $675,000 For The Metro Chicago Youth For Christ Juvenile Justice Ministry Gang Prevention Program.
• Obama Requested $4.3 Million And Helped Secure $1.8 Million For The Air Force ALERT System.
• Obama Requested $200,000 For The Teen Challenge Faith-Based Drug Abuse Treatment And Prevention Program In Illinois.

link

Look at all that pork barrel spending! What a pig. Oink. Oink.



Sure can. But are we personally responsible for everything our friends, advisers, mentors and pastors say and do?

Oh, and I don't believe Jeremiah Wright is as much a "raving anti-American bigot" as someone whose opinion of America is it ain't all they say it is in the brochures. There's a lot of raving anti-American bigots out there, Ted and some of them come thumping on the Bible and all wrapped up in the stars and stripes. They hate America and it's freedoms and values just as much as the worst bloodthirsty Al Qaeda terrorist.



This must be what they mean about politics making strange bedfellows.



I''m sure they have. It's just that Hillary Clinton uses them so much more effectively. She is running for the job of John McCain's vice-president.



Well said, Wertz! Are you bucking for Alan Colmes gig as Sean Hannity's liberal punching bag on Faux News? "Hannity and Wertz" doesn't quite slide off the tongue like butta, but give it some time...




Civility and any pretense of intelligent debate really is in the toilet around here isn't it?



But if there were any doubt, here comes doomed planet to add her contribution to below the crotch commentary.

The pathetic thing about your cheerleading barnaby2341's disgustingly crude remarks is you would be the one to cry "SEXISM" if someone were to suggest Hillary Clinton should man up and grow a pair. But I guess it's easy to put aside your principles when someone is directing vulgar insults against someone you dislike. Situational ethics are the most convenient. eh, doomed planet?


Well, this has been fun. It's great to see how Barack Obama's candidacy has brought together gay liberals, conservative straights, anarchists, independents, right-wingers, left-wingers and other great Americans in one great big ol' high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks.

Yessiree, it's this kind of pulling together in a spirit of shrill intolerance, alarmist demagoguery, and a big helping of sophomoric name-calling that makes me so proud of the "can do" spirit of Americans.

When this is all over I'm going to have to go out and pound a few brews with Cruising Ram or BoF. Just to remind myself not every Caucasian is petrified with an irrational fear of a Black President.

Should Barack Obama get in front of this issue and publicly distance himself from Reverend Wright?

To what end? To appease those who are opposed to him?


Does Obama agree with Reverend Wright on some of these issues?

Who knows what goes on in the head of a politician?

Surely its more important to ask, why should I vote for a person and not a political perspective? Why is Barack Obama more important than the Democrat Party? If there is such a huge difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, then how can they both represent the Democrat perspective???


Is Obama, as the Skeptical Brotha claims, a "craven political operator" for not sticking by his pastor?

No. He's a politician in a personality based competetion for votes, who wants you to vote for him and thus he will say and do exactly what he thinks is going to get him your vote.


Will this be a big issue for the remainder of the primary season? Will it be a big issue in the general election?

I don't know which is the more depressing; seeing to which degree irrational fear based ideology (aka religion) dominates US politics, or seeing how personality drives the American political debate. Its truly chilling, and I know that a lot of the anti American rhetoric in Europe stems from issues like this one.

If Barack Obama is meant to represent some sort of change, then why is he exactly the same as all the other candidates? He hangs out with priests, writes books based on their sermons and attends a radical church regularly, but may only be doing this to pay lip service? He may be a radical who hates his country or just a guy who knows a few rotten apples...

The only change I see here is a switch from one church to another. Your all still sitting in the church, listening to glib excuses from the man in the pulpit.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Why is it really so hard for Americans to vote for policies? to have political parties which represent the political spectrum instead of two monolithic conservative blocks of power propped up by popularity contests?

I just don't get it at all. What is the attraction of McCain, Clinton or Obama? They are all exactly the same.

Change? Its no wonder American election turn out numbers are so pitiful.

Anyone got anything that would prove that Barak's Church somehow places America in danger? Anymore than the hate mongers like Bob Jones U and certain Colorado churches with hypocritical leaders ?
Anything beyond the desperate attempts of clinton and the GOP to do anything they can to destroy someone who they know will leave them in the dust if he gains anymore momentum. I would say as far as vetting goes if Barak survives this hitjob then he deserves to POTUS.
Is Barak hatching some master plan to unleash an evil wave of black vengeance across the land?

Anyone have anything solid beyond innuendo and attempts to play the race card and scare weak minded white people?



Anyone? Anything?

edited to remove meanness

I think you kinda boiled it down right there- the double standard- no matter how whacko a white candidates' religion and pastor- there was never this undertone of "his church has views that hate America" kinda thing going on- no one accused Jerry Falwell of hating America- though he clearly hates freedom, despite the "liberty university" thang-

It is the undertone that you can't have a black president that loves America- or wants to change it for the better. Obviously, since he is left of Mao, and a sleeper agent, and his pastor hates America, Barak Obama is the sleeper agent that thinks we 'DESERVED" 9/11.

Also reminds me to make sure and talk to my Ma's Pastor and remove me from thier mailing list and member ship. Should have done it about 25 years ago I suppose, but I do value some of my friends still caught up in that mess, and I do love my Ma-

and the greatest point here to be made- a great deal many people in America goes to church agreeing with the church and all it's stances- a great deal many go to keep in contact with the social circles they grew up in- and Obama being a 20 year attendee, I have no doubt it is the latter, though he may be a spiritual person or whatever- at least he ain't trying to impose his nanny state type crap that the right wing whacko's have been doing for the last 25 years.

Comes down to this- White churches in America that have fiery anti-whatever view= good patriots
Black churches in America with a fiery anti-whatever view=hate American and communist, just like MLK

Awww, Nighttimer. Where is your sense of humor? I was actually trying to show CruisingRam that he isn't as up on the vulgar lingo as he thinks.



I'm not sure about that. My Hillary Clinton support is a true anomoly. I guess you could say I had an epiphany regarding sexism in politics. But it doesn't keep me up at night, nor will I be joining NOW anytime soon.



But Barack is not an uppity black. He's presenting himself as a calm and collected man. I would like to see some uppity come out of him. Then I might actually vote for the man. He should take lessons from you, and I mean that in a good way. I know how you stand on the issues, from reading your clever, intelligent and often witty posts over the last few years. What's stopping me from supporting him is not that he is black. Seriously. I would vote for you, over Obama, because I see real substance in you. I don't see it in him; not yet anyway.



Hey, a lot of Americans are supporting Obama, much moreso than Hillary, so why are you so disheartened?


Believe what you want to believe. We have a right to dig into his past and to question his motives, just like any other candidate.

Leaving a thought dangling is a useful debate techniques at times. Look at the information I got from you.


From years of teaching special education, I learned that every individual is unique. Given that, of course, Obama is not "Rosa Parks, Mohandas Ghandi, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, and Muhammad Ali." We don't do elections by reincarnating people from the past. For some, Fred Thompson was the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Where did that go?


Let's talk about reality. One of three people will be our next president - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain. You can vote for Ralph Nader, if he manages to squirm onto the ballot in your state. What would that do? In 2000 his votes in Florida gave us George W. Bush.

Barnaby your profile indicates that you are 33 years old. You became an adult - 18 years old in 1993. with the exception of 2001, you have lived through 15 years of an expanding economy. Your line about line about hoping "our country collapse[s] and fall[s] into ruin" is cruel. While I have little sympathy for the brokers who made sub-prime loans, I realize that a collapse in the economy would lead to misery for the "little people" more than the titans of Wall Street. My ate father was a blue collar worker and suffered through many recessions. At times he supplemented unemployment compensation, by working for under the table cash at a local mill and cabinet shop. My father was generally a law abiding citizen, but circumstances forced him to break the law to survive - you know, mortgage payments on a meager house and food on the table. He and the man who paid him or both dead, so there is little they can do to him now.

I have also gone through a few recessions and periods of unemployment. Without the experience of a deep recession, I doubt you have the background to prescribe the harsh circumstances many would face if you got your wish. I think Barnaby you are great at seeing forests, but lacking at seeing the trees in the forest.


I can't disagree with this. However, our realistic choices for president are Obama, Clinton and McCain. Given these choices I choose to support Obama.

The only relevent question in my mind was
Does Obama agree with Reverend Wright on some of these issues? And finally we see the answer is No. Obama's response is clear and solid. How many of us really keep up or agree with everything that our pastor does? Enough identity politics. Obama's response should end this discussion.

You grew up around a few people that may not be representative of all Protestants – to say the lease. And you have yet to POST anything close to the sick racist crap Wright has said. I can wait. But will not hold my breath.

.

Ya sure. Hey remember when Colin Powell considered running for President. Guess which group he had the most support from? While Protestant men from the South. Guess all those bigots didn't notice he was a black man?




Well NT I disagree. He is a anti American racist nutcase equal to the worst bigots the KKK or Aryan Nation ever produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations.

And if you watch the video what you see is hundreds of people clapping and cheering (some running up to pat him on the back) in response to this mans raciest statements. So many people of the church seem to share his views. This is more than the one man.

Like most people I find Obama to be a very likeable and intelligent person – and a great speaker. So I guess I don’t understand how he was so close to a man he says he “vehemently disagrees with” on such fundamental issues. Esp. if he is going to “bring us together”.

Chris Matthews has pointed out that many people don't vote like they say they will. Powell was never a serious candidate, but Obama is. There are white, protestant males who say they support Powell or Obama, but in the secrecy of the ballot box, they will vote for someone else. Inability of some recent exit polls to predict winners confirms Matthew's contention.

It's as if some people don't mind being racists as long as they don't present that image. It really works better than a sheet and hood.

That is quite possibly the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. If you said it near a history book, I suspect it would burst into flames.

In any case.


Maybe, but I doubt it. I'm aware that racism cuts across party lines, but it has far more fertile soil in the other side of the aisle.

White democrats still distrust blacks but they also really want to win this election. The media gets bored pretty easily when a situation doesn't present obvious change (see Iraq War).

Obama has cut ties and repudiated the statements. My money is that it will die in the mass media, but the GOP will run it under the radar in the general election.

It won't sway democrats much if Obama rises above it and refuses to engage in protracted argument and reminds them that this is "Mc-hundred-year-war" talking.

I predicted something like this would happen months ago, but I don't think this will stick to Obama well enough to be a death blow.

Laugh all you want but when a man says that the US government – run by White men, invented HIV as genocide for people of color – I find it hard to find any nutty statement by KKK or AN that is worse.


And tell me that if McCain’s pastor, close friend and the man who married him and baptized his children said anything like this it would not bring out the same questions. And then tell me that a simple statement that he “vehemently disagrees” would be enough for the liberal media.

NYT, 60 minuets and every liberal rage in the US would drag this out forever and you know it.

Amusing that there was not one word of this story on the front page of the NYT yesterday – or even a reference to it. Tell me that this would be true if it was McCain so I can laugh.

Honestly, nt, sometimes you should preview your posts for all the condescending remarks. Not everyone who disagrees with you on an issue is stupid. My vocabulary did not only recently acquire this word, nor do appreciate your suggestion that it has. I believe the other Democratic candidate for the White House has been complaining about this very phenomenon. I forget who said it first - we have a Senator from New York born in Chicago, and a Senator from Chicago born in a manger.

To come out on top in this town, you are going to have real skeletons. Not just some crazy uncle preacher. I trust that if people knew of Obama "change we can believe in" and his peeps staying up late disqualifying signatures for his first Illinois House run, or the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by Mr. Rezko, or the myriad of "present" votes on key issues, they would find him troubling. As you note, similarly to McCain and his years in Washington. To his credit, McCain had an epiphany after the Keating Five.


True dat. Peeps and homies can please get their pork without earmarks, passed in a nice budget bill requiring disclosure and a vote. And it ain't racist to say so or vote so. Obama's best move in my opinion was co-sponsoring the transparency bill to illuminate pork.

Depends on what you mean by worse, what Wright says is stupid, what the KKK said was deadly, big difference.

Wright, for all his ranting, does not preach hatred of White people another big difference.


We'd have to define some equivalent statements about black America, then we could talk. I don't think a similar reaction would be out of the question. I mean speaking at Bob Jones university didn't sink Bush.

Announcing his campaign in a town where civil rights workers were murdered didn't stop Reagan.

Heck, Pat Buchanan is still on TV after all he said about MLK.

The “media” will never go beyond today with this and you know it.

And the RAG NYT and Olbermann on MSMBC spent far more time on O’Reilly’s use of words defending Michelle Obama.




So don’t worry – its over – the media will be dead silent as they hang on ever word from O”rielly and Hannity trying to tease out anything that makes them look racist. And then blast away at it.
Obama is a big boy – he can take a day or 2 of heat.

Um, no. He wouldn't. We all know the government actually introduced AIDS to kill gay men. (I guess that's what gay liberals who fear black men are supposed to think - I'll have to check nighttimer's Stereotype of the Day to be sure, though.)

In reality, I'd find a lot more validity in Wright's comments about the inherent racism of our justice and penal systems (the "importing drugs for blacks" train of thought) - but that's another debate.



You're right - I've drunk the Kool-Aid. There isn't a single Obama supporter who would stoop to making racist charges against anyone who would raise questions about Obama...


Oh. This must be what they mean by one's opponent making one's case for one. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't suggesting that the millions upon millions of Americans who fail to be overawed by Barack Obama are all "petrified with an irrational fear of a Black President" a decent example of people being "branded as a racist and bigot"? You've played that card. Got anything else in your hand? Or is your only concern now proving that Obama can be even more divisive than Clinton? Great strategy - I can almost see the hearts and minds of a nation flocking to embrace your spirit of inclusiveness.

Seriously: in a parallel thread, you very objectively laid out half a dozen or more concerns about Obama that could "give reasonable people pause about the readiness of Senator Obama". Here, we're suddenly a bunch of hysterics about to don white hoods. What're you, Mr. Hyde now? Bring back Dr. Jekyll - he's much more convincing.


I'm afraid I only know Alan Colmes by repute (I've only seen the program a handful of times - and not for years now), but I'll assume that was a swipe. If, however, Colmes acknowledges that Obama is a consummate political operator, he deserves more credit than I have given him thus far. Take it as a smear, if you will, but I see the fact that Obama is a skilled political operator as one of the better arguments in favor of his candidacy.


Have fun. I'd be irrationally afraid to join you myself - not because your skin color would petrify me, but because I'd have no way of knowing whether I was sitting down with Jekyll or Hyde. Maybe I'll see if Larry Pinkney wants to pound a few, instead. Or Rev. Wright - looks like he's going to have some time on his hands...