I seem to be getting to you BoF – which is just fine with me. You consider it “slop” and I say otherwise and there are plenty of people who feel the same way. Trying to paint us all as “twisted truth” is just that.

Yes I gave to McCain and other Republicans as well. Glad you are supporting your man – that’s the American way.




So it was the “campaign and not McCain personally – right. And has this not happened to Hillary and Obama as well? Do I need to say more. Still far, far from the influence of 20 years of listening to hate America racist drivel from ones Pastor and friend – and Obama supported Wright.

"This week a TV ad for Barack Obama was debuted. It was made by a union that supports Obama, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). Last week, the SEIU sent 700 of its members to violently break into a conference being put on by a union supporting magazine called Labor Notes Magazine. Several women were injured by the violent protests sponsored by the SEIU.

WE CALL FOR BARACK OBAMA TO REPUDIATE HIS SUPPORTER’S VIOLENCE!

What sort of candidate would gleefully accept the support of a union that violently attacked other union members? This was no heated argument that just blew up, either, no accident of passions. It was a purposefully violent attack planned and executed. The SEIU organized hundreds of its members, rented 7 busses to transport them to their target site, and then unleashed them to push, shove and beat their way into a conference being held by the union supporting magazine. It was no accident that people were hurt. That was the SEIU’s goal."

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/0...ion-supporters/

You are right that this is being exploited by "the right" to fuel the noise machine, achieve ratings and ultimately fund-raise, although I'm dubious much can be raised due to things like this before the general election. We disagree on the 'guilt by association' as the relationship is obviously a close one.

Cornell West is also advising Obama, and he was right there cheering Wright at the National Press Club. It just seems silly for Obama to say "hey, all of these black nationalist socialists advising me seem to be talking like ... black nationalist socialists." Well, duh. Now he has to go and 'disavow' things that he's been listening to and in some cases admiring for 20 years. It's not very credible.

"Hate America racist drivel" is in the ear of the behearer, Ted. Barack Obama does not hate America, is not a racist and if you can prove otherwise, please do (not that I'm going to wait for that to happen).

As to your first point (hey, you actually had one!), you're trying to dance on the head of a pin (not a pretty sight) with the Hagee endorsement. Maybe McCain broke off a phone call (or just rolled over in bed) and had the following conversation"

"Hi, John. This is John."
"Yeah John, what's up?
"John, I'm in all kinds of trouble with you right-wingnuts. Howzabout you endorsing me for president?"
"Sure thing, John. Glad to help. But John you know I hate Catholics and gays and want to start a war with Iran."
"Really? Well, that's okay John. Personally, I want to start a war with Iran too. As far as Catholics and gays go, we all have something we hate. I hate spinach."
"Me too. Well gotta go John. Love ya man. Say hello to Cindy"
"That c-word trollop? She can kiss my tuchcas like I'm kissing yours."
"I love it when you talk dirty, John."
"Kisses, John. I wish I could quit you."




And this has what exactly to do with the Jeremiah Wright fallout continuing?

I noticed my name so I thought I'd provide my perspective on the issue of religion and politics as it associates to the different candidates. First off as you mention the Republicans have a voting block or bible thumpers in recent decades and this is basically due to abortion issues and the politics and Supreme Court nominations that result between the two competing parties. As I recall in following the news the Democratic Party developed a strategy to share ownership of religion based on their support for human rights, the environment and yes, even war issues. Gay issues helped to decide the 2000 election, or was it the 2004 election? Regardless, The Democratic Party made a strategic move to involve themselves with religion to remove at least a portion of the Republican religious block vote. The religious "Compassion" conference conducted by CNN put Senator's Obama and Clinton on a stage answering religious questions on their religious positions on issues of interest in the American voting public as part of this agenda. The strategy was to remove the conception that the Democratic Party was closely linked to a view of being in support of secular non religious main support base. It was a very smart strategy since religion is wide spread across America and why not take as much credit for being religious in support of caring for the unfortunate, the little guy? The strategy shores up the religious Democratic Party voters to continue supporting them and lures in independants and religious voters that have strong feeling toward helping the poor and the like.

For the candidates only Obama stands out as having an association directly with a pastor, not Hillary, not McCain and this isn't because they aren't religious but they elected not to make it part of their resume. Obama, on the other hand has name recognition for a book he published based on the teaching of "his" pastor view of "Hope" and Hope is the center of Obama's campaign. Obama had a spiritual advisor and Clinton and McCain had none on their resume.

You cannot link Clinton to religion other than prayer breakfasts and McCain doesn't dwell on religion other than to mention that a guard drew a cross on the dirt at the Hanoi Hilton that gave him hope. We see them both as politicians that happen to be religious and profess christian belief.

Obama's political story cannot be told without his pastor, his pastor is part of who he is: I graduated, went to Chicago where I helped poor desperate unemployed steel workers, I did this in conjunction with the church who's pastor was instrumental in outreach to the poor (same as me), I went back to college and wanted to do more for the underprivileged and again with the help of the pastor, a former terrorists that also liked to help the underprivileged and continued these efforts as I pursued a life in politics in the state legislature. You just can't tell the story of Obama without including the pastor nor can most people relate to his campaign slogan "Hope" without reflecting on his book inspired by his pastor.

Why does he take all the air out of the room when it comes to religion? It's his story plain and simple and the other candidates don't seem to have the compassion for their fellow man as Obama unless you consider Clinton's work with the poor Black Panthers in her youth, but that was such a long time ago. McCain doesn't mention religion when speaking about the Supreme Court members he may appoint nor does Clinton or Obama yet, Obama has a pastor in tow, it is part of what he is.

I think Senator Obama is simply a politician and I don't think he agrees with all the positions Rev. Wright stands for but to those who have watched his story and his affiliation of Hope and his book and pastor he appears as Undercover Brother or a liar to most sane folks right now. No one cares about Clinton's or McCain's positions on religion or they would ask them, but Obama has sucked all the air out of the room so no one will ask (because it isn't news).

Obama was asked on the trail the other day by a sincere bible thumper, what is your favorite bible passage and Obama responded the "Golden Rule". Duh!

I don't know what your point is here, Zack, but Obama's answer seems reasonable. I'm agnostic and have no problem with the philosophy in the "Golden Rule." Obama is probably more into the social gospel than literal interpretations, so there should be no surprise.

Right now my favorite is, "Jesus wept." I'm weeping about this silly campaign diversion.

BTW: I'm out of here for a while. The coffee shop calls. Life consists of more than double digit posting on .

Good point carlitoswhey. Certainly we can conclude that Obama’s beliefs cannot be radically different with not just his Pastor – who Cornell West cheered but with Mr. West himself. Odd we have not heard more about this man – let me check the back issues of the NYT for a story! Ha Ha

So what are the political beliefs of this advisor and friend of Obama?

“West has branded the U.S. a "racist patriarchal" nation where "white supremacy" continues to define everyday life. "White America,' he writes, "has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks." This has resulted, he claims, in the creation of many "degraded and oppressed people [who are] hungry for identity, meaning, and self-worth." Professor West attributes most of the black community's problems to "existential angst derive[d] from the lived experience of ontological wounds and emotional scars inflicted by white supremacist beliefs and images permeating U.S. society and culture."[8

West describes himself as a "non-Marxist socialist" (partly due to Marx's opposition to religion) and serves as honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which he has described as "the first multiracial, socialist organization close enough to my politics that I could join". He also described himself as a "radical democrat, suspicious of all forms of authority" on the Matrix-themed documentary.

Viewing capitalism as the root cause of these alleged American lusts, West warns, "Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit — often at the cost of the common good."

West has been involved with such projects as the Million Man March and Russell Simmons's Hip-Hop Summit, and worked with such public figures as Louis Farrakhan[2] and Al Sharpton, whose 2004 presidential campaign West advised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West

http://posthumousluger.com/?p=96


Gee this doesn’t look that good. If 10% of this man rubbed off on Obama he is further left than most of us can imagine imo

At 12:07, Ted includes this WTF out-of-nowhere tidbit about a squabble between labor unions .



Twenty-five minutes later at 12:32 Ted chides BoF and suggests he try, for a change to debate the issues.

Is there a little hypocrisy going on in here or what? The issue here is Jeremiah Wright, not the SEIU. If you're rebuking BoF for not debating the issues, you need to apologize to CruisingRam for hijacking his thread.

If you want to debate the SEIU throwdown and Obama's "responsibility" you can always start a thread, Ted. There's always room for more "Bash Obama" threads.

Unless you have proof Reverend Wright is a card-carrying member of the SEIU, I'm not seeing the correlation between the two.

Obama's story would sound a lot better is it went something like this: While at university I met a friend who had relatives in Chicago that were involved in politics so after graduation I went there and met the politician. I was astonished by the poverty and living conditions and mentioned it to the politician and noted that I also was very interested in public service and would like to help these poor people. He introduced me to a former terrorists and an influential pastor that has many political connections to political power players. I joined the church and involved myself in the community as I built up my political resume. I needed to complete my graduate studies so once that was complete I returned to Chicago and polished off my political connections and contributed to the community as I ran for political office. I was inspired by the pastor's methods to involve more and more people with the church and thought, wow if I could do the same in politics I could become very popular and very electable. I was so moved by the pastors basic concepts that I wrote a book on Hope. I did have to change things around a little for my political goals to use the Reverends message to be inclusive to all races in stead of limiting it to the black race. The minister served his predominately black congregation quite well with his methods but were limiting in the larger political world, I admire what he has accomplished yet could not use his message directly in politics to serve all the constituents.

It's all about the math, nothing adds up with Obama, he doesn't want to be called a politician, why not that is a virtuous profession if you acknowledge you will represent "all constituents."

He could just have said from the git go that after graduation he felt a "need" to provide public service and with his skills he could best serve as a compassionate politician.

More and more I am disliking both Democrat candidates for their disingenuity. If I weren't so diametrically opposed to McCain's political views, I'd have stopped paying attention to the news long ago.

What strikes me here is that Obama can't seem to do anything right. Previously he just stepped back and said Wright had qualities that divisive video clips didn't showcase and that's why he associated with the man. People were angry Obama didn't just denounce Wright. But I can belive Obama knew all about Wright's wacky theories and didn't agree with them, found something else worthy of keepnig Wright as his family's pastor. Now Wright comes forward and further stirs the pot by implying Obama agrees with said wacky theories. Obama clearly has to show he doesn't, so he denounces Wright. Still not enough--people refuse to beleive him.

Why is it so hard to beleive that Obama was willing to let Wright say whatever he wanted when Wright was speaking for hismelf? The moment he implied Obama agreed with him, that's when Obama had to get tough. I'm perfectly ok with my best friend having some seriously weird theories about religion, homosexuality, etc. She's still my best friend. But if she goes around telling the world I agree with her--of course I'm going to denounce that. Do you honestly believe that Obama has gotten this far in life and politics, not to mention is a part of the very govt he is supposedly decrying as cold-blood killers, by believing such things like the govt used AIDS to kill off black people?

Common sense seems sorely lacking in this election cycle. America deserves whatever president we end up electing. I fear it will be neither Obama nor Clinton.

I guess my problem really lies in the depth and scope of the views of Rev. Wright. I am sure he has done great things for his congregation and the neighborhood his church is located. I am sure that Rev. Wright is a peaceful, loving man. The problem lies in the fact that his statements about the country we live in are so damaging that we aren't talking about you and I disagreeing on political viewpoints. It is about making America appear to be an evil and hateful place. This level of hatred towards all things American government really outweighs whether or not you believe in God or you fall left or right of center. Rev. Wright's views are so much more than just petty policy disagreements, I don't know why anyone that disagrees with those views even a little bit would continue to expose his/her family to those beliefs for 20 years. Unless of course those views hold true in his/her heart. Taking a politicians word during an election cycle is like buying ocean front property in Arizona.

No nerve struck. It's just if a white person uses any epithet, no matter how tame--even just saying "you people" in referenc3e to blacks--blacks in general, and you in particular, go all beserk; but if you, sir, want to call poor whites "white trash" and use similar, demeaning epithets addressed to whites like you did above, you just consider it another day at the office. This is just a continuation of the double standard that exists regarding racial discussions in the USA. I castigate our moderators for not deleting your hate speech.







Let me ask you this question, NT: McCain has spent 40 minutes on a stage getting an endorsement from Hagee; Obama has spent 20 years listening to Wright's sermons; having private meetings with Wright; having Wright to dinner; having meetings with his family and Wright; donating money to Wright's chruch annually; having his marriage and his kid's baptisms performed by Wright; ad nauseum, ad infinitum; Is there any comparison? No, there isn't, and you know it.

Oh, the Religious Right's big litmus issue is abortion, just as it is for the far left; despite all of these "crazy far right" presidents, a Repub majority in Congress for several terms, and Repub appt of several justices, we STILL have legal abortion. The proof is in the pudding, my friend: The Repubs court the RR, of course, but they really do not do their bidding.

On the other hand, Obama will be hard pressed not to listen to the Rev Wright, as he is now a "playa" with a national footprint. Wright will be "speaking for the black community" and right into Obama's ear, and Obama will not be able to hide as Wright now has too much pull to ignore, despite Obama's strong language (way too little, way too late) divorcing Wright this week.

There isn't an analogous situation on the Repub side--try as you might to concoct one.




Nice signature; but, a man can drive a knife into a man's back, and after both the man and the victim are dead, have the man's offspring fall all over themselves taking care of the stabbed man's offspring, and call it time to forget about the knifing....

So what are you angling for, quick? A retroactive Moderator edit and a strike? Stop trying to work the refs. There's a system in place for reporting posts with inflammatory content. Use it! I'm not the first person to use the term, "White trash" on this board and I won't be the last. By the way, you don't have to poor to be "White trash." Paris Hilton is rich and she's as White Trash as it gets.



If you're going to answer your questions as well as ask them, what do you need me for? I've said it before and I'll say it again: stick to what you know because you have no clue as to what I know.

You're making the wrong comparison. The comparison is John Hagee and his views (which I notice you're not trying to defend) are trouble for John McCain. Maybe not now, but sooner or later, McCain is going to have to cut this nut loose just as Obama was forced to do with Wright.

The issue isn't whether or not McCain or Obama share the viewpoints of Wright and Hagee. What matters is by accepting their support, they legitimize Wright and Hagee's more repugnant views. I emphasize their more repugnant views because I'm sure both of them have done some considerable good as well.

We are seeing how toxic it can become when state and church hold hands and why The Founding Fathers were correct in trying their best to keep them separate.



Please. If the Religious Right stays home the Republicans lose. Period. Look what happened to the GOP in 2006 when the evangelicals didn't turn out. Republicans could easier rip off their right thumb than cut themselves free from the Religious Right. It would take us too far off-topic for me to list chapter and verse how deep the James Dobsons, Pat Robertsons and Rod Parselys have their hooks in the GOP, but the evidence is ample.



The challenge isn't to "concoct" the ties that bind the Repubs to the far-out religous right as it is to document it. You might reconsider challenging me about that quick unless you're absolutely certain I can't prove it.

Oh, glad you're digging the Malcolm X quote. I'll try to keep bringing 'em strong.

So your saying that evangelicals and the “religious right” folks are the moral equivalent of Mr. Wright? Is that how I read this statement. Realize you are talking about a LOT of people here before you answer.

Frankly, I wish Obama would stop playing politics with the Wright issue. He doesn't need to, and shouldn't, distance himself from Wright. At least not on Wright's foreign policy views. "Chickens coming home to roost" is an idea put forward by progressive thinkers like MLK, paleo-conservatives like Buchanan, and yes, even some on the religious right. There isn't a serious student of history who can't see that actions have consequences. It's a law of physics, really. The destruction of the US will be brought about by the blind so-called patriots making policy in which we have a complete disregard for the consequences of our actions.

I was already an Obama supporter, and even the suggestion that he might share Wright's honest and correct vision of US foreign policy makes me support him all the more.

Ah, but the question remains: does he support these views or not?

Previous to this recent speech, Obama did not specifically denounce Wright's views, which (from what you've stated here) is good in your view. He might have meant to say that (although, a speechmaker like him chooses his words carefully I'm sure and he only rejected some generic "offensive" comments). Now, he specifically denounces the idea that US foreign policy has caused blowback.



I'm sure that many would not agree with that, although chest beating patriotic types (which are far too numerous for some people's liking) certainly would. Obama has the far left and the fervent anti-war types firmly on his side now. Time to move to the center and try to get some of those, what did nighttimer call them?, mouth-breathers?

Does anyone care what Barack Obama really believes? Because in this instance, he has almost said that he agreed with Wright (on some issues) and now he says that is absolutely does not. So does Obama's denouncement of Wright make you like him any less, Quarkhead?

How can you possibly say that this:



sounds anything like something Osama Bin Laden or Ahmedinejad (two of the mullahz you referenced in your image link) would say? Please tell me you were just using hyperbole.



or he could have meant reconciliation in the way he described it. I guess we just see things very differently, I thought his speech offered a lot of context to black liberation theology and rounded out some of his earlier criticisms. I've quoted some of the portions of his speech that I consider to be of substance, so you can see where I'm coming from. I'm curious, what is your example of a substantive speech? I think it would help me to understand how you and I see things so differently.

I do care what he believes. I said I wished he would stop this. But I suppose that's the way the game is set up. Our political game is rigged to the extent that partisans destroy any ideas outside a narrow framework that lies from the center-left to the middle-right. In order to be a viable national candidate Obama has to distance himself from Wright's views. And maybe he does disagree with a lot of them. But still and all I'd rather have a president who has at least been exposed to the truth than someone like Clinton or McCain who only offer more of the same old US imperium. So yes, I am disappointed that he is forced by the rabid dogs of political warfare to denounce Wright. But I also recognize that if he is to have a chance at getting elected - given our twisted system here - he feels he has to do this. For what it's worth I think he's wrong. I think Americans are smart, and are ready to hear a message like Wright's. I think that Obama could eloquently restate Wright's foreign policy statements in a way that makes sense to the majority of Americans. He doesn't need to distance himself.

Political priests always talk about peace, foregivness, reconcilliation. Even men like Osama Bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad justify their excesses with righteous talk. Its the oldest trick in the book.

Wrights words made me think of apartheit, and not in the way he intended. He said black music was not deficient, it was just different, that black preaching was different and black learning styles were different. His point seemed to be that black people are different and that difference is something to embrace, something more important than conforming to a perceived 'white world view' where skin colour is irrellevent. Wrights words bespoke a self inflicted apartheit.

The central message of multiculture is 'Finding unity through diversity'. Its a lie in my opinion. Diversity is another way of defining and legitimising differences. In my opinion, if we are different then we are not the same, we do not share unity. What I understand from Wrights message is that he would rather aspire to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. In other words, he wants power and he is willing to seperate black people from white people in order to get it. All the ANC leaders after Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe have done the same thing.

Have you ever watched a Robert Mugabe speech? His body language and sense of delivery is similar to Wrights. Both deliver their most lethal messages with a joke and a smile, and in this manner they seduce millions.


I was raised on the understanding that faith, and by extension religion, are personal matters which one has every right to develop, but which have no place in politics. From that starting point I am naturally suspicious of any priest who talks about religion in a political contaxt.

I have no example of a substantive speech. I find speeches to be redundent tools of manipulation. Every speech I have ever heard or read has contained obvious signs of political bias. I prefer to judge people, especially politicians, by their actions rather than there words.

I have no reason for a positive disposition towards Rev' Wright. My instinct tells me he is a trouble maker and any validity his arguments might carry is rendered moot by his bloated sense of importance.

So you believe he is far further left than he would have us believe – I agree and understand how that could please you.

But since only about 40% of democrats call them selves “liberal” (40% moderate, 10% Conservative) you can see why advertising you are firmly in the liberal camp could be an issue. Wright is imo the far left of the liberal camp.

McCain has said time and again that he will point out that its conservative against liberal Democrat and then let the chips fall. He is right on.

To quote you from another thread, Ted.

It's not just "conservative against liberal Democrat." It's a conservative who embraces a religious extremist like John Hagee.

Since many---sorry, ALL of the conservative elitists seem reluctant to defend Reverend Hagee or even mention all the horrible things he's said, I thought, "Maybe it's because they didn't want to read the nasty things Hagee has said about gays and Catholics."

Problem solved. Now you can see as well as hear the not-so-good Reverend. Enjoy!

http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080305

Sorry , but I'm looking at the topic title, and wondering what this post has to do with it?

Actually, there is a legitimate angle here if nighttimer's position is that Wright is no worse for Obama than Hagee is for McCain.

I'd disagree. I would never associate with Hagee or many of the religious right "preachers" since many are anti-Catholic and I am a Roman Catholic. I denounce Hagee's comments about homosexuals and Catholics. That is what I am doing here, publicly distancing myself from Hagee. Hagee does not speak for me, nor for my campaign (if any).

But bashing Catholics is trendy. It isn't new and even Catholics expect it to some degree from evangelist preachers.

Bashing homosexuals: not as trendy, but there is still plenty of closet prejudice against gays and this won't lose anybody many votes.

The relevant question is, given the choice would a moderate American, let's say an Independent, vote for McCain and his pastor (and his views) or Obama and Wright's views? Since we can assume that Obama has the black vote cornered, we can limit our hypothetical Independent to white or Hispanic Independents. I think that McCain would win the middle of the road, more or less patriotic white voter. The Hispanic voter, more likely to be Catholic, may lean Obama.

All of this assumes that the comparisons are this direct and the only deciding factor, which is unlikely.

McCain wasn't part of Hagee's church and Hagee wasn't on McCain's campaign was he? I just thought McCain accepted an endorsement from him. He has plausible deniability on knowing what Hagee said before accepting an endorsement from him and McCain denounced Hagee's comments on Bill Bennett very early in the controversy. Either way, we talk about this kind of garbage way too much IMO.

So, this is what is very telling about this issue. Why are you able to create a distance between McCain and Hagee by simply saying well, McCain himself did not seek his endorsement and then through the other side of your mouth make everything Wright says seem as though it comes directly out of Obama's mouth as well? Obama must believe the same thing Ayers did in the 60's because the two served on a board together? Obama must have all the same beliefs that Wright has because he was his pastor? Eh... no.



He didn't simply accept an endorsement; he sought an endorsement... he went looking for Hagee's endorsement. You're saying they actively sought the endorsement of a man about whom they didn't, apparently, know much?

Hagee is not McCain's pastor.

If you're looking for a closer fit for the Obama/Wright relationship, then it's a minister named Dan Yeary (that's McCain's minister). Good luck digging up dirt on that guy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080425.../ahh18x6vsqzk_1

As for the question:

According to the latest polls, yes it has. Obama's quickly approaching Hillary's unfavorable numbers (his unfavorable numbers have risen, what 10% in the last week, while his favorable numbers have dropped by almost the same amount - he's at 46% favorable now from 54%).

Let me see if I can help you with this.

What this has to do with the topic title is if the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is damaging Barack Obama's campaign (and some polls indicate it has) and we are debating at great length the impact a man who is not running for president may have on a man that is.

What this has to do with the topic title is there have been literally dozens of threads over the past four months on this board about Barack Obama and almost all of them have been negative or turned negative. That probably wasn't Ottimista's intention,, but threads have a way of spinning far beyond their original premise. Religion isn't a subject often discussed on this board, but as this thread has become as much about bashing the Black church as it has Obama and Wright, I felt it was time for a bit of balance to be introduced.

What this has to do with is why so many critics of Wright's "goddamn America" remark can't condemn him harshly enough but will say nothing about Hagee's well-documented hatred of Catholics and gays. If it bad when a Black preacher supposedly spreads "hate" and must be condemned, why should a White preacher who spreads "hate" be ignored?

What's the reason for the double standard? Race? Can't entirely rule it out.

John Hagee is to John McCain what Jeremiah Wright is to Barack Obama. Kryptonite to their presidential hopes. That's what this has to do with the topic title.




Your personal distancing from Hagee's hate-mongering is all very well and good, but for you to then turn around and support a candidate that hasn't doesn't speak well about your choice of candidates, Amlord.

Personally, I would be a bit more troubled to be a member of a political party where gay-bashing and religious bigotry are either ignored or condoned.



Amlord why do you suggest voting for Obama or McCain means getting Wright and Hagee as throw-ins? Most Americans have no clue as to what the controversy is over these guys. Certainly some moderates and Independents will be turned off over their statements, but as I alluded to in another thread, the more important issues that turn the election one way or the other are the war in Iraq, the economy, and what the candidates will do about it.

Stories run in cycles. Wright flared up, simmered down to a cold ember and caught fire again. Certainly the GOP will run attack ads morphing Wright into Obama but those that are paying attention will notice Wright isn't on the ticket. Unless more shoes drop, I don't see how this story continues beyond next week's primaries. At least as far as Wright goes that mine has pretty much been tapped dry. We've only just begun to hear about craziness of the controversial Rev. Hagee.

Personally, America would best be served by a national "time-out" on religion and politics. I am living for the day when a presidential candidate says, "My religious views are personal and private and I do not choose to share them with you."

I totally disagree with your "McCain would win the middle-of-the-road, more or less patriotic White voter" analysis. What does patriotism have to do with this? Don't middle-of-the-road voters want some help dealing with healthcare concerns? Do they like the prospect of paying $4 bucks a gallon to gas up the SUV before hitting the road this summer? Aren't patriotic White voters tired of spending billions of dollars a month on a never-ending war in Iraq that McCain says he'd be cool with fighting for 100 years?

Aren't middle-of the-road Blacks and Latinos who are more or less patriotic kind of stuck in limbo by your analysis? What about Asians and First Americans who are they supporting or is there not enough of them to matter?

Assigning patriotism to White voters indicates non-White voters are not. Is that somewhere you really want to go? Assumptions that Obama has the Black vote in the bag applies only if you believe Blacks vote monolithically or based upon identity politics.

Your analysis seems to me to be flawed and based upon what you would like to happen and not what could happen.

Earlier on this board I slapped up two contradictory posts, one that suggested all this will blow over in the six exhaustingly-long months between now and November; another than Barack has been permanently sludged by this Wright fellow, another cop in the Realness Patrol, intent on undercutting a moderate black man for his insufficient loyalty to the cause.



When our coalition of Democrats, Liberal, African-Americans, Pacifists, Gay Rights advocates, etc, wake up in the morning and ask ourselves, "why haven't we won an election in a paleolithic eon?" The answer is: The realness police. We lose because, for better or worse, we democrats don't fall in line, we fall all over each other. We don't strategically push the door open for gay rights legislation -- for good or bad, we hitch the letter T to the back of LGB, and risk the furor of radio commentators everywhere. When we hold a rally to protest the Iraq war, we don't get all dressed up and bring factual evidence documenting the unique illogic of this foreign mis-incursion: we ring in the loony bells and welcome every homemade misfit with a theory about how Bush planned 9/11 or how the moon landing was faked to kill off black people.

That might make us an ideologically more tolerable, inclusive party. But, politcally, it's a recurrent disaster.

What I'm saying is that the republican version of Rev. Wright -- your Hagees, your Robertsons -- these guys know when the heck to shut up. They care too much about ending abortion, about banishing the ACLU to the Nordic fjords, about seizing real power to apply unrealistic litmus standards to their politicians at a fragile time. There are people on their side with ideas so much wackier than letting transexuals serve in the military, or investigating whether the C.I.A. injected Haitian immigrants with AIDS-- but when the time comes to zip it, you got to hand it to the GOP machine, they know when to zip it, zip it good.

I mean, here is Jeremiah Wright with the opportunity to shut the heck up and in doing so usher in the first African-American president (who happens to be a congregant of his!) And he is squandering it by broadcasting his version of the truth to the world and their cable news networks. Not saying that's wrong, just that it's exactly why we are where we are. There's a reason we keep losing these bouts, and it's because the coach in our corner is so often giving us moonshine poison oil when he should be giving us water.

But I digress.

NT, thanks for the shout-out. I've calmed down a bit and I tend to side with my first post, the one you quoted, more than the apoplectic second.

Here's why, I'll bump it to a nutshell: The story of this election is, will be, will not stop being all about Barack Obama. I don't believe for a second that he's gotten a "free ride" from the media -- that's John McCain's perk. But I do admit, he is dancing in America's center stage right now, has been since he popped open the lid on the Iowa caucuses. So long as this election is about Obama, it's Obama's to lose, really: The media can't wring the Wright story forever, and, well, who knows really. Maybe none of us.

But it's hard to imagine a rougher come down for Barack than the past two months. I mean, talk about a political skid-out. Whatever Hillary Clinton went through in the 90s that makes her such a tested proven fighter, Barack has endured essentially the same process.

It's hurting. I hate to admit it, but it's hurting Obama. And I think it will continue to hurt him, because Wright seems to relish the spotlight, and he doesn't seem to care that his 15 minutes are coming at the expense of Obama's career. I don't see this guy voluntarily stepping away from any microphones, ever. He's digging the attention.

Also hurting is Hillary's selfish, scorched-earth campaign. It's the same thing - she loves the spotlight. She isn't going to voluntarily step away from any cameras herself. If party unity and Democratic success meant anything to her, she would have thrown her support behind Obama as soon as the delegate threshold became (conventionally) impossible to meet. Unlike Wright, she still has time to fix some of the damage she's doing now.

DrewYT is absolutely correct about the Republican party being much more disciplined than the Democrats, and it's becoming incredibly frustrating watching the good guys self-destruct every four years. It's like being a Cubs fan. We send Al Gore to the plate, and he looks like a stiff, while Bush looks chummy and personable, at least. So the functional retard with the organized party behind him gets "elected" and proceeds to screw up the whole planet, while the smart guy takes a sabbatical from Democratic party politics for a while and ends up with a Nobel prize.

So, yes, Obama should do whatever he has to do, say whatever he has to say, to get elected. Play the game, even if it stinks. Say you'll cut taxes and increase spending. Say you will win the war while bringing the troops home at the same time. And once you convince the moronic majority of American voters that you are the right guy, take the oath, break all of your campaign promises and do the right thing. That's the only way to make it work in America.

nighttimer I feel a little left out since you didn't find my post http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=244437 of value towards your understanding of the issue of religious associations of the different candidates.

America is a conservative christian nation and the majority of the people are indeed progressive but do not like to change quickly. Prior to America's Independence rich people owned white people and black people as slaves and we have progressed to the point we just misuse illegal immigrants in our time. We, as a culture see this as normal, in Germany the transition of the toilet cleaner is the Turkish immigrant... progressive movement is gradual. As Rev. Wright pointed out it was the church that first had the idea that slavery was wrong, it started in Canada and moved south through the colonies during the period of the Great Awakening where all christians were challenged in great revivals under tents by pastors to do the right thing on slavery. Power and position in early America was based on land ownership and wealth, and land required heavy labor forces in the fields and in the kitchen. My grandparents owned their own farm and my parents had 10 and 11 brothers and sisters each because of labor needs. Rich people then and now do not put their rich kids in the field but seek out the cheapest form of replacement labor.

Because America is so religious there are many phobias associated with the differing beliefs of religion including positions on gays and different churches beliefs. Keeping the church out of government was necessary not because America wasn't religious but to keep one denomination from gaining more power and controlling the government at the cost of the other religions. The fear was the Catholic Church and the power it had held in Europe prior to Martin Luther and the founding of the differing denominations, there was fear that the Catholic Church would take over the American government. When I was a kid we had prayer in school every day and nativity scenes were common place, this ended when the "separation of church and state" was brought up by Republicans when JFK and his family came to political power (they were Catholics) and JFK had to reassure the people, the masses he had no objective to place the government under Catholic rule.

Mainstream America religion still retains some of these feeling towards Catholics and as a result when a Protestant mentions publicly these resentments in is not a shock to the mob, nor is it a shock that gay marriage isn't ready for prime-time.

What is a shock is Rev. Wright's viewpoint of America, much of the left just don't see it but the overwhelming majority it is as plain as the nose on your face, he holds the position as portrayed in the comedy Undercover Brother as REAL and the majority see it as a comedy. If you cannot grasp the difference between Wright and any other pastor and how the majority view each then you fall into the Undercover Brother mentality of Wright.

Not only does the fallout continue, it will prove fatal. There's at least an even-money chance that HC will steal the nomination from him because of it. And if she doesn't, the battle itself will totally disrail the Dems ahead of the general election.

Personally, I'm thankful because this guy almost pulled off the unthinkable. A racially divisive, terrorist mollycoddling, anti-American, flaming liberal got oh-so-close to the White House. Fortunately, God works in strange ways. He exposed BO for what he really is and He did it through a 'man of the cloth'. How ironic.

Americans can be so gullible at times. I think it's the result of our desire to see the best in everyone. BO had some great handlers who polished him up quite well. But as the heat of the campaign turned up, that makeup began to melt. Or was it the result of global warming....

Sounds like the makings of a good thread. Feel free to start one, but we are talking about Jeremiah Wright. Your defense is simply to try to distract the debate by opening curtain number two, hoping that we will forget about what was found behind curtain number one. Sorry, don't think anyone has.


Where to begin? First, Hagee is not, was not won't be McCain's personal and spiritual adviser for more than 20 years. This tells me that McCain won't be getting advice from someone that spews trash if he were to become the next President of the United States. I can't be so sure the same is true about the Wright/Obama relationship. There is a valid and obvious difference between the two. Second, I know I may have skipped over a couple of posts here and there, but where has anyone bashed the Black church? At what point did the race card get pulled? The issue isn't about bashing Wright, the issue is about the relationship between a man that has a better than average chance at this point to be the next President of the United States and his preacher that speaks of hate towards our Federal Government. Has McCain sought the guidance and advice of anyone as controversial for the past 20+ years? Not that anyone has brought to anyone's attention.

You are contradicting yourself from here ...


to here.


Such wide discrepancy in less than half an hour.

Try a little consistency.

Try some substance instead of trying to play referee, BoF. You don't like it, call up a Mod.

I don't see the corrolation between the relationship between McCain and Hagee being anything similar to the relationship between Obama and Wright. I do see a comparison between the topic of RL spewing garbage and Daily Kos spewing garbage. If there is a valid comparison, it fits. When there isn't a valid comparison, start a new thread. Nothing inconsistant at all. But thanks for bringing nothing to the table in this debate and hyjacking it off topic. Good job!

Furthermore, you seem to be the one that adds little substance to any debates. Your last five posts offer nothing in the form of debate, but only criticism of other posters.

In the interest of brevity, I won't post everything you said above. I'm flattered that you quoted one of my posts twice. Thanks

I hate to keep the topic off track, but I do think I have a right to defend myself.

If my posts lacked substance, it was because I was responding to the same.

Zack, brought up Obama's favorite Bible verse, for example. I offered an interpretation and a statement that I think this whole issue is a diversion.

I repeat, this whole thread is a diversion, not unlike others we've had in recent elections.

How does that lack substance?