[olePigeon]

I have friends who are a**holes. One of my brothers is pretty racist. However, I'm not going to disown them even if I disagree with a lot of what they say.

Incidentally, I went to church for nearly 20 years and I am no longer a Christian. I'm still really good friends with a lot of people who still attend church, especially our priest who baptized me. One of my best friends just graduated seminary school and is becoming a pastor/priest. However, even after literally growing up and having their religious doctrine thrown at me and being told that it's the "only" way live my life, I still took a step back after 20 years and decided that it's completely incompatible with my observations of the world and how it works.

In short, Obama's priest's views on the world do not necessarily reflect Obama's views. He shouldn't have to give up his friends because they have stupid ideas. I remember people telling him he should change his name before running for the Presidency. I'm glad he didn't.

Friends are fun to have a beer with or whatever even if you don't agree with them.

[OAW]

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. The whole episode is ridiculous. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other right-wing preachers of the world can preach hellfire and damnation is coming to the USA for all kinds of perceived transgressions against God ... but somehow that's not considered "anti-American". White preachers railing against the US for being "too secular" or "too tolerant of homosexuality" is cool ... but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling. Give me a break!

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

He needs to publicly denounce the pastors views on the issues, but even now would be too late.

He did. It's in the first article linked in the OP:
"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have [been] the subject of this controversy," Obama said

This is really the main reason I don't think this is an issue. If this story came up and Obama didn't comment, I'd agree there's something to worry about.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. The whole episode is ridiculous. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other right-wing preachers of the world can preach hellfire and damnation is coming to the USA for all kinds of perceived transgressions against God ... but somehow that's not considered "anti-American". White preachers railing against the US for being "too secular" or "too tolerant of homosexuality" is cool ... but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling. Give me a break!

OAW

[Chongo]

I believe Pat Robertson et al were all called on the carpet for their comments. as fas as

but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling.

there have those preachers since the '60s (Malik Shabazz", Louis Farrakhan) and no one but LBJ and J Edgar Hoover cared. It has become an issue only because this particular preacher is the pastor, mentor, etc of the lead candidate for the Dem. party nomination.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I believe Pat Robertson et al were all called on the carpet for their comments. as fas as there have those preachers since the '60s (Malik Shabazz", Louis Farrakhan) and no one but LBJ and J Edgar Hoover cared. It has become an issue only because this particular preacher is the pastor, mentor, etc of the lead candidate for the Dem. party nomination.

Called on the carpet? Perhaps. Republican candidates vilified in the press because said preachers supported them? I think not. Republican candidates called "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" because of their association with said preachers? Hell no.

Republican presidential candidates can go to right-wing religious colleges that still to this fricking day ban interracial dating among their student body ... and you don't see an iota's worth of the hysteria that's been generated over Rev. Wright's association with Obama. Republican presidential candidates can receive endorsements from all sorts of Confederate flag waving organizations ... but never does this "enemy flag" get used to question their patriotism or call them "anti-American". For that matter, Democratic presidential candidates don't seem to have to deal with such nonsense either. That white ones that is.

The historical record speaks for itself.

OAW

[sek929]

Don't forget Mcain called Falwell an 'agent of intolerance' during his last campaign and now seems to have revoked that feeling.

Hating gays is ok, but an angry black man speaking his mind, that's un-american!

[Chongo]

[QUOTE=OAW;3627895]Called on the carpet? Perhaps. Republican candidates vilified in the press because said preachers supported them? I think not. Republican candidates called "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" because of their association with said preachers? Hell no.

Republican presidential candidates can go to right-wing religious colleges that still to this fricking day ban interracial dating among their student body ... and you don't see an iota's worth of the hysteria that's been generated over Rev. Wright's association with Obama. Republican presidential candidates can receive endorsements from all sorts of Confederate flag waving organizations ... but never does this "enemy flag" get used to question their patriotism or call them "anti-American". For that matter, Democratic presidential candidates don't seem to have to deal with such nonsense either. That white ones that is.

The historical record speaks for itself.

The press was all over Bush for giving a speech at Bob Jones University, which by the way, is more anti Catholic, than racist or anti-homosexual.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And that really says it all. A "worthwhile point" to you is apparently a childish insult that contributes nothing of substance to the discussion, along with a gratuitous rolleyes.

You mentioned several hundred thousand meandering independents waiting on media coverage to make a decision. I mentioned "dyed in the wool left" (maybe 10% of the voting block?) that would vote for Obama regardless of information that'd make the otherwise sane think twice. It was an observation, not unlike yours. You espoused your opinion, I espoused mine in response. You didn't like it. I'm sorry.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

... and maybe a few others who might have a problem with the notion that the US government created HIV to eradicate black people. Thought I'd throw that in amongst the other "ridiculous" notions.

The whole episode is ridiculous.

No it's not.

The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other right-wing preachers of the world can preach hellfire and damnation is coming to the USA for all kinds of perceived transgressions against God ... but somehow that's not considered "anti-American".

It may be. Let a Republican candidate for US President formally announce one of them as their spiritual advisor today and watch the fireworks.

White preachers railing against the US for being "too secular"

This does not surprise me in the least. There are a great many preachers and pastors who believe people are being told that "Separation of Church and State" means "Suppression of Church in State".

or "too tolerant of homosexuality" is cool ...

I for one do not think it is cool, but their opposition to gay marriage happens to be the majority stance in this country. Perhaps this is why they've been given a pass on that one.

but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling. Give me a break!

You mean the US of KKK-A? Exploiting his non-profit status by supporting a poltical candidate, publically, unabashadly? What exactly is it that Obama has denounced and disavowed if not the ridiculous rantings of a blowhard seeking to exacerbate racial tension for a buck?

[OAW]

This piece on CNN pretty much sums up the foolishness of all this brouhaha ...

Commentary: Listen to the candidates, not their associates - CNN.com

Clinton pressed Obama during a debate this year to repudiate and denounce Farrakhan's unsolicited praise of him at an event the Nation of Islam leader organized for his group in Chicago.

The moderator, NBC's Tim Russert, brought up comments made by Farrakhan 24 years ago in his question to Obama.

Fine, so what do we make of then-President Bill Clinton publicly endorsing the 1995 Million Man March? Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

After he was out of the White House, President Clinton also endorsed the Million Man March. Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

Did Sen. Clinton privately or publicly rebuke her husband for supporting a man whom she has determined to be hateful and divisive?

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is national co-chair of Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, once stood on stage with Farrakhan in 1997 -- at an event the Times said was "called to promote racial reconciliation after several recent high-profile crimes" -- and praised him for his commitment to ending violence in the black community. Rendell was the mayor of Philadelphia at the time.

According to the April 15, 1997, story in The New York Times, Farrakhan praised Rendell before 3,000 people at the anti-violence rally for ''his courage and strength to rise above emotion and differences that might be between us or our communities.''

According to the Times, Rendell, who is Jewish, commended the Nation of Islam for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency.

Must Clinton repudiate and denounce Rendell's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

Former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp is a huge supporter of Sen. John McCain, and he also has a Farrakhan story.

In 1996, when Kemp was the vice presidential running mate of Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, he told reporters that he wanted to meet with Farrakhan and praised his organization's focus on economic empowerment, family values and its pull-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstrap message -- right in line with the GOP talking points. Kemp said he wanted to speak at the Million Man March.

Boy, was he torn apart by Jewish critics, and many in his own party.

Kemp summarily criticized Farrakhan's comments about Jews and whites, but he didn't take his words back. By the way, Hannity pressed every African-American supporter about Farrakhan, but he never got in Kemp's face about his comments. I wonder why?

Must McCain repudiate and denounce Kemp's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

OAW

[OAW]

Another good read ...

BAW: Commentary: Conservative Pundits Equate the Black Church’s Chastising of America to Treason – and They’re Wrong

Some have painted Obama as a fellow traveler of sorts for continuing to attend Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It was, after all, a church in which the pastor wasn’t speaking in tongues about how good America had been to black folks; a pastor who, among other things, suggested that black people ought to be singing “God damn America,” instead of “God Bless America.”

Last week, in a brilliant, Lincolnesque speech, Obama responded. But even as he is struggling to move on, white conservative pundits seem to be trying to make Wright and the black church the latest target of their neo-McCarthyism -- the kind that likens any chastisement of the American system as being tantamount to treason.

To them, such chastisement amounts to “hate speech.” Some have been railing on about black churches and what can be done.

Their ignorance and insensitivity regarding black people is maddening.

First of all, Wright and many other black preachers aren’t preaching hate. They aren’t telling black people to scorn white people, but to remember that a country in which they were denied full participation in for most of its 231 years still has a lot to answer for when it comes to racial justice and fairness. And the vehicle that Wright and many other black preachers use to deliver their messages is something that is known as prophetic language.

Prophetic language, by its very nature, is designed to deliver truths in a gut-wrenching and provocative way. It isn’t supposed to be wimpy or polite.

Wright, for example, once talked about how rapes and disappearances of black women go virtually uncovered, while disappearances of pretty white women stay in the news for months and years.

Of Natalee Holloway, the blond teenager who disappeared in Aruba in 2005, he said: "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!"

Wright’s words were harsh. Yet it’s a fact that white women who disappear get more coverage than black ones. Holloway’s friends and other witnesses have also said that she was drinking the entire time she was in Aruba, and had been doing Jell-O shots and other shots the night she left Carlos and Charlie’s -- a nightclub -- with two strangers.

He didn’t say that black people should hate Natalee Holloway. His message was that something is terribly wrong when the news media places more value on the disappearance of a blond white girl who acted irresponsibly than it does to any black woman who turns up missing.

And it is.

Yet some white pundits are arrogant enough to think black people aren’t supposed to hear truths about their own existence and their own history if those truths upset white people.

OAW

[vmarks]

OAW, BlackWebAmerica can try and do damage control with articles all they please. It doesn't change some basic observations.

Rev. Wright is an unrepentant racist. It would not be stretching the truth to say that Rev. Wright is a Black supremacist.

Rev. Wright knows that he offends the Jewish community, and has said he thinks his offensiveness may hurt Mr. Obama's campaign. Rev. Wright has been named by Obama as his spiritual advisor.

These things are inexcusable, and Mr. Obama's speech tried to excuse them.

The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism.

We did not get Mr. Obama saying "There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier. We in the African-American community know better than anyone the deleterious effects of racist speech, and so it is time for Rev. Wright and myself to part company, since we have profoundly different views of both present- and future-day America."

.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rev. Wright knows that he offends the Jewish community, and has said he thinks his offensiveness may hurt Mr. Obama's campaign. Rev. Wright has been named by Obama as his spiritual advisor.

Spirituality ≠ Politics. If Obama said any of these things, that would be one thing. If you were attacking Obama's spiritual advisor on issues of spirituality, that would be one thing. But you're attacking his spiritual advisor over things that aren't spiritual, things which Obama has explicitly condemned. You might as well attack McCain over the political statements of his family medical advisor, or attack Clinton over the political statements of her life-long hairstyle advisor.

We did not get Mr. Obama saying "There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier."

But we did get that, right in the OP's article:
"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have [been] the subject of this controversy"
How can there be any more complete rejection than "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn?"

[el chupacabra]

I've had friends in the past who were racist.
And when I found out they were racist I stopped associating with them.
Because I don't believe in it, and my circles have a lot multicultural friends who aren't compatible with that.

So I have to wonder why Obama has been friends with this guy for so long. And why he admired him for so long. Obviously Obama knows it is wrong thats why he changed churches...when it was convenient.

who cares???
I happen to know a lot of people who have changed their mind about supporting Obama after seeing the crap that came out of wright's mouth.

[Chuckit]

I've had friends in the past who were meat-eaters.
And when I found out they were meat-eaters I stopped associating with them.
Because I don't believe in it, and I've had many pets who wouldn't appreciate being eaten.

Does it sound reasonable when I take something you believe in that I find abhorrent and use it to write you off completely as a person? Personally, I think it's more fruitful to stay and try to change their minds than to storm out screaming "I'm not talking to you" like a bad-tempered teenager.

Anyway, I think this is where Obama's comparison to his grandmother is very useful. I'm not going to disown my grandmother just because she was prejudiced against one race. Most of the people we love are flawed in some significant way. As far as I can tell, this guy is kind of a father figure to Obama. Ideological consistency be damned, you can't just write your family off that easily.

[Big Mac]

This thread comes down to a clear demarcation in thought. There are some who can accept Wright's conduct and Obama's tacit 20 year approval thereof as permissible, while the other side finds Wright to be a hateful demagogue and cannot tolerate Obama's association with him. As we've learned from five pages of this debate, the respective camps are worlds apart in their points of view. It is my personal opinion that the failure of Obama to unequivocally reject Wright shows him to be unfit for office.

[Chuckit]

Then I'll ask you too: Do you think I should disown my dead grandmother? Should I refuse to associate with meat-eaters and tell everyone they're irredeemably evil? Is it only reasonable to respond this way when it's behavior you strongly disagree with?

Quite frankly, I consider eating meat to be a much greater evil — in that it involves killing — than moaning about how my ancestors oppressed yours. But I think most people would view me as some kind of extremist wacko if I took the sort of hard-line stance you're advocating here. Would you disagree?

(I hope the analogy I'm trying to draw here is clear. It's not meant to be about vegetarianism so much as how we treat those with whom we strongly disagree. I've given a lot of thought to the issue in the context of vegetarianism, which is why I'm approaching it from that angle.)

[Big Mac]

Your views are a bit extreme, Chuckit, but that's okay - you're not running for presdient. We hold candidates running for the highest office to a more stringent standard than we hold private citizens or those running for lower offices. As for your grandmother or Obama's grandmother, that's a red herring. Obama chose Reverend Wright as an adult to be his spiritual leader. This wasn't a person who raised him. He made a conscious choice to embrace this individual. But even if Wright were a blood uncle or a grandfather, it does not excuse Obama as a presidential candidate from exercising good judgment as a politician. No white politician could get away with not completely repudiating a close friend or family member who was discovered as a Klan supporter. Obama claimed to run as the post-racial candidate but does not possess the intestinal fortitude to actually lead as a post-racial candidate when issues of race emerge. A true post-racial candidate would have said something like:

"Men like Reverend Wright possess a lot of anger, ususally manifested in racial terms. Wright's conduct has often been nothing short of reprehensible, and I am sorry I have not spoken out against it with more vigor and clarity in the past. Despite its faults - and all countries have them - America is the greatest country on earth and as president I will work every day with the goal of making all Americans as proud of our country as I am."

That's all that needed to be said if Obama were committed to being the type of candidate he claimed to be earlier on. But he isn't a post-racial candidate. He's a repackaged Al Sharpton.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Spirituality ≠ Politics.

Spirituality under the guise of this church has been courting politics for a long time. Liberation theology was a political movement at its inception. While courting politics is not unique to the Trinity Church, some of what you're hearing from the pulpit is. US of KKK-A, US govt having created HIV to eradicate black people, chanting God-damn America from the pulpit, etc... Again, I'm not railing on Obama for having made the statements himself, I'm railing on Obama for lacking the good judgment of either staying away from that divisive rhetoric or away from the Presidency. He'll soon find out that you can't have it both ways. Not unlike the fact that Spirituality also ≠ science, but let one be connected in any way, shape, or form to the Discovery Institute and their wedge strategy and listen to the fireworks. You can't have it both ways.

If Obama said any of these things, that would be one thing.

The concern of some is that Obama may also harbor similar resentments. His wife did (albeit in a more tempered fashion) and was quickly silenced. Do you really believe Obama is this disconnected of the rhetoric of his 20-year friend and spiritual advisor? Is it really that much of a stretch for you? If a Republican candidate were to have been found in 20 years' attendance at Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, you're telling me you wouldn't believe there's the remote possibility that this candidate has a problem with gay people? I'm not buyin' it Uncle. Not for a second. Not to mention that Obama's appeal was supposed to be "change". There's nothing new or unique about pandering to one group of people for a vote in one move, casting them off as the "crazy old uncle" in order to pander to others in the next move. His is political motivation to the nth degree and it came home to roost. Might work in Chicago, ain't working here.

If you were attacking Obama's spiritual advisor on issues of spirituality, that would be one thing.

I think what is at issue here is that you have a man who appears to be spiritually bankrupt, asked into the campaign of a man running for President as a spiritual advisor and the necessary poor judgment in such a move.

But you're attacking his spiritual advisor over things that aren't spiritual, things which Obama has explicitly condemned. You might as well attack McCain over the political statements of his family medical advisor, or attack Clinton over the political statements of her life-long hairstyle advisor.

Had Clinton's hairstyle advisor said that Obama couldn't understand living in America because he's never been called a feminazi bitch, I might question her choice of salons, yes. After all, there are many salons. Why choose one with such divisive rhetoric against your political opponent of the same party and against the country you claim to love and hope to run? Just cut the hair already. I'd call Hillary a silly, delusional, unelectable fool. Obama is no different.

But we did get that, right in the OP's article:
"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have [been] the subject of this controversy"
How can there be any more complete rejection than "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn?"

I'm suspicious that this degree of acceptance couldn't possibly transcend party lines, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt I guess.

[ebuddy]

The 5 stages of grief over Obama's campaign;

1) Denial. in private- Tell me Obama's pastor did not just say... OMG, this is bad. Why? Why now?
in public- Obama never said any of this. He can't really be connected to any of this. This'll slip right off him. No problem.

2) Anger. You neocon, warmongering, right-wing, racist bastards!!! You're just trying to destroy our only hope for CHANGE!!!

3) Bargaining. Dearest Lord if you make Obama the President, I'll start recycling my frappicino bottles.

4) Depression. I don't care anymore. The entire country is bigoted against progress. Screw this, I give up.

5) Acceptance. A vote for McCain.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I've had friends in the past who were racist.
And when I found out they were racist I stopped associating with them.
Because I don't believe in it, and my circles have a lot multicultural friends who aren't compatible with that.

In your hurry to be tolerant, you wind up intolerant. Terrible quandary, isn't it? If only the world were black and white and we could all just make decisions based the fact that everything were just dead simple obvious.

So I have to wonder why Obama has been friends with this guy for so long. And why he admired him for so long. Obviously Obama knows it is wrong thats why he changed churches...when it was convenient.

Another view of this is that Obama only changed churches when herd mentality overcame reason and became intolerant.

I happen to know a lot of people who have changed their mind about supporting Obama after seeing the crap that came out of wright's mouth.

That's too bad. I don't really care much who they support, but I am a bit disappointed that we're continuing this political BS of hanging people.

Here's another problem with your line of thinking. Instead of helping your racist friend, you simply abandon him/her. How callous.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The concern of some is that Obama may also harbor similar resentments. His wife did (albeit in a more tempered fashion) and was quickly silenced. Do you really believe Obama is this disconnected of the rhetoric of his 20-year friend and spiritual advisor? Is it really that much of a stretch for you?

Don't try to form an argument out of your existing bias against a candidate. You're just playing the same political game that the politicians play. You didn't like Obama in the first place and now you just see this whole thing as ammo. There is no "concern", there's just a desire to further your preferred candidate using any means necessary.

And, yes, while I haven't decided who to vote for yet, I can believe Obama to be disconnected. I've known my pastor for 19 years and he is a good friend. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but that doesn't mean that I run away. I continue in dialog with him, and find the dialog to be useful. In order to continue the discussions and present my position, I'm often forced to reflect on why I hold them and do further research. If anything, his position has better established my standing in mine. I'll bet you that I understand my position better for my discussions with him than I would had I spent 19 years back slapping with someone that agreed with me in the first place.

I think what is at issue here is that you have a man who appears to be spiritually bankrupt, asked into the campaign of a man running for President as a spiritual advisor and the necessary poor judgment in such a move.

It hasn't worked out well that Bush has surrounded himself with people that think exactly the same as each other. There's no dialog, there's no discussion, there's only dogma. (Before you dismiss me as a Bush basher, know that I actually voted for him)

[Ghoser777]

Here's one more take: I think I had the inverse situation that Barack is dealing with when I was younger. My mom was never happy with whatever Church we were currently at (and this usually had to deal with the pastor), so we used to switch Churches constantly trying to find the "perfect" church. Sometimes we'd stay at a Church for as long as one service, sometimes as long as two months, but we never found a place to be planted at. Consequently, I've become much less grounded in Christianity. I finally had a conversation with my mom where I think I convinced her that there is always something "wrong" with a Church (there are people running it, so they mess up), and you have to find a place you are generally happy with and overlook the bad (sort of like marriage I guess...). Not that this had any impact on her - we jumped Churches again a couple months later.

The point is that I've been a "member" of over 40 churches, and I probably have weaker spiritual beliefs than if I had stayed at even the worst Churches for a long period of time. Obama stuck with one church for 20 years, focused on the good instead of the bad, and I think that was a smart spiritual decision.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your views are a bit extreme, Chuckit, but that's okay - you're not running for presdient. We hold candidates running for the highest office to a more stringent standard than we hold private citizens or those running for lower offices.

That doesn't really answer the question, though. I was trying to ask whether you think it would be better for me to take the extremist stance and tell you and the rest of the world to go jump off a bridge until they stop doing whatever it is I disagree with. It's not that I'm holding myself to a lower standard — I think doing that would be a bad decision. I think that kind of divisiveness, where you essentially tell the world of **** off until they do what you want, is just furthering the problem. But going by your logic vis-a-vis Obama, it sounds like you think that would be the reasonable thing for me to do. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

"Men like Reverend Wright possess a lot of anger, ususally manifested in racial terms. Wright's conduct has often been nothing short of reprehensible, and I am sorry I have not spoken out against it with more vigor and clarity in the past. Despite its faults - and all countries have them - America is the greatest country on earth and as president I will work every day with the goal of making all Americans as proud of our country as I am."

While he didn't say it all in one paragraph like this, Obama pretty much expressed the same sentiment in his remarks. He "vehemently condemned" Wright's statements, said that the pastor wrongly impugned America's greatness and rebuked Wright for making such harmful and divisive statements. Specific quotes:

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy."
"Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use[d] incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike."
"They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country."

It looks to me like your paragraph is more or less an amalgam of these three.

[Big Mac]

Obama said some of the same things, yes, but the problem is that he also equivocated. There was no reason to hedge like that if he sincerely disapproved of Wright.

[Chuckit]

His condemnation of what Wright said is unequivocal, as far as I can tell. I don't see why he needs to disapprove of Wright as a human being. Repudiating his statements seems like enough to nullify any worry these statements might have caused about Obama's viewpoint.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not unlike the fact that Spirituality also ≠ science, but let one be connected in any way, shape, or form to the Discovery Institute and their wedge strategy and listen to the fireworks. You can't have it both ways.

Being connected to the Discovery Institute is fine so long as you don't try to push their agenda. Obama is doing the opposite of pushing Wright's agenda, he explicitly condemns it.

There's nothing new or unique about pandering to one group of people for a vote in one move, casting them off as the "crazy old uncle" in order to pander to others in the next move.

When did he pander to anyone on black supremacy issues?

I think what is at issue here is that you have a man who appears to be spiritually bankrupt

Are you saying that just because you disagree with his politics, or because you've actually ever seen him speak about spirituality?

Had Clinton's hairstyle advisor said that Obama couldn't understand living in America because he's never been called a feminazi bitch, I might question her choice of salons, yes. After all, there are many salons. Why choose one with such divisive rhetoric against your political opponent of the same party and against the country you claim to love and hope to run?

Srsly? You'd want the president to decide what merchants to patronize based on their political outlook rather than the quality of service they offer? Your choice of leader must be surrounded by their own ideological bent in all aspects of their life, like a yes-men shield to protect them from the unwashed masses and their dirty addictive rhetoric? If the candidate can't allow him/her self to be exposed to the ideas of the opposition for fear of being accidentally convinced by them, they were never qualified to lead in the first place. I think it's utterly inane to judge someone's opinions based on the opinions they've heard, and to continue to do so after they've explicitly rejected those opinions is just plain stubborn.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The 5 stages of grief over Obama's campaign;

Whee, talking points straight from the GOP. Always good to have a direct line.

I think the question here isn't whether Obama denounces or condemns Wright's statements, it is whether he denounces and condemns and censures Wright. Has Obama censured Wright? If not, then there is no way I am voting for Obama. I'll start recycling my frappuccino bottles. And if Obama has censured Wright, has he disavowed him, too?

[Chuckit]

If you mean "censure" as in "publicly denounce somebody's conduct," I quoted him doing so above. (I'm assuming you don't mean "censure" in the legal sense, which would be impossible as far as I know.)

[BRussell]

Unless Obama will diss Wright, I will not vote for him. Denunciation and repudiation are simply not enough.

[tie]

Chuckit, no I am just referring to one of the debates, when we had a typically pointless exchange on the difference between denouncing and rejecting someone. This thread seems to be headed the same way.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject [Farrakhan's] support?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."

OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it.

This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.

You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.

But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.

When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: Senator...

CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Rare audience outburst on the agreement over rejecting and renouncing.

(transcript)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Unless Obama will diss Wright, I will not vote for him. Denunciation and repudiation are simply not enough.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

The Answer™ to your sarcasm.

greg

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've had friends in the past who were meat-eaters.
And when I found out they were meat-eaters I stopped associating with them.
Because I don't believe in it, and I've had many pets who wouldn't appreciate being eaten.

Not a good comparison. Eating vegies and hate mongering are not comparible.

Does it sound reasonable when I take something you believe in that I find abhorrent and use it to write you off completely as a person? Personally, I think it's more fruitful to stay and try to change their minds than to storm out screaming "I'm not talking to you" like a bad-tempered teenager.

Agreed I didnt storm out screaming on my racist friends... some where very good friends and it wasn't easy; and I tried to change them for a few years.

Anyway, I think this is where Obama's comparison to his grandmother is very useful. I'm not going to disown my grandmother just because she was prejudiced against one race. Most of the people we love are flawed in some significant way. As far as I can tell, this guy is kind of a father figure to Obama. Ideological consistency be damned, you can't just write your family off that easily.

again a terrible comparison. This is not his grandmother or family. This is someone who he chose and has admired for a long time for his beliefs. This isn't compatible to people with minor uncontrollable flaws. This guy chooses to hate with everything he's got.

ps i guess I should point out that this wasn't my primary deal breaker for Obama. But it does take a huge chunk out of his credibility as far as bringing races/people together which has been a big part of his campaign rhetoric.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rev. Wright is an unrepentant racist. It would not be stretching the truth to say that Rev. Wright is a Black supremacist.

rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Please produce some evidence of this with regard to Rev. Wright. Anyone can make accusations. Backup is another thing altogether. As one of the articles I posted indicated .... there are unfortunately many on the right who equate a black person's chastising of America's racist history (and in some cases present) with "hatred" or "black racism". But clearly anyone who can read English knows that this is plain and simply a perversion of the term ... designed to silence criticism as opposed to foster meaningful dialogue.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rev. Wright knows that he offends the Jewish community, and has said he thinks his offensiveness may hurt Mr. Obama's campaign. Rev. Wright has been named by Obama as his spiritual advisor.

Well as many threads in this forum over the years have clearly demonstrated, there are those who equate any criticism of Israeli policy towards the Arab world in general and Palestinians in particular with "anti-Semitism". True, you did not use that term with regard to Rev. Wright but let's keep it real here. Rev. Wright comes down on the side of the Palestinians as he does for other oppressed peoples. And this makes him "persona non grata" to many in the Jewish community ... regardless of the merits of his position on the issue.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

These things are inexcusable, and Mr. Obama's speech tried to excuse them.

Well of course, there are those who view it as "inexcusable" for a black person to say anything that white people in general, and Jewish white people in particular don't want to hear. Fortunately, there are people in this world who don't cater to such arrogance.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism.

Well that's just it. It did explain his association with Rev. Wright. The problem is that there are those ... yourself included apparently ... who simply will not accept the explanation. Not accepting what was given is simply not the same as it not being given at all. As Obama said in his speech, there are those who will not be satisfied no matter what he said. Furthermore, his speech did touch upon "disproportionate illegitimacy", "criminality", the "erosion of cultural values" ... though that really has nothing to do with the topic of racism per se, it does have relevance to the topic of race relations. As Obama mentioned in his speech ...

That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.

As for "disproportionate drug usage" ... I'll be charitable and say that you are simply misinformed. The black community has its share of drug users like everyone else, but not disproportionately so. The white community has more drug users in terms of raw numbers AND percentage of its population. The white community also has more widespread drug usage in terms of the types of drugs consumed. What the black community does have is more drug arrests and convictions nevertheless. I wonder why?

Rap music? You really don't want to go there. Unless you also want to discuss the "values" expressed in heavy metal music, violent TV shows and movies, and the general "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" mentality going back DECADES in white music. Oh and let's not forget the white owned corporations that produce and distribute this "disturbing rap music" ... as well its number one consumers (by far) .... suburban white teenagers. LOL

And regarding "unaddressed anti-Semitism" ... see my comments above. Also, let me let you in on a little secret. By and large, African-Americans view Jewish-Americans (and Ashkenazi Jews in general) as white people with a different religion. And the religion part has never been an issue ... you have to look to those who look like you for that foolishness.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

We did not get Mr. Obama saying "There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier. We in the African-American community know better than anyone the deleterious effects of racist speech, and so it is time for Rev. Wright and myself to part company, since we have profoundly different views of both present- and future-day America."

No you didn't. And you won't. Because not only is it not necessary, it's simply wishful thinking for those that expect it. You had a link to a National Review article in your post. Don't know why you hid it under a barely visible period ... but hey, whatever. So let me repeat what I said earlier in a slightly different manner. The "National Review crowd" isn't going to vote for Obama anyway. No matter if he said this or not. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You had a link to a National Review article in your post. Don't know why you hid it under a barely visible period ... but hey, whatever.

Now I see the relevance of the National Review article and the barely visible link. You were trying to pass off passages in the article as your own words. Tsk. Tsk. I'll just let that speak for itself.

But I will address this from the article ....

Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration;

Notice how I used the quotation tag? Ok good. Let's continue ...

NBC-WSJ poll: New Clinton lows - First Read - msnbc.com

As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47 percent said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37 percent said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45 percent were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38 percent were not. Among blacks, 67 percent said the speech was sufficient, while 25 percent want him to address it further.

As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.

In the head-to-head matchups, there weren't huge shifts in the numbers, with Obama and Clinton dead even at 45 percent in the national Democratic primary matchup (a slight increase for Obama from early March). In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.

Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him. He's mortal, but he's survived ... for now. It's not clear whether he'd be this resilient if another controversy exploded as big as Wright, but it appears that voters are giving him the benefit of doubt.

It seems that the analysis of the author of the National Review article is clearly wrong on that point. And I daresay he's off in general.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Don't try to form an argument out of your existing bias against a candidate.

How do I know this defensive nature of yours has not formed from an existing bias for a candidate? I was defending the man less than two weeks ago.

You're just playing the same political game that the politicians play. You didn't like Obama in the first place and now you just see this whole thing as ammo. There is no "concern", there's just a desire to further your preferred candidate using any means necessary.

This is too easy. Please tell me you've put more thought into your argument than tie below. For one thing, I'm pretty resolved on holding on to my vote this time around. I have political differences and a little too much distrust for all of them quite frankly, but I welcomed the thought of Obama entering the debate. For many reasons. Unfortunately, Obama has essentially pissed his chances away with his lacking judgment and we'll be lucky if there isn't some massive Democrat upheaval over the supers going to Hillary for crying out loud.

There are many political games and all sides of this issue have proven more than skilled at them. I might add that denial, ducking, and weaving are also games politicians play. This is not my bias brother.

I not only liked Obama, I still like Obama, but not for President of the US. True that I was not going to vote for Obama because of political differences, but I certainly had no axe to grind against his candidacy. Now I've rendered him silly and unelectable not unlike those seated at Phelps' "God hates fags" church. I like him like that crazy uncle that everyone has though. You know.

And, yes, while I haven't decided who to vote for yet, I can believe Obama to be disconnected.

I disagree and I have a hunch a great many more would also. I'm not sure exactly how they'd express it, but Gallup polling on March 22nd found a 15% drop amongst registered voters who felt that Obama could unite the country. I think this is interesting because this was his single biggest shtick and I don't think Wright's story is entirely complete.

I've known my pastor for 19 years and he is a good friend. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but that doesn't mean that I run away. I continue in dialog with him, and find the dialog to be useful. In order to continue the discussions and present my position, I'm often forced to reflect on why I hold them and do further research. If anything, his position has better established my standing in mine. I'll bet you that I understand my position better for my discussions with him than I would had I spent 19 years back slapping with someone that agreed with me in the first place.

I think about some of the possible discussions that may come up... pre-trib or post-trib? Can a heart truly harden like it did in Pharaoh's day or is it "once saved, always saved"? Does God oppose our actions in Iraq/war in general? Did Adam and Eve have a belly-button?

Having associated with this pastor for this long you'll of course note that there are vast differences between his services and Pastor Wright's. I wonder if you ever had a conversation with him about him yelling "Goddamn America" in Sunday morning's service. Or why he seems bent on railing against politicians in service? Why he claims from the pulpit that the US government created HIV to kill black people or whether or not it matters in a Presidential race if someone's been called a nxxxxx or maybe... what an Italian's nose looks like. Somehow I doubt it. There are good conversations and then there is silliness. I would've thought one running for President would be a little more choosy of his company.

Some people are reasonable and therefore provide honest introspect and discourse. Other people are conspiracy theorists that may be fun to read about, but not much fun to invite to the family reunion. I certainly wouldn't be paying 10% of my gross income tithe to someone simply because they need attention.

It hasn't worked out well that Bush has surrounded himself with people that think exactly the same as each other. There's no dialog, there's no discussion, there's only dogma. (Before you dismiss me as a Bush basher, know that I actually voted for him)

You think Obama will have Rush Limbaugh in his cabinet or something? I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning. Very few think exactly like one another. We're not talking about discussing the merits of affirmative action or whether or not NAFTA is good for the US. We're talking about whether or not the US is entirely run by rich white people (like Richard D. Parsons at Time Warner) or whether or not God is sick of our shxx. Our belief in white supremacy, black inferiority, and our lack of belief in God. This does not sound like the man I want giving spiritual advice to our President. When people say; "give me a break" or "you're just bias" or "you hate/don't like Obama"... it just grates on my nerves. Until someone can provide some statistics on the positive impact these messages have on the communities in which they prevail, I'm losing patience.

You want a sermon? How about we've got to do better than this my brothers and sisters.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Being connected to the Discovery Institute is fine so long as you don't try to push their agenda. Obama is doing the opposite of pushing Wright's agenda, he explicitly condemns it.

Of course he explicitly condemns it. I never said Obama was brain-dead. Why should this mean he's doing the opposite of pushing Wright's agenda? I wonder what the Republicans who lost their seats in 2006 explicitly condemned.

When did he pander to anyone on black supremacy issues?

Whenever he threw a dollar in the collection plate or changed the tone of his speech contingent upon the color of his audience. The type of ideology we're discussing is the foundation of the faith. A faith Obama has embraced for over 20 years and who's leader has been courted for spiritual advice.

Are you saying that just because you disagree with his politics, or because you've actually ever seen him speak about spirituality?

I think of the general take-away of Trinity's youth on some Sunday mornings and I don't need to know much else.

Srsly? You'd want the president to decide what merchants to patronize based on their political outlook rather than the quality of service they offer?

Are you really getting this petty in your line of reasoning?

Your choice of leader must be surrounded by their own ideological bent in all aspects of their life, like a yes-men shield to protect them from the unwashed masses and their dirty addictive rhetoric?

You really are getting this petty. Is this what we're talking about now Uncle? Whether or not people surround themselves with only those who hold the same ideological bent in all aspects of their lives? C'mon man. This is beneath you.

If the candidate can't allow him/her self to be exposed to the ideas of the opposition for fear of being accidentally convinced by them, they were never qualified to lead in the first place. I think it's utterly inane to judge someone's opinions based on the opinions they've heard, and to continue to do so after they've explicitly rejected those opinions is just plain stubborn.

Yet interestingly the amount of time one chooses to expose themselves to these ideas is no indication to you of his own views. Of course, silly me. He told you it's not?

What long-term government or public track record (voting history or otherwise) has you so convinced?

[Chongo]

Public Policy Polling: Obama takes the lead in Pennsylvania

Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Obama takes the lead in Pennsylvania

Barack Obama 45
Hillary Clinton 43

Barack Obama has taken the lead in Pennsylvania, a remarkable turnaround after trailing Hillary Clinton by 26 points in a PPP poll in the state just two and a half weeks ago.

Obama's steep rise could be a reflection of a growing sense among Democratic voters that a continued divisive nomination process will hurt the party's chances of defeating John McCain this fall. An Obama upset in Pennsylvania would be virtually certain to force Clinton out of the race.

Obama has his customary large advantage with black voters (75-17) and is keeping it relatively competitive with white voters (49-38)

He leads across all age groups except senior citizens and balances Clinton's 10 point lead with women with his own 15 point lead with men.

Full results here.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course he explicitly condemns it. I never said Obama was brain-dead.

So basically you're just calling him a liar because you feel like it. The same logic that says carbon credits must all be fake because well wouldn't you cheat if you were running it?
The fact is, either accusation may or may not be true, but neither is anything more than a blind accusation.

I think of the general take-away of Trinity's youth on some Sunday mornings

Which is ... ? Evidence?

Whether or not people surround themselves with only those who hold the same ideological bent in all aspects of their lives?

If Wright speaks well on faith/compassion/tolerance/whathaveyou (or Obama thinks he does) but speaks poorly on politics, I would hope Obama wouldn't discard Wright for Pastor B who is mediocre at the former, just because B is meek on the latter. I wouldn't want the president whoever they may be to discard any resource they need just because they are afraid of being influenced by the radical political views of that resource. Would you?

Yet interestingly the amount of time one chooses to expose themselves to these ideas is no indication to you of his own views.

You're assuming that the majority of Obama's exposure to Wright is on politics, not on spirituality or human rights or any other topic. Maybe it is, but I expect at least a little bit of evidence to that effect before I judge it so. Interestingly, you don't. Hmm. ( <-- no, I'm not being serious with that accusatory stuff, I'm making fun of what you said).

What long-term government or public track record (voting history or otherwise) has you so convinced?

I'm not convinced. All I'm saying is this pseudo-issue has not stripped Obama of the benefit of the doubt that all candidates enjoy. Just like the recent accusation of infidelity didn't strip McCain's benefit of the doubt. There's just no substance to the accusation. It may be right in the same way a broken clock is right twice a day.

[BRussell]

I have to post this to counter the idea that Obama is perceived as some kind of radical racist sympathizer after the Wright hit the fan.

All three presidential candidates are seen as sharing the values that Americans try to live by, and none more so than Obama, who leads all three candidates by this measure. Seventy percent say Obama shares Americans' values, 60 percent say Clinton does and 66 percent say the same for McCain.

On the broader issue of national unity, Obama is the only candidate seen by a majority of voters (59 percent) as someone who would unite the country. By comparison, 51 percent say that Hillary Clinton would not be able to do so, while voters are divided on whether McCain would succeed in unifying the country.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I have to post to counter the idea that Obama is perceived as some kind of radical racist sympathizer after the Wright hit the fan.

Again, the only polls that should be watched are ones that focus on the independents. This election will be decided those same votes again. Watching the trends of the entire electorate won't be of much help as they will split down the same lines they always do come November. That 20% that can go either way are the ones that matter

[BRussell]

Well I think the overall numbers matter too, but the numbers for independents are included in that link:

Shares values most Americans live by (independents only)?

McCain
Yes: 68%
No: 23

Obama
Yes: 68
No: 19

Unite the country (independents only)?

McCain
Yes: 44
No: 39

Obama
Yes: 53
No: 33

Funny how, even among independents, that Farrakhan-loving, racist-church-going Obama is perceived as sharing American values more than the hero maverick media-annointed next president McCain.

[andi*pandi]

but the man can't bowl!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

but the man can't bowl!

If only we'd known that earlier, all this nonsensical arguing could have been avoided.

[besson3c]

Please tell me why we should give a rat's ass about what Wright has said? He is not Obama's paid political adviser, end of story.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please tell me why we should give a rat's ass about what Wright has said? He is not Obama's paid political adviser, end of story.

Because some people need to feel as if they have justification for slamming Obama, for whatever their own reasons may be. Wright gives them an easy excuse; whether it's justifiable is of no concern to them.

Factor military duty into criticism -- National Government, The White House, Lyndon Baines Johnson -- chicagotribune.com

[el chupacabra]

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy."
"Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use[d] incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike."
"They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country."

All it really comes down to is this (Above).

Obama said he VEHEMENTLY disagreed. So there you have it. So what if he associates himself with people like this. Im sure none of the good kind democrats would judge me if my best friend was an imperial dragon. He is not like other politicians. He doesn't and has never tried to manipulate us. He has never told a lie. Absolute perfection comes out of his mouth not because he is afraid of controversial issues, but because he is genuine and going to save the world through good judgment and bringing people together; convincing them not to hate based on race; using "king" and ripping off Kennedy's rhetoric like Bush uses the words "Jesus" and "God Bless".

[Apemanblues]

Preachers are raving lunatics by definition.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

All it really comes down to is this (Above).

Obama said he VEHEMENTLY disagreed. So there you have it. So what if he associates himself with people like this. Im sure none of the good kind democrats would judge me if my best friend was an imperial dragon. He is not like other politicians. He doesn't and has never tried to manipulate us. He has never told a lie. Absolute perfection comes out of his mouth not because he is afraid of controversial issues, but because he is genuine and going to save the world through good judgment and bringing people together; convincing them not to hate based on race; using "king" and ripping off Kennedy's rhetoric like Bush uses the words "Jesus" and "God Bless".

I'm starting to get an idea of what "Obama fever" is. Why there must be honey dripping from his lips.