Ya know? There is absolutely zero significant difference between what positions Hillary and CottonCandyObama take on the issues. What is the reason that those twenty percent plan to vote for McCain if their candidate loses the nomination? The only real differences between Hillary and CottonCandyObama is their sex and race. Their qualifcations (really, their lack of qualifications) and their positions on the issues are pretty much identical. That means their support is based on the only real differences between them. Hillary’s support her for no reason other than that she is female, and CottonCandyObama’s support him for no reason other than that he is black.
Ya know? There is absolutely zero significant difference between what positions Hillary and CottonCandyObama take on the issues. What is the reason that those twenty percent plan to vote for McCain if their candidate loses the nomination? The only real differences between Hillary and CottonCandyObama is their sex and race. Their qualifcations (really, their lack of qualifications) and their positions on the issues are pretty much identical. That means their support is based on the only real differences between them. Hillary’s support her for no reason other than that she is female, and CottonCandyObama’s support him for no reason other than that he is black.
My biggest issues with Hilary is that I’m sick of the White house being held by the Bush’s and Clintons, and don’t like the posibility of a Bush/Clinton being Pres or VP for 36 years as will be the case if Hil gets elected and makes it 2 terms. It’s a step towards an established ruling class which the US has managed to avoid for it’s existance until now. Who will run in 2016? Jeb Bush? cause you know it takes a Bush to clean up after a Clinton.
My next problem with her (and why I would not favour Jeb running this time) Is that I’m sick of the ultra divisive politics that have taken root in recent years, and I’ve not even lived here through all of it.
Many on the left hate W and would transfer that to Jeb, many on the right hate Bill and have already transfered that to Hil. While it is unlikely that the oposing party’s supporters would like either of them anyway, I doubt that Jeb would or Hilary did start from the same spot as somebody without a spouse or parent/sibling who had been pres previously.
While probably almost as many people would vote for McCain over Obama as would vote for McCain over Clinton, I think there are many like you who hold more respect for Obama than Clinton, just as there are many on the left who have more respect for McCain than they do for W. I think this bodes well for the country.
These are my two primary reasons for favouring Obama over Clinton, neither are based on gender or race of the candidate.
EDIT to clear up some typos
sl0re, you can laugh and rest all you like, but you can clearly see how your McCain comparison is neither here nor there.
hahhahha, bs, shenanigans… whatever...hahhahah!
I guess now is as good a time as any to restate: having ‘an’ argument doesn’t mean you have a good, convincing, or compelling argument…
It’s a variation on ‘pulling a Chomsky’ as it’s his writing style to put forward a single fact that supports an argument and move on as if it proved the argument he made.
re: Having a lame argument, doesn’t prove your point…
(furthermore, your point is a strawman anyway… no one (but you) really thinks whether Obama is a racist is the issue.)
And here you are still making non-relevent comparrisons.
I’m not really bothered or put off McCain any by his links to nutty white preachers by they way. I still think he’s a good guy and would make a good president. Perhaps your example wasn’t as hypothetical as I thought, though it’s still not a good comparrison.
The comparison is relevent. You are attempting to frame it in a way so you can claim otherwise. You want a direct comparison of a Half-white Half-Black Republican politician connecting with some David Duke-like figure. And that’s not the comparison needed. McCain works fine for the required comparison, as would really any Republican.
Its a simple comparison. You have a Democrat with a 20 year relationship (one that does seem rather deep and connected at that) with a black racist preacher. There is the media’s take on it as well the supporters of the Democrat’s take. There is also Republican and everyone elses take on it as well. I think you can get the feeling of how those four groups have responded.
Now if we were to pull a switch and this was a Republican candidate and it was discovered that he had a 20 year relationship with a white racist preacher. How would those groups responses changed? Sl0re’s opinion is about like mine. The media would not be giving them an attempt at a pass that they are giving Obama. The Democrat’s would be screaming bloody murder. The Republicans would be distancing themselves from him, and everyone else would be getting turned off.
The comparison is fine. Its comparing Democrat/racist with Republican/racist. Its apples to apples. But you’re attempting to claim that one of the apples is a banana so the comparison won’t work.
Why not? You could argue that you are violating a contract between you, your spouse, and the government. And its certainly not like its a far out there opinion for a religious figure to hold considering it is one of the 10 commandments.
Perhaps women shouldn’t be able to travel without being accompanied by their brother or father too. Sounds a little familar.
The government is only involved in marriage in a purely administrative capacity, so it’s no business of theirs.
Tell us CM have you actually heard Wright’s sermons or have you merely read the vile bigotry he spouts off so you can make excuses for it.
I’ve seen the YouTube stuff and reproduced quotes. Maybe there is more stuff I’ve missed. That’s why I set out exactly what my thoughts were on specific quotes.
As opposed to you who just makes vague meaingless statements like that one.
They haven’t gotten away with it. Get a fucking clue.
McCain seems to be a very recent example. How was Bush elected without a firestorm like the current one?
There is difference between being a member of a racist church, and having some dumbass preacher endorse you. Especially when it involves Democrats and Republicans. One requires the immediate condemnation, and it will still be continuously brought up. The other requires a speech asking us to understand and letting the media put their kneepads on and declaring the issue resolved. I’ll leave you to possibly connect which goes where. Although based on previous experience you probably can’t do that.
As I said (and you ignored, because you simply ignore stuff that you can’t or don’t want to respond to) it seems that most of what Wright is preaching about (in the bits of I’ve seen/read anyway) about the dominant power structure in America. Which is different to being a racist. When the South African blacks (like Mandela) spoke out about the power structure in their country, were they being racist? Was supporting their cause actually enabling racists? I realise that’s an extreme analogy but the differences are irrelevant for the purposes of what I’m talking about.
Thinking about it more, I’m not sure that the conservative politician / nutty evangelist connection isn’t worse.
How?
Because that connection is largely for political purposes. Which means they are both getting something out of it. Which means that are giving something back.
Whereas Obama’s connection is religious/spiritual. It goes right back to before he was anyone. Tripper touched on this before. The connection is also because that was the church to go to if you were a professional aspiring black person in Chicago.
Considering Obama’s poll numbers have dropped faster than the media does to their knees when he speaks I would say that you don’t have to be a conservative white American to get it.
Your talk radio people have obviously done a good job making the most of this. To be honest I get the feeling there has been some real fear at the lack of Obama-attack. Some real concern that he might be striding into the White House. So I think it was always going to be a case of - first controversy, make the absolute most of it. Way beyond (what I see at least) what it really means.
Maybe you should actually learn how to read.
Explain. As usual, you’re a less than helpful poster.
You don’t get it. No shit its there. I don’t think anyone is particuarly shocked that there are black people out there who are racist. The opposite is obviously true. The thing is that he just went and tossed grandma under the bus. And its apparent that his reasoning to do so may not even actually be because of any racism on her part. He just needed a white person to compare his sick preacher too, and Granny just seemed perfect to him.
How do you know he ‘tossed his grandma under a bus’? For that to occur you surely must have some evidence that he’s lying about her attitude.
The man is a liar, typical politician, and very liberal. Not at all the honest, centrist crossover, “I’m different and can change D.C.” politician he has tried to portray.
Maybe not, although I don’t really see too much evidence in this ‘scandal’. Much of it seems manufactured. But then, as I said, maybe I’m not able to see it because I live in a different country/culture, am not religious, am not conservative (socially anyway).
It’s not that we don’t know, assholes. It’s that we reject the notion that a major presidential candidate could ally himself with a vicious font of racewar rhetoric.
There are a lot of whites who share the views, from the opposite perspective, of Rev. Wright. But guess what? We don’t allow politicians who closely associate with such vermin to advance to high elective office…
...Since we’re now so blithely excusing black racism, I guess it’s only natural to ask: When will the apologism for white racism begin?
Because, in case the left and the media didn’t know this, whites harbor some of their own resentments and anger, too.
So I guess we’ll start having that “honest, candid” discussion about race that Senator Obama so courageously began pretty soon, huh?
...We know there is hate out there—among all races.
But until recently, some of us were under the mistaken impression that such hatred was unacceptable. Unacceptable to stew in, unacceptable to even think (and we should look to our better selves to cure it), and certainly unacceptable to preach to entire communities, including impressionable children.
What is the opposite view - that whites are sick of the black dominant power structure? Sorry, that doesn’t exist.
In casein the left and the media didn’t know this, whites harbor some of their own resentments and anger, too - yeah, like Obama said explicitly in his speech.
Pretending that he is saying that hate is acceptable, or presenting a position where it is, is just lazy and typically brain-dead.
Tripper
My biggest issues with Hilary is that I’m sick of the White house being held by the Bush’s and Clintons, and don’t like the posibility of a Bush/Clinton being Pres or VP for 36 years as will be the case if Hil gets elected and makes it 2 terms. It’s a step towards an established ruling class which the US has managed to avoid for it’s existance until now. Who will run in 2016? Jeb Bush? cause you know it takes a Bush to clean up after a Clinton.
It’s not my biggest issue with hillary, but it’s right up there. I want change from the two families that brought us NAFTA/GATT, open borders and such.
I’m going out of town shortly or I would keep looking myself, so I offer a challenge to find the in-context quote of McCain calling Parsley his spiritual guide. In the ten or so citations (out of thousands) I scanned while Googling ‘mccain parsley “spiritual guide” ‘, it was usually cited as “a spiritual guide”. Some of the avowedly left-wing sites pull the “a” out of the quote, which even further assigns ownership to McCain. I suspect that McCain was referring to Parsley being “a spiritual guide” to many. If I’m right, that proves you can’t trust what you read on the Internet. Specifically David Corn.
McCain praised most of the leaders in attendance, saying of Parsley: “I am very honored today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide…thank you for your leadership and your guidance. I am very grateful you are here.”
Seems you are right. Given the full sentence though, I’m not sure it helps. He clearly thinks he’s a truly great leader and a moral compass. And a legitimate spiritual guide. And he’s very grateful that he was there.
CM
I dunno, the more this goes on, the further away America feels. Maybe you guys are quote different from the rest of us after all.*
I don’t really have a problem with what he said. Sounds a lot more honest than the usual politically correct horseshit that flies around.
As for me being an apologist - good grief. It’s that all-or-nothing obsession again. Leave it alone already.
As for Bush being dumber than GWB - that’s definitely funniest thing I’ve seen all week. Can you imagine Bush being able to deliver a speech like that, much less write it? I’m sorry but that’s just plain lunacy.
* I get the feeling I’d have to be a conservative white American to make sense of this.
A) You don’t have a problem with the prospective leader of the free world referring to someone as a “typical white person”. I can only assume you wouldn’t have a problem when someone refers to a “typical black person”, “typical muslim”. How about “Chavez is your typical fiery latino”? All that would sound good coming out of the mouth of the prezident of the US? Does any of that sound good coming out of the prezident of the US? You’re an apologist, and it has nothing to do with “all or nothing”. It has everything to do with Obama issuing a bigoted statement by calling his grandmother a “typical white woman” and you defending it with “I really don’t have a problem with what he said.” That’s just simply pathetic on your part, considering all the things you’ve said about conservatives making broad sweeping, bigoted generalizations. By the way CM, please give us your take on what makes up the typical white woman, I’d love to hear it..
This is Obama’s explanation for the ‘typical white person’ statement:
“What I was trying to express is something I expressed in the speech, which is that we all harbor stereotypes. That doesn’t make us bad people. It’s simply pointing out that – and by the way, the context in which I stated that is the fear of young black men on the streets. That’s not even unique to white people. African-Americans have incorporated those stereotypes.
“Part of what the speech was about was the stereotypes that still linger in the body politic. The anger, the resentments, and the stereotypes that sometimes serve us publicly and sometimes serve us privately. They’re sometimes directed at African-Americans, but African-Americans harbor their own stereotypes, and that’s part of what was the failure of Rev. Wright’s sermons, was assuming a set of attitudes that weren’t necessarily accurate.
“So it was just a continuation of the broader point that I made. One clarification, because I’ve noticed some of the commentary about the speech – it’s been suggested by a number of conservative commentators, but even some that were favorably disposed towards the speech—that somehow there was a flip-flop or a contradiction between previous statements about not being aware of Rev. Wright’s statements and my statement in the speech that I was aware of controversial statements he’s made.
“There’s no contradiction there. So I want to be very clear. I was not aware that he had made some of most offensive statements that had been looping on the internet and on the television news.
“I wasn’t aware of the AIDS conspiracy statement, which I think is completely out of line and off the wall.
“I wasn’t aware of his statements, ‘God damn America’ Those statements were not ones that I knew about until the story broke a week and a half ago.
“The 9/11 statement I became aware of in the New York Times after I announced my candidacy. And as I said in my previous statement, the reason I did not decide to leave the church was because I saw Rev. Wright retiring.
“Now, I was aware of controversial statements. As I said, he has been a fierce critic on occasion of US foreign policy and domestic policy and in fact in my first book ‘Dreams of My Father,’ and in ‘The Audacity of Hope’ I quote him making a comment about racism that I think would be considered controversial but I didn’t think was beyond the pale.
“So that’s distinction that I would make. I just wanted to make sure people were clear – I know Joe Klein had column, for example, that suggested I had admitted something that I didn’t previously, but there’s no contradiction there. I just want to make that as clear as possible.”
So I think the context makes it a little less clear cut than you do.
B) I never said that Bush was dumber than GWB. That’s just dumb. I said that Obama is and he’s proving it. For one thing, he’s lied about not being in the pews anytime during the past 20 years when wright said incendiary comments. He later recanted. He didn’t miss speak, not the great orator. He lied and it’s a stupid thing to lie about something that can be easily documented when you’re in a political campaign. It’s dumb. He’s dumb because he’s now give (3) versions of why his grandma is/isn’t a racist. That’s just stupid and politically inept. I don’t want a guy that clueless being the president. Or maybe his speech writer finally let him down.
Sorry I meant to say “As for Bush being dumber than GWB”. I was clearly laughing too hard at the time.
I understand he wrote that speech himself (I might be wrong on that, it’s just what I read). Can you honestly even contemplate Bush being able to write even a quarter of something like that? Let alone deliver it.
When has Bush talked about race relations with even 10% of the complexity? Or on anything?
I’ve never heard anything out of his mouth that wasn’t for the lowest common denominator. The sheeple. Those who would then think that Saddam had a role in 9/11.
By the way, Geraldine Ferraro is making perfect sense out of it and she’s not close to being a conservative white American. I’ve actually heard her speak and photographed her. She would take great offense at your insinuation
She said he only got there because he is a black man and that he’s lucky. Therefore I would certainly take that mindset into account when deciding what weight to give to her comments. She was attacked in the speech, so has plenty of motive to swing in behind those who are bashing Obama on this.
Although I note that she said the speech was ‘excellent’.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/20/ferraro_obama_wrong_to_compare_1.html
On June 5th, 2007, Senator Barack Obama spoke before 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University’s Convocation Center. Most of them were pastors and ministers attending a conference there.
He was there to speak on mostly post Katrina issues and to criticize the Bush administration’s efforts during that natural disaster. Obama tried his catch phrase of the moment, saying that a “quiet riot” might be occurring in America and he affirmed that he felt that America was a racist nation, that the reaction to Katrina had just “pulled back the screen” on America’s racism. Obama also used rhetoric heavily doused with religious symbolism.
But, that boiler plate aside, there was two very interesting segments in Obama’s remarks concerning his racist “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. that are not getting the press it deserves.
He was effusive in his praise and admiration for Wright, this foaming at the mouth, hate monger. This runs contrary to his late claims that he is somehow shocked by Wright’s racism, or that he now disagrees with him as well as his claim that he was not familiar enough with Wright to know of his point of view.
As the speech kicked off (at 1:07 into the video), Obama introduced the Rev. Wright to the audience with these glowing and highly personal words:
“And then I’ve got to give a special shout out to my Pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ.
Where’s he at? There he is. That’s him, that’s him right there.
You wearing a suit today, right?”
This reveals a very intimate portrait of Obama and Wright’s relationship. Notice the last bit where Obama jokes about Wright’s penchant for wearing an Afrocentric style of dress and that his wearing of a suit at that event was uncommon. These are the remarks of a close friend to another loved intimate, not the words of a man making perfunctory comments.
Later in his comments Obama mentioned Wright again. (At 13:43 in the video)
“You know, I’ve been on a journey trying to get at the truth that question for a long time. I mention Rev. Wright… I first met Rev. Wright when I moved to Chicago after college.
And that’s where I met Rev. Wright and started going to Trinity United Church of Christ and he helped me on another journey and introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. And I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things that I was too weak to accomplish myself, maybe he could accomplish them for me if I placed my trust in him. And I learned that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things when they believe in him and they come together and are guided by him.”
So, we see that Obama obviously had a close, long-term relationship with Wright not a casual one where Obama might have missed the Reverend’s long-standing agenda.
It is also interesting that Obama’s rhetoric was so steeped in evangelical Christian rhetoric. Isn’t a “fanatic” Christianity one of the charges so often leveled by the left against president Bush? Don’t they so often say that he is somehow too religious? And, how often did we hear from the MSM how “controversial” Bush (or any Republican) was for delivering a speech before Bob Jones University?
And remember, Bush just went to make a single speech at Bob Jones University and the media slammed him for months afterward. Yet, Barack has had an intimate, 20-year relationship with Wright who has vehemently called for God to d**n America and the media yawns at the news.
In light of the criticism of Bush’s injecting “too much religion” in his presidency or that his administration is just like a ”Christian Taliban”, it is also a legitimate question to ask, where are those same accusers when this 2007 speech by Barack Obama is so filled with religious fervor? Where are the anti-religious left and the so-called separation of Church and Staters at now?
In fact, this entire speech is filled with nothing but class warfare, expansions of social programs, raising the minimum wage, typical great society type junk all couched squarely as a civic responsibility enmeshed with Obama’s view of Biblical precepts.
Now, as far as what Obama knew of Rev. Wright’s racist comments and when he knew it, ABC’s Jake Tapper is right on when he notes that Obama had dis-invited Wright from delivering the public invocation at his candidacy announcement more than a year ago. This obviously reveals that Obama had begun to distance himself from Wright before he announced formally for the presidency. It is plain that Obama knew of Wright’s problematic ranting long before his sudden claim that he is shocked by Wright’s past rhetoric.
Unfortunately for the truth, when the questions were finally put to him on March 14th, Obama played dumb saying, “I wasn’t in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn’t feel comfortable there.”
Even back in April of 2007 The New York Times quoted Wright that he’d already talked with Barack about his controversial relationship with the ranting Reverend.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
This fully reveals that Wright understands that his views are controversial, that Barack was fully aware of them, and that they are both complicit in trying to cover up these facts in order to fool people into a false perception of the truth.
But, as the video from Chicago’s Channel 2 shows that, until recently, Obama never did fully separate himself from Rev. Wright.
With all the proof of how Barack Obama has been so close to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. for the last 20 years, it stretches credulity to imagine that Obama never heard of Wright’s hatespeech before. And as Wright blames whites for all the ills of the black community, while Wright claims that America deserved 9/11 and that whites created AIDS to kill blacks, Obama has the gall to claim that it’s everyone else stirring the racial rhetoric.
Watch this speech by Obama and see who is stirring the racial rhetoric. During his own campaign, Obama has cleaned up Wright’s racist hate but make no mistake that the message that Wright has so often bellowed from the pulpit is nearly identical to Obama’s on the campaign trail. Obama has learned well from Rev. Wright. He’s learned well, indeed.
The conservative blogosphere is aflame with Obama’s links to Wright. But the biggest question is: will the Mainstream Media let this controversy die, will they decide it’s “old news” like they do so very often, or will they pursue it, connecting the dots, like they should?
So it would appear that Obama knew about the Moonbat Reverends comments at least last year sometime.
Which comments specifically? As I said in an earlier post, the ones I’ve seen/heard vary considerably - some just aren’t offensive at all, while the HIV one is just bat-crazy (and obviously racist).
I see the writer says:
Imagine if this were a Republican politician linked to such outrageous talk
Um, hello, what planet has he been living on? Takes very little to find out what the whacko preachers who met/meet with McCain and have met/meet with Bush and other Republican politician believe. If I can do it from here......
Poll: Divisive Dem Contest Could Boost McCain
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - The lengthy Democratic primary contest bodes well for Republican chances of holding the White House, a new poll suggests.
As Democratic Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York slug it out for the nomination, many of their supporters—at least in Pennsylvania, site of the next major primary—aren’t committed to the party’s ticket in November, according to a Franklin & Marshall College Poll.
Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. (See poll)
Same old left - shooting themselves in the foot.
The significant number of potential defectors underscores how divisive the Democratic primary has been.
more…
This is so sweet! I hope they keep at it right up until the Democrap convention. I wonder if this attitude could translate into coattails for McCain in November?
When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America’s “agents of intolerance.” But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP’s establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke “in haste” in 2000.
”It just came down to pure old politics in South Carolina and other states,” Falwell said.
Falwell and McCain first made peace in a face-to-face meeting a few months ago. In a sign of their improved relationship, McCain has agreed to be the graduation speaker at Falwell’s Liberty University on May 13.
See this kind of thing makes me think that McCain is going to make promises to people like that, and then if he’s in power, deliver on those promises.
How is that different from the perception that Obama will deliver on promises that he makes to his community?
RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?
Some conservatives may be appeased by the sight of McCain at an evangelical institution. But it’s going to take more than a patriotic speech to convert many of McCain’s enemies. Conservative activists are drawing up litmus tests for McCain, as they hope to extract concessions on the road to the primaries.
Falwell:
“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being”
“[homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jerry_falwell/
No agent of intolerance would ever say things like that.
No agent of intolerance would ever say things like that.
I’m sorry, I have been out of this thread since my last post (which you seem to have not responded to, but oh well), but which Republican candidate was it who attended Falwell’s church for almost 20yrs, had a close personal relationship with him and considered him a mentor?
If you want to draw a leftwing comparison between the Falwell/Robertson types on the right, the Wright/Obama connection simply isn’t a good fit. Connection someone to Jackson or Sharpton would be more the equivalent—i.e. there have been many Dem politicians who have used them/their influence for political reasons while not having a particularly close or personal relationship.
The relationship between Obama and Wright is supposedly deep and personal, has gone on privately for 17+ years and is a mentoring type relationship. He was someone who Obama has, in the past at least, claimed to look up to.
This makes the relationship between Obama and Wright fundamentally different than the relationship between any R’s I know of and Falwell/Robertson/whoever or between any D’s I can think of and Jackson/Sharpton/whoever.
Of course, Obama is claiming a different relationship now, but I refer again to my post earlier in the thread where Rev Wright claims to have discussed this very thing about a year ago. (i.e. Wright said a year ago that if he gets far enough, Obama may need to publically distance himself. Now Obama does exactly that and I’m supposed to believe that he’s telling the truth and not just being a typical politician? Reasonable doubt, anyone?)
* I get the feeling I’d have to be a conservative white American to make sense of this.
American, perhaps… but white and conservative? I’m not so sure about that…
Has anyone posted this survey yet? (link is to a pdf)
I’ll direct CM’s attention to this question, and I even added some red boxes ;)
Apparently it’s not just “white conservatives” who are concerned about this issue, and it’s not just “white conservatives” who weren’t fawning over Obama’s speech.
The whole situaion touches a nerve, and the divisions on different sides of the issue are not as black & white (no pun intended) as some may think (including Obama himself)
CM, your inclusion of Obama’s numerous post speech and post self rebuttals reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend who’s a big fan of the second Pitch Black movie. I explained that it made absolutely no sense and was a black eye toward the quite good original. He responded “well you have to read the graphic novels and watch the cartoons that came out after the Chronicles of Riddick to understand the movie.” You know as well as I that if the only way you can explain something is by re-creating it afterwards, that the original piece was bunk. Such is the case with Obama’s rebuttals and retractions and redirections and re-explanations that he’s been making ever since his pastor thing has come out of the closet. Now he’s even rebutted his rebuttal that he’d never heard anything incendiary coming out from the Pulpit at Trinity. The guy is a one-man debate. First he didn’t hear it, then he did and now he didn’t all over again. That’s patently WEAK. And if his race speech (which was really supposed to have concentrated on his pastor) was that great, why’s he still explaining and revising the content some 3 or 4 days later?
I heard one of his people yesterday explain the “typical white person” quote a totally different way. This Obama rep said that Milhouse was referring to older whitey when he said his grandmother was a typical white person. Yeah, that makes it much better and less offensive. At last count, Milhouse has thrown his own grandmother under the bus, backed over her, and thrown her and all other senior whites back under the bus all in less than one week. That’s a pretty mean feat by all accounts. Not to mention the older voting block that he’s pissing off.
I find it semi-amazing that you’ll believe any and everything that comes out of the Church of Obama, regardless of how contrived and inconsistent it is.
Barack “Chance” Obama’s had a pretty rough week. Unfortunately for the world, he’s opened the door for billary to clean his clock and make him but a distant memory.
No agent of intolerance would ever say things like that.
I’m sorry, I have been out of this thread since my last post (which you seem to have not responded to, but oh well), but which Republican candidate was it who attended Falwell’s church for almost 20yrs, had a close personal relationship with him and considered him a mentor?
If you want to draw a leftwing comparison between the Falwell/Robertson types on the right, the Wright/Obama connection simply isn’t a good fit. Connection someone to Jackson or Sharpton would be more the equivalent—i.e. there have been many Dem politicians who have used them/their influence for political reasons while not having a particularly close or personal relationship.
The relationship between Obama and Wright is supposedly deep and personal, has gone on privately for 17+ years and is a mentoring type relationship. He was someone who Obama has, in the past at least, claimed to look up to.
This makes the relationship between Obama and Wright fundamentally different than the relationship between any R’s I know of and Falwell/Robertson/whoever or between any D’s I can think of and Jackson/Sharpton/whoever.
Of course, Obama is claiming a different relationship now, but I refer again to my post earlier in the thread where Rev Wright claims to have discussed this very thing about a year ago. (i.e. Wright said a year ago that if he gets far enough, Obama may need to publically distance himself. Now Obama does exactly that and I’m supposed to believe that he’s telling the truth and not just being a typical politician? Reasonable doubt, anyone?)
Sorry I didn’t respond to your post. I must have posted 100 times in this thread already.
Did you read the letter I posted (a link to) by Rev Wright to the NYT journalist who wrote the story where that quote came from?
Why isn’t it a good fit? How does the type of relationship affect whether the politician adopts the positions of the subject person? Because he married Obama and his wife, and baptised their children, does that mean Obama is required to adopt some of the extreme views of Wright? Is there the same inherent ‘deal’ that comes from the marriage of convenience that McCain et al embrace when they need them? Political convenience is more admirable?
How is Obama claiming a different relationship now? (I may have missed something more recent than the speech he gave where he explained it).
What are your thoughts on the ‘compartmentalising’ thing (that was all the rage about 3 or 4 pages ago but which nobody wiants to comment on now)?
Personally I don’t care who McCain/Bush etc meet to gain votes, and what their view are on anything. I don’t care what their preachers said. I would only care if they exhibited some of the offensive attitudes of those people they met/are involved with.
What would be interesting would be to find out whether Wright made such controversial comments 17 years ago (and I mean actually controversial, not manufactured controversial). Or 10 years ago. From what I can gather most of the stuff we’ve heard/seem is pretty recent.
* I get the feeling I’d have to be a conservative white American to make sense of this.
American, perhaps… but white and conservative? I’m not so sure about that…
Has anyone posted this survey yet? (link is to a pdf)
I’ll direct CM’s attention to this question, and I even added some red boxes ;)
Apparently it’s not just “white conservatives” who are concerned about this issue, and it’s not just “white conservatives” who weren’t fawning over Obama’s speech.
The whole situaion touches a nerve, and the divisions on different sides of the issue are not as black & white (no pun intended) as some may think (including Obama himself)
Yeah I guess anyone touching on race relations is stepping into a minefield. Which is why most politicians go nowhere near it (or if they do, it’s meaningless rhetoric). You never really know what it’s going to lead to, and who is going to be offended.
Interesting stuff.
