Not supporting him = ignoring race as an issue? Maybe I’m not looking at it in the right way.
What is he saying then CM? Quote it. Give your take.
I’m telling you my take. He appeals to race by offering to give you an indulgence on the matter by voting for him. Failure to do so means your ignoring the issue… ignoring the issue leads to Wrights.... or worse.
It’s all cool. I’m just trying to understand your take.
My take is that he’s given a speech where he outlines his relationship with Reverend Wright, makes it clear that he doesn’t come from the same school of thinking on same issues, and certainly doesn’t agree with some of the statements, and then talks about how he believes that both blacks and whites have anger over the issue. Basically he’s not trying to sweep the issue under the carpet with some vague, meaningless and ultimately dishonest rhetoric about how there is no issue with race in America, nor is he trying avoid the issue completely, and nor is he attempting to just appeal to black or white people by demonising one side or the other.
Which is obviously completely and utterly different to how you saw it.
But then you’re an American, and also have much more knowledge about lefty codes and threats etc than I do. If you see things here at are just the same old things, then I’m interested in learning about that.
Cool… but my take is based on what I perceive to be the take of US lefties… So, to learn more, don’t talk to us. Read lefty mags and newspaper editorials about black crime, violence, riots (maybe older stuff from around periods when it was happening)… assume I’m just throwing Obama in with them… and I perceive Obama’s game to be to deny being part of the lefty group… you know, a moderate with no one to his left… I just don’t buy it. He’s just got better spin (new colorful baggage vs the old beat up baggage)… but even then, the arguments are essentially the same (my point).
Isn’t your argument the same as Bush etc saying that if you don’t support them on Iraq then you’re ignoring terror as an issue?
No, I’m saying Obama arugment is of the same form as Bush’s. I’m not in the middle of either one.
I’m not seeing where Obama is linking the importance of the race issue to the need to elect him. He’s not said “Only with me can we honestly discuss race. If you don’t elect me, then no discussions will be able to take place”.
and that means continuing with the likes of Wrights… and their real anger.... and/or the unfortunate results of such anger.
Whereas my view is they’re mostly loons with grains of truth thrown in here and there. They should be judged as such… not enabled by trying to justify the roots of their anger… let alone electing Obama to ‘fix it’…
As to Bush… I’ve never been big on the ‘leave Iraq enables terrorists’ argument. I think a more generalised loosing a war enables all our enemies (from El Chav to North Korean Commies). I also tend to be against people rewriting the history around the vote for the war and/or claiming we didn’t claim the freeing people would produce good change… before the war got hard… But I’ve not bought into the being against the war is helping the terrorists meme except when people actually… umm, support the terrorists (say Moore with his minutemen or they go on about the ‘resistence’ in positive terms)…
If the stuff Wright claims were true (government created aids et cetera) then what do you think? Its the old liberal blank slate game. We can say all this stuff, associate with all these fringe people (sometimes even old 60s terrorists), make arguments like Obama is now… but don’t link us togeather. :) Thats really beyond the pale.
But Obama is saying that those things aren’t true, that Wright is essentially a man of his time, with outdated thinking.
That he kept close until some sunlight was shone on it.... wonder if it will be a pattern.
Plus, some people are poking around his own books and finding Wright like statements… re: Obama’s books. Divisive seems to mean questioning him, not saying… umm, divisive things.
Which is also a point about Wright speech… isn’t throwing it out there in a perpetuation of it? Won’t any of it rub off on new people? Cause new rounds for future violence? It’s not all old politics… ancient history… yada yada. Saying it is just is a way to try to wave it away, nothing to see here ish…
Not supporting him = ignoring race as an issue? Maybe I’m not looking at it in the right way.
What is he saying then CM? Quote it. Give your take.
I’m telling you my take. He appeals to race by offering to give you an indulgence on the matter by voting for him. Failure to do so means your ignoring the issue… ignoring the issue leads to Wrights.... or worse.
It’s all cool. I’m just trying to understand your take.
My take is that he’s given a speech where he outlines his relationship with Reverend Wright, makes it clear that he doesn’t come from the same school of thinking on same issues, and certainly doesn’t agree with some of the statements, and then talks about how he believes that both blacks and whites have anger over the issue. Basically he’s not trying to sweep the issue under the carpet with some vague, meaningless and ultimately dishonest rhetoric about how there is no issue with race in America, nor is he trying avoid the issue completely, and nor is he attempting to just appeal to black or white people by demonising one side or the other.
Which is obviously completely and utterly different to how you saw it.
But then you’re an American, and also have much more knowledge about lefty codes and threats etc than I do. If you see things here at are just the same old things, then I’m interested in learning about that.
Cool… but my take is based on what I perceive to be the take of US lefties… So, to learn more, don’t talk to us. Read lefty mags and newspaper editorials about black crime, violence, riots (maybe older stuff from around periods when it was happening)… assume I’m just throwing Obama in with them… and I perceive Obama’s game to be to deny being part of the lefty group… you know, a moderate with no one to his left… I just don’t buy it. He’s just got better spin (new colorful baggage vs the old beat up baggage)… but even then, the arguments are essentially the same (my point).
I’ve never heard those people you are talking about saying the stuff that Obama is saying (e.g. he is saying that white people are angry too, there are reasons for the anger but these people are mistaken in how they express it, and this type of talk is not the way forward). Whereas the types you are talking about tend not to distance themselves from sentiments from people that they are even remotely connected to (all under one umbrella etc). If he and Reverend still have a relationship after this speech, then perhaps it’s an indication that he’s had heated arguments about these kind of sentinments in private, but that their relationship is such that they don’t let it affect it. Certainly I’d like to think that if I was religious, I could talk openly to my preacher/priest/whatever about what I agree with or disagree with in their sermon. I’d probably want to do that privately though, and I’d have no reason to go public with it (it only becomes public when one runs for office).
Isn’t your argument the same as Bush etc saying that if you don’t support them on Iraq then you’re ignoring terror as an issue?
No, I’m saying Obama arugment is of the same form as Bush’s. I’m not in the middle of either one.
I’m not seeing where Obama is linking the importance of the race issue to the need to elect him. He’s not said “Only with me can we honestly discuss race. If you don’t elect me, then no discussions will be able to take place”.
and that means continuing with the likes of Wrights… and their real anger.... and/or the unfortunate results of such anger.
Whereas my view is they’re mostly loons with grains of truth thrown in here and there. They should be judged as such… not enabled by trying to justify the roots of their anger… let alone electing Obama to ‘fix it’…
As to Bush… I’ve never been big on the ‘leave Iraq enables terrorists’ argument. I think a more generalised loosing a war enables all our enemies (from El Chav to North Korean Commies). I also tend to be against people rewriting the history around the vote for the war and/or claiming we didn’t claim the freeing people would produce good change… before the war got hard… But I’ve not bought into the being against the war is helping the terrorists meme except when people actually… umm, support the terrorists (say Moore with his minutemen or they go on about the ‘resistence’ in positive terms)...
I don’t see how it does mean continuing with the likes of Wright. Obama explicitly stated those views are ‘profoundly distorted’. So how is he enabling them if he’s actively criticising them? Seems like there’s nothing he could do - whatever he does he’d be enabling them.
Wright is being judged as such. But somehow Obama is taking heat for the views of Wright.
Is ignoring the roots of their anger the way to go? Surely that’s enabling it even more by feeding into their argument that you’re ignoring them and their anger and not taking any of the issues seriously?
If the stuff Wright claims were true (government created aids et cetera) then what do you think? Its the old liberal blank slate game. We can say all this stuff, associate with all these fringe people (sometimes even old 60s terrorists), make arguments like Obama is now… but don’t link us togeather. :) Thats really beyond the pale.
But Obama is saying that those things aren’t true, that Wright is essentially a man of his time, with outdated thinking.
That he kept close until some sunlight was shone on it.... wonder if it will be a pattern.
Plus, some people are poking around his own books and finding Wright like statements… re: Obama’s books. Divisive seems to mean questioning him, not saying… umm, divisive things.
Which is also a point about Wright speech… isn’t throwing it out there in a perpetuation of it? Won’t any of it rub off on new people? Cause new rounds for future violence? It’s not all old politics… ancient history… yada yada. Saying it is just is a way to try to wave it away, nothing to see here ish...
He kept close - but is the sunlight being shone on the whole thing? Isn’t this what you guys constantly complain about - a lack of context? His relationshop with Wright is clearly a lot more complex than just sitting in his church listening to the guy saying crazy things for 30 years. But you wouldn’t know it unless you actively looked into it (read/listened to his speech for example). Obama has attempted to explain the relationship. I have no doubt he’s done it in a way which makes the best of the situation. He’s a politician after all.
Well if people find Wright-like statements directly from Obama, that’s a different thing entirely. But if it’s some of the not-really-all-that-nutty Wright-type stuff, then it shouldn’t have much impact.
Not sure about your last part - I’m trying to unjumble it to make it more comprehensible.
Why did he stay in the church? Because he’s a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can’t say that. So what should he say?
If the stuff Wright claims were true (government created aids et cetera) then what do you think? Its the old liberal blank slate game. We can say all this stuff, associate with all these fringe people (sometimes even old 60s terrorists), make arguments like Obama is now… but don’t link us togeather. :) Thats really beyond the pale.
But Obama is saying that those things aren’t true, that Wright is essentially a man of his time, with outdated thinking.
That he kept close until some sunlight was shone on it.... wonder if it will be a pattern.
Plus, some people are poking around his own books and finding Wright like statements… re: Obama’s books. Divisive seems to mean questioning him, not saying… umm, divisive things.
Which is also a point about Wright speech… isn’t throwing it out there in a perpetuation of it? Won’t any of it rub off on new people? Cause new rounds for future violence? It’s not all old politics… ancient history… yada yada. Saying it is just is a way to try to wave it away, nothing to see here ish...
He kept close - but is the sunlight being shone on the whole thing? Isn’t this what you guys constantly complain about - a lack of context? His relationshop with Wright is clearly a lot more complex than just sitting in his church listening to the guy saying crazy things for 30 years. But you wouldn’t know it unless you actively looked into it (read/listened to his speech for example). Obama has attempted to explain the relationship. I have no doubt he’s done it in a way which makes the best of the situation. He’s a politician after all.
Well if people find Wright-like statements directly from Obama, that’s a different thing entirely. But if it’s some of the not-really-all-that-nutty Wright-type stuff, then it shouldn’t have much impact.
Not sure about your last part - I’m trying to unjumble it to make it more comprehensible.
That’s okay… it’s an attempt to unjumble Obama’s evasions… so it gets confusing.
Context, Wright is a racist of the black power sort and the rest is evasions of why Obama would attend his church for 20 years. Lets bottom line it… and put it in perspective… If a conservative pol attended a ‘white’ church that preached some kind of white power message for 20 years (lets say just turn around the same arguments found by Wright thus far) and only broke a bit with it when called on it… and said conservative pol gave this speech about the ‘crazy uncle’ and made similar arguments (what we got here is failure to communicate… we’ve got to have vouchers for schools, double the troops in Iraq, and my free market health care ideas to get rid of redneck views like those of my ‘retired’ preacher… because his anger has roots… FDR ruined his grandpa’s company and his dad died fightin commies in Korea...you know)… do you really see any* of us buying it any more than we buy Obama’s version of events? Would you? Of course not… He’s just hitting the right lefty notes to make excuses for the inexcusable…
The only reason it is not treated as such is because people sympathetic to Obama, democrats, and/or who buy into lefty identity politics… make up the media… but even so, he is still taking a few blows.
* remember, Soul Eata has been gone long enough to be considered no longer one of us. ;)
And heck, even if someone is family, if that person acts in a way you find particularly abhorrent, you can refuse to affiliate with them. If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to question just exactly how seriously you take their offenses.
My mother says racist things. Our admin lady at work spat out something the other week. I’m not going to disown my mother or quit my job. I just steer the conversation onto something else. Or talk to someone else in the room.
I’m not talking about quitting a job or “disowning” a family member over one or two random comments.
What if your boss routinely made racist comments? What if she was the public spokesperson for the company, someone who anyone could potentially see and affiliate you with? Someone who’s words represented your company and the work you do? Would you think twice about working for a company with a racist/sexist/whatever image?
What if your mother routinely spouted racism of the worst kind? What if she said these things in front of your children? How long would it go on before you at least requested that she not say those things around you? If that didn’t work, how much longer would it go on before you spent less and less time around her?
To me, it all depends on how important something is to you. If you hear something you don’t like/agree with, but it doesn’t strike right to your core, you can easily shrug it off, change the subject or ignore it. If you find a particular behavior/attitude vile enough, you’ll distance yourself from it, even if it means distancing yourself from a relative. Life is full of tough choices, and if something is important enough to you, you make the choice you have to make.
Obama expects me to believe he finds these things to be offensive, and yet he won’t even leave a church/distance himself from a non-relative? Somehow I don’t believe that he takes it as seriously as I do, or that he finds it even remotely as offensive and wrong. And judging by some of his other comments, I don’t know that he truly even understands what it is that makes it so offensive.
Then there’s the comment from Wright last year that I quoted earlier— now, maybe that’s just Crazy Uncle’s conspiracy theories acting up again, but to me, it presents a reasonable doubt as to Obamas sincerity on any of this.
Oh, and btw in reference to something you said in a later post about “relating”, I don’t want to pull the “moral authority card”, but I figure I should point out where I’m coming from. I am saying all of this this as a Christian who has left a church over disagreement with what was being said from the pulpit. I’m also saying this as someone who has family members who she spends less time with than she could because there are things about their attitudes that she just absolutely will not tolerate (I don’t play those games, I don’t care if you are family, I have my limits) So, I’m not just randomly going after someone nor am I expecting anything from anyone that I haven’t done myself when the situation called for it. I find this issue to be extremely important and am watching closely for Obama’s reaction, and I’m not impressed.
My general conclusion: Typical politician responses from the man who’s supposed to be oh-so-different.
The only reason it is not treated as such is because people sympathetic to Obama, democrats, and who buy into lefty identity politics… make up the media… but even so, he is still taking a few blows.
ABC News has an article up about Obama’s contradictions with respect to Wright in his speech yesterday, so at least not everyone in the media is fawning over him as much as the people I saw last night on CNN.
Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor
In Speech, Obama Contradicted More Than a Year of Denials About His Knowledge of Rev. Wright’s Sermons
Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.
(...)
His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright’s sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.
But yesterday, he told a different story.
“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.
Obama did not say what he heard that he considered “controversial,” and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright’s sermons over the last 20 years.
(more at link, including a tie-in between Wright and Rezko, not sure I like the stories being mixed like that)
I was wondering when someone would bring up his contradiction on Wright, the commentary I saw yesterday was all glowing about his great speech with the exception of some right-wing types. I wonder if he’ll respond to it or if he’ll pull the same stuff I’ve heard him pull before (and the typical politician thing, btw) and say “I’ve already addressed that in my speech, let’s move forward from this!”
Now allow me to rant a bit....
<rant>
First, it’s statements from a man Obama considers a mentor that started this whole conversation, and Obama’s refusal to be completely forthcoming about what he heard or outright condemn the behavior let the issue get to the point where he had to come forward and save face. So, he makes his speech about “healing” and how “this issue is so important” and he’s going to save us all, and the response is “Oh, isn’t he so great! He understands how important this issue is! Praise Obama! Hallelujah!” Am I the only one who sees this a bit like the arsonist who sets the fire so he can save the day and be the hero?
Then there’s the second aspect of it. The part where you have done something that has offended me, I have called you on it, then you refuse to acknowledge it, go on to talk about/fix the thing in your own terms, never truly apologize to me and then expect me to be grateful that you’ve given me such a great gift. Then, if I’m not satisfied, you give me the “I’ve already responded to that! Case closed!” If I’m still not satisfied, I get the “Why are you so bitter? Why can’t you just let this go so we can move forward?” I’ll tell you why, because you still have yet to cover the initial greivance!
Reminds me of a time in a store where the mgr screwed something up, then fixed it and never a) apologized or b) admitted that the mistake was his. Instead, he blamed it on us. I raised hell and at one point he said “I don’t see why you’re so upset. I took care of it, case closed!” I said to him “No the case is not closed, you’re not the judge here, I am” His response? (well, after his initial shock that I had replied to him like that) was a dismissive hand-wave, an eye roll and a couple more “case closed"s I guess he expected me to thank him for fixing his own screw up and wasting literally an hour of my time in the process.
But anyway the problem in the case of Obama is he seems to get away with it. He can dodge questions, he can contradict, he can make lame excuses, and he’s got people lining up to apologize for ever doubting him. He truly is the “teflon candidate”, moreso than any I can remember in recent history. Clinton had his swooning fanboys/girls, but he also had to deal with plenty of hostility. Obama seems truly untouchable and even when there is criticism, so far at least, like I said, he gives a lame answer and it seems to be good enough for waaaay too many people.
Now, I can’t blame Obama for taking advantage of the free ride, it’s exactly what I’d expect a shrewd politician to do, but what I really don’t understand is all the people who swoon over him and buy into him hook, line and sinker.
Sounds like you indeed believe that every time he talks about race, he’s lying.
That is not what I said, feel free to read it again.
I personally don’t have much of a problem with Obama’s reaction, it just is political expediency at it’s best.
Put my personal beef with the situation this way...The Media hammered Romney for things his religion did 30 years (racial stuff), and 100+ years (polygamy) ago. Obama has gotten a pass by the media for his pastors comments and beliefs for a year. Why?
Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you.
Yeah I don’t see why Obama should be treated any different to Romney. Neither should be accountable for the words of others.
But I struggle to understand why either should be tainted by association.
What he said in that speech seemed (to me obviously) to go beyond political expediency (which is usually where you just say what you need to, to get you out of a difficult spot).
See it doesn’t to others. In fact to a lot of people your response is exactly what his speech attempted to cause. He makes his speech which is done to make it sound like Obama is really addressing the problem when he actually doesn’t. But some people think he really did and not only that but they believe he isn’t doing it merely for political expediency. So he gets organizations like the New York Times to declare the issue settled and we no longer have to talk about it. So the media can pull their kneepads back out for Obama.
Did Obama directly denounce the belief that AIDS is a government conspiracy to kill black people? Did Obama directly denounce the belief that crack is an invention of the CIA? Did he state that he does not believe that America got what it deserved on 9/11? Or did he merely give a blanket condemnation that would not alienate people who do believe those things? Did he make an attempt to compare his preacher’s hatred with his grandmother’s simple stereotype that he himself held?
Or are we hearing/seeing stuff that isn’t representative of the average church service?
Just wondering but whether the reverend’s hatred is average or not that common seems pretty immaterial. How many times would a white preacher have to talk about the problems black people are causing the community before you’d quit going?
And really how much does Obama get it when he had the New Black Panther’s endorsement displayed on his website until today? Does he really get it?
with respect to Wright in his speech yesterday, so at least not everyone in the media is fawning over him as much as the people I saw last night on CNN.
Yes, ABC news and the WaPo have had good stories on this… even going back awhile before it was picked up on by everyone else.
CM
Well personally I don’t really care about what he says while ‘feeling the spirit’. He isn’t the guy who’s standing. And I haven’t seen any evidence that Obama embraces any of the nutty ideas - he seems to believe the opposite. Unless you think Obama is fundamentally lying?
A) Christians can’t live compartmentalized lives and remain true to the gospel. Yes, we all have our times of falling short (sin), but you can’t follow Christ’s example by living in compartments. Obama has to take on the responsibility of “embracing” Wright’s ideas if he’s been sitting in his pews for the past two decades. If not, than he’s either a liar or a political opportunist.
B) As someone stated earlier (after I stated it earlier), last week Obama said that he never heard incendiary comments coming from the pulpit at Trinity. Yesterday he changed his tune. Liar? Probably.
C) Obama went on record to say that Don Imus should have been fired for the incendiary “nappy headed” comment:
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus’ show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.
“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
One can only wonder if Obama includes his campaign’s spiritual adviser as well. But maybe saying that whitey gave AIDS to black people isn’t as bad as “nappy headed”.
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,” he concluded.
I love the term “fearful symmetry”. It’s so appropriate here. Obama had Wright baptize his two children at Trinity. There’s a parallel here that cries out “BS!!!” He also appears to be acting either politically expedient, lying or he’s a hypocrite. Unfortunately for me as a hater of all things Clinton, it looks like Obama’s toast.
Why did he stay in the church? Because he’s a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can’t say that. So what should he say?
I am quite sure Obama is Christian, he wanted to go to a church. There are many churches in Chicago he could have gone to but he chose this one.
He did it because it was good for his politics at the time, and at the time he probably didn’t figure it would be a problem in the future, maybe the future wouldn’t be possible without the present.
We’ve already heard from people in the past claiming he’s not black enough, attending this church was probably to bolster his black appeal at the start of his political life.
It was smart politics at the time.
I’ve heard enough from him to believe he’s not a racist and doesn’t hold Wrights views. I can’t prove it, no more than I can’t prove McCain’s not a KKK sympathiser, though I’m quite sure he’s not.
I’m more interested in how he handles this from a politician stand point, and I think he’s done a good job so far on what is a tough challenge for him.
I listend to Laura Ingram this morning for the first time in a while, it seemed in the 30 mins I heard that she is set on a course of ignoring the speech and attributing Wrights most inflamatory views as the same views Obama must hold, then set about doing a hit job on them without directly doing so on Obama but making sure he was very much linked into it all.
Given her successes with her campaign against McCain I’m optimistic.
I find CottonCandyObama’s current situation encouraging. Hillary has regained the lead in the polls, but I think CottonCandyObama’s got the nomination in the bag. The Democrap party simply can’t afford the permanent damage they’ll suffer if CottonCandyObama has a majority of regular delegates and gets screwed out of the nomination. Originally, McCain had a better chance of beating Hillary than CottonCandyObama, but I think maybe that’s changed. The revelation that he’s enthusiastically embraced a proven racist and America-hater as his mentor and pastor for over twenty years has done a lot of damage. It won’t hurt him that much with his enthusiastic supporters, but it seems to be having a significant effect on the fence straddlers. As much as he and the MSM would like it to, I don’t think the issue is gonna go away. Not only does it raise questions about whether CottonCandyObama secretly shares those racist/anti-American attitudes, but it also raises serious questions about his judgement. “Do we really want someone in the White House who was stupid enough to not see something so obvious as being a huge problem?” I think you’ll see that question raised in the general campaign.
Like I’ve said, I’ve thought that CottonCandyObama was more electable than Hillary, and thus preferred that Hillary get the nomination, but I was terrified at the thought that I could be wrong and she might actually win in the general election. I’m happy to say that I no longer think that’s the case. This really is an encouraging development. Hillary is gonna be encouraged by the new polls and, smelling blood in the water, she’s gonna fight right down to the very end, damaging CottonCandy even more. She’d rather McCain win than CottonCandyObama. That way, she could run again in ‘12. If CottonCandyObama won, she wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of taking it from him in ‘12, and by ‘16 she’ll be to old. Her only chance of winning the White House ever is to win now or have McCain win now and then run in ‘12. She’s gonna do as much damage to Obama as she thinks she can get away with. No, McCain doesn’t have the election in the bag, but he has a helluva lot better chance now.
I’ve heard enough from him to believe he’s not a racist and doesn’t hold Wrights views. I can’t prove it, no more than I can’t prove McCain’s not a KKK sympathiser, though I’m quite sure he’s not.
I’m more interested in how he handles this from a politician stand point, and I think he’s done a good job so far on what is a tough challenge for him.
That’s fine and good… but attending a racist church and hanging out with local radicals doesn’t really help push the image he wants… and shows poor judgement. And, they’re things you’d never accept from someone on ‘the other side’.
I’ve heard enough from him to believe he’s not a racist and doesn’t hold Wrights views. I can’t prove it, no more than I can’t prove McCain’s not a KKK sympathizer, though I’m quite sure he’s not.
I’m more interested in how he handles this from a politician stand point, and I think he’s done a good job so far on what is a tough challenge for him.
That’s fine and good… but attending a racist church and hanging out with local radicals doesn’t really help push the image he wants… and shows poor judgement. And, they’re things you’d never accept from someone on ‘the other side’.
Like I say, I think I know why he did it (explained in the article). and I’m ok with it. In this case and in my opinion the ends justifying the means.
I’d certainly accept the same from an African American Republican candidate.
I’ve heard enough from him to believe he’s not a racist and doesn’t hold Wrights views. I can’t prove it, no more than I can’t prove McCain’s not a KKK sympathizer, though I’m quite sure he’s not.
I’m more interested in how he handles this from a politician stand point, and I think he’s done a good job so far on what is a tough challenge for him.
That’s fine and good… but attending a racist church and hanging out with local radicals doesn’t really help push the image he wants… and shows poor judgement. And, they’re things you’d never accept from someone on ‘the other side’.
Like I say, I think I know why he did it (explained in the article). and I’m ok with it. In this case and in my opinion the ends justifying the means.
I’d certainly accept the same from an African American Republican candidate.
Well, I wouldn’t… Or from McCain were it all turned around (and I don’t believe you would either)....
