[e_blazer1]

Well, at least I'm not the only one that thinks this is a big problem for Obama:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...16-obama_N.htm

[Dan]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Well, at least I'm not the only one that thinks this is a big problem for Obama:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...16-obama_N.htm

Yah..conservatives who weren't voting for him in the first place. As for the proof of the change in leads, that really means nothing now. Considering A: he's not the nominee yet B: we're a nation of short attention span voters who forget things easily C: McCain is not in the country so we're not reminded of how he supported the war that most of us don't like and wants to continue it and sang "bomb bomb Iran" (to the tune of the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann).

On top of that, there isn't a day that goes buy that the lead doesn't change in totality, or who is in the lead.

Not saying it's not a bad thing, but saying that a conservative didn't like it, isn't really saying much.

[e_blazer1]

Hap, this is going to matter in the remaining primaries between now and the Democratic convention when Clinton's camp uses it to swing voters who are on the fence. Obama's given the Clinton camp ammunition that she can use, and you'd better believe the Clintons know how to use this kind of thing. If the delegate count is close at all, it's going to matter at the Convention because superdelegates are going to worry about what McCain can do with in the fall campaign. If Barack manages to get the nomination in spite of this, it's going to matter to a whole lot of voters after those clips have been played a few thousand times and the political spin-meisters have had a chance to do their thing.

I don't see this thing dying down because it's just too juicy of a story for the press to keep digging at. Frankly, IMO, if Obama wants to survive this thing, he has to find a way to rise above it. He has to use it as a rallying cry for the country to rise above old hatreds and move forward in a new direction. Unfortunately for him, I think he missed that opportunity by not using his clout to get Wright put out to pasture as soon as he learned of the things he was saying. He admits he knew about it for at least a year, and I don't see how it's really possible the he didn't know about it much longer than that. In any event, how do you make the case that you're the man to lead the country out of biggotry and racial strife when you don't even take steps to root it out in your own church?

[Dan]

I would wonder how common this kind of attitude is in african american churches. I don't think it's like he went Louis Farrakhan on things. And again, McCain had 2 endorsements from guys who said as inflamatory things as Wright said.

I'm wondering if Wright will make a comment about it or not.

I don't think that those "on the fence" will be swayed by this. Partly because it can come off as being naive about how Blacks feel about certain subjects, and partly because I think voters are smarter that.

There is going to be negative spin by both sides, but it already hasn't been "spun". It's really not much of an issue anymore (I mean, it IS an issue, but it's not a huge one).

As for the delegates, if the party doesn't go with who has the most votes (barring a real scandal, such as Obama getting arrested for something), it will, not might, it WILL hurt the party. Going against the popular vote basically will be the Democratic party doing exactly what so many Democrats hate about the 2000 election.

They can't afford to screw things up by doing that.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by Hap

I don't think that those "on the fence" will be swayed by this. Partly because it can come off as being naive about how Blacks feel about certain subjects, and partly because I think voters are smarter that.

Hey now . . . I might not be the most informed political person, but I don't see anything naive about this topic or think voters are dumb if they consider this an issue.

I'm trying to learn about Obama and discover he has been attending a church and has what sounds like a deep (maybe influnetial) relationship with a pastor who spews a lot of hate and oppression.

I'm not sure what "naive about how Blacks feel about certain subjects" means (and sounds a little racist to me) but I am concerned that Obama attended a church for 20 years where the pastor seems very extreme. I'm also concerned with the idea that Obama makes it sound like he is naive to all these ideas the pastor had by saying he never attended a sermon where this stuff was said . . . yet it is such a powerful and strongly believed message being sent out there (to the point they are making tapes of the sermon), how could he be naive to the pastor's thoughts.

What hits home to me (and I think the other dumb voters . . . according to the polls) is Obama's ability to make "smart" choices about the people he associtaes with.

I think it is clear through the polls (unless those are bogus conservative polls) that this is an issue for many . . . and personally it won't go away because "smart" people call it a non-issue . . . it will go away, for me, when Obama convinces me that he showed good judgement attending this chruch and that he does not feel the same way as the pastor.

[e_blazer1]

It's not going to go away:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote20...4464194&page=1

The Democratic strategists are in duck and cover mode:

Referencing the tight delegate race ahead for the Democratic candidates, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile called the Wright focus "a distraction" to the campaign. He's running to be commander in chief, not preacher in chief, and I understand that Sen. Obama had to both distance himself and to denounce those types of statements. … I would hope that Obama and for that matter Sen. [Hillary] Clinton who also had to distance herself from some controversial remarks from some of her supporters, I will hope they get back on the issues so that the Democrats have a fighting chance to win in November.

Yeah, that race thing, that's not a national issue at all.

I think this quote by Juan Williams is spot on:

This has caught him up in the middle of a very racial dispute," Williams said on "Good Morning America" today. "One that seems to separate black and white and suggested that [Obama] came into that community wanting to be identified with the black community, at a time when he was questioned as to whether or not he was authentically black. Now, he's trying to distance himself from that very church and say he didn't know things that he obviously had to know.

In my view, Obama's church is taking exactly the wrong tact in their response to last week's national media attention. They're saying that these remarks are being taken out of context and that the media are smearing Wright and, by inference, the Afro-American church. Sorry, but there's no context in which it's okay to preach "God Damn America", that America deserved the attacks on the WTC, that the government was behind the development of the HIV virus, or the racial crapola he spewed in those clips.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

it will go away, for me, when Obama convinces me that he showed good judgement attending this chruch and that he does not feel the same way as the pastor.

And what would it take to convince you of that?

barfo

[crandc]

This issue and the wall to wall coverage have hurt Obama, at least short term. Remains to be seen if it hurts long term. Guess it depends on whether what a preacher said is more important that staying in Iraq another 100 years.

McCain has associated himself with extreme bigoted preachers, one of whom, Rev. Parsley, is a huckster who makes a killing by selling scarves or somesuch that will supposedly bring financial success and good health (well, they sure brought him financial success). He had previously denounced these same individuals but has flip-flopped this year. The difference is that it is much more acceptable to preach hatred of Jews, Catholics, Muslims, women, and gays than to be seen as "anti-white". And while McCain does not have to prove he is not a racist, Obama has to prove he is not anti-white (even though he was raised by a white mother).

McCain can sing and dance, literally, about starting a new war and that is considered less of a problem than what a preacher said? Strange world.

BTW, Nicholas Kristof wrote a piece in the NY Times op-ed page claiming that Obama was there on the day this sermon was preached. He got that "information" from some right-wing blog, a really reliable source on Obama. In fact records show Obama was in another state (Florida) on that date. As of last check the NY Times has not printed a correction. I am willing to bet this false statement will be used to "prove" Obama really was there...

[e_blazer1]

crandc, for me the issue isn't what Wright said in his sermons. The issue is the inaction of Obama on the matter when, by his own admission, he's known about at least one of Wright's diatribes for at least a year. In the intervening period he's done nothing to try to get Wright to stop preaching a divisive and hate-filled message to the church that Obama has attended for twenty years and continues to support financially. IMO, it's extremely unlikely that Obama hasn't known about Wright's inflamatory message for a lot longer than that, given the close relationship that Obama has described about him.

The McCain/Parsley issue is a red herring argument. McCain only met the guy at a campaign rally three weeks ago. He says he's never attended one of Parsley's services. Sure, I'm betting that McCain really regrets not having checked the guy out closer before calling him a "moral compass" and a "spiritual guide", but those things do happen in any campaign. To compare that with a twenty year close relationship between Obama and Wright is absurd. But, if it comes to light that there's more to the story than we've seen so far, I'd be among the first to condemn McCain for any significant relationship with this bozo.

As far as the NY Times op-ed piece, it was actually written by William Kristol and he has added a retraction to the on-line version of the column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/op...on&oref=slogin

Everybody in America has an opinion on the war and Middle East policy. Those opinions are entrenched and, barring some terrorist attack or some unforeseen event in Iraq, people aren't likely to change their opinions before the election. Despite the polarizing impact of disagreement over the war, the polls show that the election is going to be very close next fall. Obama and the Democrats can't afford to lose voters who will react negatively because of this story. There's still a lot of time left before the election, so who really knows how this will play out. But, IMO, this has hurt Obama's chances significantly.

[crandc]

My apologies to Kristof. Absolutely my bad for not double checking before mixing up names. Unlike Bush, I admit mistakes.

I'm glad the Times printed a correction.

As for Obama telling Wright what to preach and what not to preach, that would be totally out of line. Wright does have the right (sorry) to his free speech and to say what he wishes from his pulpit. As does any other clergy member. Like Falwell, who blamed 9/11 on gays and teaching evolution, remember? A person can decide to attend or not attend a particular house of worship depending on what a clergyperson says. He/she may decide there are reasons to keep attending even if he/she disagrees with the clergyperson. But to tell someone what to say from the pulpit? Can't do that.

Well, I don't know about in Christian churches. In Judaism the pulpit is considered to belong to the rabbi. I might leave a congregation but I sure would not tell him/her what to say or not say.

And I don't think McCain calling someone a spiritual advisor who is a moneygrubber and says the US was founded to destroy Islam is minor. I mean, I'm a Jew, if his advisor said the US was founded to destroy Judaism would you tell me oh don't worry, just a red herring? You can tell me that but I'm not buying. Wright never said "destroy white people", after all. And I think a lot of the denunciation is by folks who did not actually hear him. It's just going around Obama is anti-white.

E_blazer, do you agree that being considered "anti-white" is taken more seriously than being anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, sexist?

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by crandc

As for Obama telling Wright what to preach and what not to preach, that would be totally out of line. Wright does have the right (sorry) to his free speech and to say what he wishes from his pulpit. As does any other clergy member. Like Falwell, who blamed 9/11 on gays and teaching evolution, remember? A person can decide to attend or not attend a particular house of worship depending on what a clergyperson says. He/she may decide there are reasons to keep attending even if he/she disagrees with the clergyperson. But to tell someone what to say from the pulpit? Can't do that.

I doubt that there's a pastor in America that doesn't get feedback on his messages from time to time. That said, this isn't just making a suggestion about what to preach on, this is about the integrity of the church. When a pastor goes off on something that doesn't conform to biblical principles, it's the responsibility of church elders to address the problem. Wright's comments in those clips are indefensible. From what I've read, I don't think that Obama would be considered an elder in the church, but as perhaps its most influential parishoner, you can bet that he could have gotten the attention of Reverend Wright any time he wanted to. If not, or if Reverend Wright wouldn't change his message to remove such inflammatory material, then Obama had the responsibility to vote with his feet and leave the church.

And I don't think McCain calling someone a spiritual advisor who is a moneygrubber and says the US was founded to destroy Islam is minor. I mean, I'm a Jew, if his advisor said the US was founded to destroy Judaism would you tell me oh don't worry, just a red herring? You can tell me that but I'm not buying. Wright never said "destroy white people", after all. And I think a lot of the denunciation is by folks who did not actually hear him. It's just going around Obama is anti-white.

I don't know anything about this pastor other than a couple of paragraphs in recent articles. If what I've read is accurate, then I think that guy is way out of line as well. I wouldn't attend his church and I'd denounce what he said. What's different here is "plausible deniability". To me, it's perfectly plausible for McCain to be introduced one time to a guy at a campaign rally, not know much about him, and go over the top in saying nice things about him. When it turns out the guy's a schmuck, I find it reasonable for McCain to say that he disagrees with what the pastor had written and that he didn't know about those positions when he made the comments about him being a "spiritual leader". It falls into the category of sticking your foot in your mouth and I'm willing to at least give him the benefit of the doubt on it until shown otherwise. In Obama's case, I find it to be implausible that he's attended that church for 20 years and had a close personal relationship with Wright and yet didn't know that he's got some serious issues. He admits that he's known about at least one of the incidents for over a year and yet he's done nothing that we know of to address the situation. Up until last week, Wright was still on his spiritual advisory committee.

E_blazer, do you agree that being considered "anti-white" is taken more seriously than being anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, sexist?

No, crandc, I don't. I think that if a white candidate came out today with a message that was overtly anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, or sexist, his or her career would be finished; and rightly so. Do I think that there are still a lot of neanderthals out there who would find it acceptable for a white person to make a derogatory comment about people in those groups, but who would get riled up over an anti-white comment? Absolutely, but I do not believe that someone in the public arena can get away with publicly expressing such views...at least on a national level. Perhaps, unfortunately, there may still be some local areas where that is not the case.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by barfo

And what would it take to convince you of that?

barfo

I don't know . . . I guess just trying to say that I haven't made up my mind based on what I know thus far and will listen further to what Obama and company has to say.

But I'm at the point that if the hope all this is going to go away, it won't for me. In fact I feel like giving my vote (woo-hoo, one vote) to someone else if their feeling is this will all go away . . . and this is a poster who has donated (nominal amount) to Obama's campaing.