[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

Although some, including me, put more weight on 20 years of action than a few minutes of speaking, or writing a book (which he COULD have had other incentives for writing, ie. $$).

Those are huge exaggerations, in both directions. Obama has given a lot more than a few minutes of speaking time over his political career and in his two books on the topic of race and race relations. Of course, those speeches and books had motivations, to advance his political career and make money. If you use that standard to dismiss them entirely, than nothing any politician ever says or writes tells us anything, which is pretty absurd. He has not only talked about those issues in a way contrary to that of Rev Wright, which until he ran for the national office of president served him with no obvious political or financial benefit as you'd have us believe, but he talked about them in a way that is expansive and detailed, which indicates he has given it a lot of thought, and is very difficult to fake.

And that 20 years of action as you describe it covers attending a church that by all accounts spent only a small fraction of its time, with Obama not even present, on the topics of the sermons you saw on Youtube, and spent most of it's time on the Gospels and being a premiere community service institution in the area. I don't think exaggeration strengthens your point.

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

Agreed. However, all groups are pretty large sample sets, so most likely you have both unbiased and uniformed in all groups.

What you originally said was that we should listen to undecided voters. What I said was that we should listen instead to the people who are familiar with the topic at hand. If we want to know about Barack Obama's character, then we should look to people who know something about it, such as what he has said and done over his lifetime, which if you are familiar with it, you'd see it evidences an ideology totally at odds with Rev Wright's Black separatism.

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

Those are huge exaggerations, in both directions. Obama has given a lot more than a few minutes of speaking time over his political career and in his two books on the topic of race and race relations. Of course, those speeches and books had motivations, to advance his political career and make money. If you use that standard to dismiss them entirely, than nothing any politician ever says or writes tells us anything, which is pretty absurd. He has not only talked about those issues in a way contrary to that of Rev Wright, which until he ran for the national office of president served him with no obvious political or financial benefit as you'd have us believe, but he talked about them in a way that is expansive and detailed, which indicates he has given it a lot of thought, and is very difficult to fake.

And that 20 years of action as you describe it covers attending a church that by all accounts spent only a small fraction of its time, with Obama not even present, on the topics of the sermons you saw on Youtube, and spent most of it's time on the Gospels and being a premiere community service institution in the area. I don't think exaggeration strengthens your point.



What you originally said was that we should listen to undecided voters. What I said was that we should listen instead to the people who are familiar with the topic at hand. If we want to know about Barack Obama's character, then we should look to people who know something about it, such as what he has said and done over his lifetime, which if you are familiar with it, you'd see it evidences an ideology totally at odds with Rev Wright's Black separatism.

Have you decided who you will vote for?

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

If you use that standard to dismiss them entirely, than nothing any politician ever says or writes tells us anything, which is pretty absurd.

It is not absurd at all. And I am holding other candidates to the same standard. I don't care NEARLY as much what McCain says about his economic policies as I do about how he as acted in his last few decades as a senator.

It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out which of those are better indicators of what we should expect if elected president.

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

I'm also skeptical of politicians, but within reason. If a guy makes a topic the central theme of all his campaigns and two books (those are actions, by the way), I tend to believe it's not an act, because it's hard to maintain a lie over a long period of time. If a guy goes into great informative reasonable-sounding detail about why he holds a certain position, I also tend to believe it's not an act, because it's hard to be so descriptive about a lie or an insincere belief.

If you want a fairly concise answer, read the text of his speech responding to the accusations, and know (if you will take my word for it) that it isn't qualitatively different than what he's been saying for years. Skepticism is fine and generally healthy, but if it isn't affected by context and other factors, then it only will serve to confuse rather than inform you.

I don't believe that Obama is a hidden racist, but I do think that this issue is important because of what he failed to do relative to his church. The guy rises to the national stage over the past few years, writes two books, and puts together a campaign platform that talk about his abilities as a racial uniter...and yet he does nothing to change the divisive culture of the church he attends? How do you square those two things in your mind, duds? Was he oblivious to the message of black liberation theology as trumpeted by Wright and mentioned on the church's website? Did he not see that as potentially a big deal for the first serious black candidate for president? Did he not see Wright feeding racial biases to thousands of primarily black parishoners as something a guy who wants to be the leader of this country might want to disassociate himself from? What does that say about his judgment and leadership qualities?

Sorry, but I don't think a nifty speech gets him a bye on this one from a lot of folks in this country. Recent polls show that a sizable portion of Hillary's supporters will give their vote to McCain rather than Obama if he is the candidate next fall. They also show that this is a big deal for independents. I still think that this will be the straw that eventually breaks the back of his candidacy.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...church+%2Bleft

Ah my mistake. Good judgement on Oprah's part

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

If the question is about whether this should be relevant, then I don't think it makes sense to ask the guy who admittedly doesn't know much about Obama what this issue tells us about Obama. The unbiased should have more credibility, but not the uninformed.

If this is refering to me, I would agree that I am unbias (probably more bias to democrats because of Bush) but also uniformed.

Given that, the reason I think it should be relevant is because this is the little information most of us know about Obama outside of his campaign rhetoric.

I was hoping posters would say no worries about the pastor's views, Obama has clearly demonstrated through his public (and maybe private) work that he is a uniter. Instead I read a lot of you can't hold him responisble for what his pastor says.

I guess if I heard the pastor completely support the war in Iraq and went off the deep end saying Iran and N. Korea should be next, I wouldn't be concerned that Obama attended his church because Obama has stated publically he was against the war at the time (I think even voted on it) . . . basically showed his true colors on that issue.

I know you mentioned the books he has written, which is the closest anyone has suggested about his action . . . I'm not sold that his writings convinces me, but you did try to address my concerns. His speech also helped answer some questions and has probably brought me back to him.

Unlike e, I"m not concerned about his judgment in terms of he is an incredibly bright individual who, with a good administration can, make good intelligent decisions. He is well spoken and could probably unite the country as he speaks for us to the world.

But I strongly believe Bush had hidden agendas with his religious beliefs and strong affilations with corporate America . . . and his decision making was swayed by that. Are we going to get the same thing with Obama.

I want a president who will create a strong economy, rebuild the middle class and not enter into war at the drop of a hat . . . Iraq and 911, give me a break.

Going off track . . . someone mentioned Bush and his statement we are "not the world police" and that is actually why I voted for him the first time around. Then we go into Iraq, find no WMD, no connections to 911 and then Bush starts parading how we got rid of an evil dicatator . . . I thought we weren't going to be the world police or be responisble for building other nations?????

Anyways, it should be interesting to see when the gloves come completely off and Obama and McCain go at it. If there is any advantage to Clinton battling Obama now, it takes the sting out of it when McCain tries to hit Obama with the pastor thing . . . been there done that . . .

[barfo]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

I still think that this will be the straw that eventually breaks the back of his candidacy.

You could be "Wright". But I seriously doubt it. It seems pretty clear that he's gotten past this in terms of the primary, and that he will be the nominee. The race with Hillary is all over but the shouting and the bitter recriminations.

Wright will surely come up again, at least momentarily, in the general - but we haven't yet begun to sling dirt at the old adulterous warmonger with an anger management problem who was rebuked by his fellow senators for his lack of ethics. Wright will be ancient news by then. New dirt will be necessary.

barfo

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by barfo

You could be "Wright". But I seriously doubt it. It seems pretty clear that he's gotten past this in terms of the primary, and that he will be the nominee. The race with Hillary is all over but the shouting and the bitter recriminations.

This issue will never get much traction from Obama's supporters, but that doesn't mean that Hillary won't be able to use it behind the scenes to try and sway the superdelegates. In fact, according to an article I saw yesterday, she and Bill are already telling the superdelegates that they should support Hillary because Obama is "unelectable", presumably primarily because of the Wright incident. In order for that argument to hold sway, Hillary will have to score a very strong win in Pennsylvania...and get past her own Bosnia gaffe that may make her "unelectable" as well. Bottom line, I think that you're correct that Obama will be the Democratic candidate this fall. My own point on this is if the campaign this fall is as close as current polls say it will be, the Wright brouhaha will play a central role in the election because it will resonate strongly with independents and with a fair portion of Hillary's backers who will choose to vote for McCain rather than Obama. This was exactly the wrong scandal to hit Obama because it hits right at two gut issues for middle America: patriotism and religion. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I do think that this issue, rightly or wrongly, will swing the election.

Wright will surely come up again, at least momentarily, in the general - but we haven't yet begun to sling dirt at the old adulterous warmonger with an anger management problem who was rebuked by his fellow senators for his lack of ethics. Wright will be ancient news by then. New dirt will be necessary.

barfo

Oh, there's not doubt that there will be a lot of mud slinging in both directions in this election. Politics is always messy, but will be especially so this time around because of the hatred for everything Bush and his crew have done by a large segment of our society, and the equally strong hatred for everything "liberal" by a similarly large segment of the population. All of which goes to my contention that it's the independent swing voters who will carry the day and that Obama is in deep crapola with that group because of Wright's rantings and Obama's inability to distance himself sufficiently from the fallout over them.

I guess we'll see in November whether I'm right or not.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

I guess we'll see in November whether I'm right or not.

Indeed we shall. And in the unlikely event we remember this thread by then, we can come back to crow, or eat crow.

barfo

[e_blazer1]

Originally Posted by barfo

Indeed we shall. And in the unlikely event we remember this thread by then, we can come back to crow, or eat crow.

barfo

Oh, I suspect it will be remembered. Crowing is fun and so is serving it up.

[maxiep]

I normally try to look at the bigger picture, but in this case I think the most important view is myopic. It doesn't matter if the general public has gotten "past" this issue. Two groups matter in this case: 1) what the swing voters in battleground states think about this issue; and 2) whether or not the Democratic Party's liberal Jewish base will fully fund and support Obama in the General.

The swing voters will likely be white, blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. If Obama loses the Jewish vote, Florida and perhaps New Jersey could be in real danger for the Dems. If Hillary can show that the Reverend Wright (along with her base of older women staying home) has impacted these groups to the point where these states will end up in McCain's pocket, she can show he is unelectable.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I normally try to look at the bigger picture, but in this case I think the most important view is myopic. It doesn't matter if the general public has gotten "past" this issue. Two groups matter in this case: 1) what the swing voters in battleground states think about this issue; and 2) whether or not the Democratic Party's liberal Jewish base will fully fund and support Obama in the General.

I think 2 is pretty clearly not an issue. Obama isn't having any trouble at all raising money, he collected another $40 million in March. Whether he's getting the money from Jews or not I don't know, but it doesn't matter, money is money.

barfo