The media are making quite a lot of Barak Obama’s entry into the real world of politics. No, I’m not talking about the sloppy, wet kisses the press has thrown at Obama for months. I’m talking about the actual scrutiny this man who wants to be president may be getting because his mentor, Jeremiah Wright is a bigot.
I guess Obama believes the cooing of people like Jeromy Brown, who want to fellate the presidential candidate. How else to explain his ridiculous attempts to dismiss questions about the role Wright has played in shaping Obama’s opinions and positions through 20 years at his church? Yesterday, we were even faced with the spectacle of moonbats using Clintonian techniques to try to dismiss criticism of Obama’s choice of churches. I mean, please. Does it truly matter if Obama attended the July 22 meeting or not? Wright spewed his hatred of white people week after week. This isn’t something Wright saved up for when Obama was strategically missing from the pews.
Now we have Obama giving his Mitt Romney religion speech, and liberals seem to think it will put the whole thing to rest. Gosh, Obama wants to transcend race! He doesn’t care about race! He makes white liberals feel all squiggly inside, and that’s not guilt!
I can honestly say I don’t care that Obama is black. Like most white Americans born after 1960, I grew up in desegregated schools and have lived with and been friends with many black people over the years. Does that mean I don’t think racism exists in America? Nope. I know there are people who hate other people for being black, but I also recognize that the reverse is true and that there’s no justification for that, either. You can argue all you want about lunch counters, drinking fountains, and housing, but the bottom line is that until we accept that racism has existed but we don’t condone it these days, we’ll never get past it. And, by the way, some people will never get past it, which is the poison Rev. Wright was preaching and Barak Obama was lapping up week after week in his church.
Don’t tell me that Obama didn’t like blaming someone else for his failures (however few they may have been) or those of people he cared for. It’s much easier to blame some institutionalized racism or sexism for failures or difficulties than to accept responsibility. Both Barak and Michelle Obama have had the opportunity to attend institutions that would have laughed at my application. Did race play a part in that? Probably, but I think having terrific grades and better accomplishments played a bigger role.
But what do I know? I’m just a white woman who, according to Rev. Wright, have never seen discrimination.
Of course, no counterpart to Rev. Wright exists on the Right.
Except for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson (who ran for the Republican nomination), James Dobson, Ted Haggard (an advisor to Pres. Bush until that unfortunate crystal meth/gay prostitute story broke), Bob Jones Jr., Ralph Reed, Tim LaHaye, and on and on…
No offense, BS, but none of the people you mention escaped scrutiny for 20 years. All were hounded and excoriated for years because of their views. Wright isn’t the only person on the Left to hold his views, but the media typically give lefties a pass on hate speech.
BTW, are you arguing that if there are others on the Right who say things you find repugnant, then it is acceptable for the Left to do so as well? My mama never bought that argument.
Is there some reason, Sharon, you aren’t spelling Barack Obama’s name correctly?
And do you think Barack Obama holds Wright’s views towards white people? Are you afraid Barack Obama is a secret Black Panther? Do you think he will usher in some new era of racism towards white people? Is there any scrap of evidence for any of that besides Obama’s church attendance? Do you think there’s the slightest tiniest chance that Obama understands when blacks vent their feelings the same way he understands when whites vent theirs…much like he said in his speech?
Or is this just smear tactics as usual? BTW, when is John McCain going to denounce the views of John Hagee like Obama has denounced Wright’s?
Jeromy is there some reason your whole comment in #3 was all sophistry? Just saying, ya know?
Empty Suits and Empty Promises
Would I trust this man to be the President of the free world knowing he has just thrown his grandmother under the bus to gain his political position that continues to fill his empty suit?
I don’t think so. Obama is catering to the same pricipals that Carter and Clinton and many of the left use to bring race into the conversation as some “white-suppression” conspiracy that only the liberal left have the tools to provide, (more failed government-dependency-welfare programs), that some how blacks will emerge from their oppression. How many more generations will it take for Black America to wake up to the bullshit rhetoric that liberals use to make themselves feel good about themselves while promising some new government program that will pull Blacks from their conceived suppression?
Obama’s embracement of Wrights screeds only solidifies his socialist mentality that a diverse society can only be mended by government intervention. With Obama’s speech today, he has solidified a large percentage of the black vote while providing no change in the status quo. But who’s surprised?
pg: were it not for the order I’d have thought you were talking about Rodin’s comment.
I take it then that you find my questions problematic for those seeking to perpetuate racist stereotypes and paint Obama as some whitey-hatin’ stealth candidate. Your problem is you know he isn’t, but Obama’s opponents need to stoke that fear because criticism of Obama’s libertarian approaches to liberal programs won’t hack it with a populace that supports those policies.
[...] Perhaps that is part of why I don’t believe the arguments such as those made by Jeromy Brown in the comments at my other post on this subject. Does Obama’s continued participation in an organization run by a bigot reflect badly on him? I would say it certainly does, especially considering the arguments made by liberals when it comes to religion on the right. [...]
I dunno. It’s pretty hard to listen to Obama’s speech, then listen to Sharon and feel like she understood it at all. Complex ideas turned into, “Gosh, Obama wants to transcend race! He doesn’t care about race! He makes white liberals feel all squiggly inside, and that’s not guilt!”…”BTW, did I mention he attended that church for 20 years!?!?”
What I hear from Sharon is, “I swear I’m not racist so shut up about it, and I don’t care if you’re old enough to have lived through the bad old days!” The more one dismisses the perspectives of blacks like Wright, the more it looks like one is dismissing the wrongs that pushed him over the edge of reason into prejudice. Obama understands that Wright’s attitudes aren’t cool, but it would be an even bigger victory for white racism if Obama were weak enough to disown Wright. He’s correct in his analogy to an uncle.
Wright is family to him. And I don’t know about you, Sharon, but I have some folks in my family who are seriously politically incorrect as well. I love them still, no matter my disappointment, because they are family to me. And that doesn’t mean their views define my own.
Sharon’s obsessed with the “gotcha” here. Obama’s substance on this issue just trumps that beyond reasonable question.
Jeromy,
You are confusing “understanding” with “believing.” I understand perfectly the words Obama used. I reject both his tolerance for a bigot and the excuses he made for him.
My father died a couple of weeks ago, Jeromy. Most reasonable people who read my blog and this one knew that and knew that I was devoted to him (and, btw, the distraction of grief might explain my misspelling of Obama’s name–not that I expect a pass from someone like you). But guess what? My father was a bigot. And once I was old enough to call him on it, I never missed an opportunity to do so. So, I don’t buy the “Wright is family. I couldn’t say anything to him” bullshit. Wright was not family. He was a minister, someone Obama chose to admire and bring into his life. As you pointed out, we don’t choose our relatives. That’s why tolerating loved ones shows maturity but embracing racists shows a lack of character.
I think Obama sat in the pews lapping up Wright’s intolerance week after week because it made Obama feel good and justified for whatever anger he held and still holds. You think Wright is justified in being a bigot? That’s odd, because I’m sure you don’t give the same pass to any white guy who is a bigot because of some perceived injustice from black people or the system. To say that because Wright lived through Jim Crow that it gives him a pass to teach hatred to children who have never been through it is disgusting. And Obama didn’t mind Wright teaching his children that white people gave black people AIDS.
BTW, Jeromy, there are ways that older black people can teach younger people about segregation and about their experiences with it (I should know because I’ve had long and fascinating discussions with people who have faced such situations), but railing about the white devil week after week isn’t the way to create a society that accepts all people regardless of skin color. It’s a great way to stir up more hatred and resentment. So, I get Obama’s argument, Jeromy. I just don’t buy it, anymore than I buy Mr. HopeNChange’s other rhetoric.
My father was a bigot. And once I was old enough to call him on it, I never missed an opportunity to do so.
But would you have called him out in public on it? Would you have denounced him in front of people who weren’t family?
We don’t know what Obama did or did not say to Wright in private. All we know is that he said nothing in public; and I submit that many people, even those who agree that the loving thing to do would be to call their family on their flaws in private, would be reticent to do so in public.
Wright was not family. He was a minister, someone Obama chose to admire and bring into his life.
Many in my cultural milieu have “family” which includes close friends; it does not strike me as odd that Obama might.
Or is this just smear tactics as usual? BTW, when is John McCain going to denounce the views of John Hagee like Obama has denounced Wright’s?
Oh, maybe when McCain sits in the pew in front of Hagee for 20 years, gets married in his church, has his kids baptized by Hagee and calls Hagee his mentor. That’s when.
Yorkshire: Good to see your standard exists only for Obama. Obviously McCain can’t be expected to say whether he agrees with Hagee’s views.
Sharon: “I think Obama sat in the pews lapping up Wright’s intolerance week after week because it made Obama feel good and justified for whatever anger he held and still holds.”
Tune in next week for another episode of Rightwing Psychic Detective!
Obama is angry? This is the least angriest, most conciliatory black man on the planet, Sharon. He just gave one of the most intelligent mature speeches on America’s race problems that any politician has dared. Your description of his thought process just tells me he’s a Democrat you don’t want winning in November, and you’ll say anything towards that objective.
But would you have called him out in public on it? Would you have denounced him in front of people who weren’t family?
Actually, I did call him out in public on multiple occasions because I felt his opinions on certain subjects were unacceptable. It had nothing to do with my love and respect for him in other areas of my life, but I wasn’t going to sit by and have people assume I shared his views because I was unwilling to say something.
Perhaps it is that personal history that makes me less than sympathetic to Obama’s situation. Regardless of whether some people consider friends to be family–and I have friends we consider that way–we all still choose to associate with friends. It is the choice I question.
I suppose the whole topic is quite depressing when I think too much about it. Here I had assumed that we were supposed to be getting past race as a barrier and now I am hearing from multiple sources that not only are we not getting past it, but by demanding that we denounce racism we are ourselves racist.
Yorkshire: Good to see your standard exists only for Obama. Obviously McCain can’t be expected to say whether he agrees with Hagee’s views.
Libs have provided the biggest belly laughs of all times. For Decades the Left has excoriated the Religious Right, denigrated religions, and have done everything to make sure the word GOD does not enter the public discourse in any way shape or form. Now come comment’s on BO’s minister and the Left keeps up its decades long religious rant, but the Right is not suppose to utter a word when it happens on your side. Thanks for the laugh. Your hypocrisy and double standard is showing again.
Actually, I did call him out in public on multiple occasions because I felt his opinions on certain subjects were unacceptable.
OK, that’s fair. I still think that criticizing in private and maintaining solidarity in public is a course that many people take, but I can understand where, having not taken that course, you could object when others do.
It is the choice I question.
I don’t think any of us really have the standing to do that in this case, though. I have no idea, except through what Sen. Obama has said in this speech, what the qualities Mr. Wright had which endeared Sen. Obama to him; nor do I have any idea whether or not, for example, Sen. Obama started off agreeing with Mr. Wright and then grew and learned and changed in a way which caused him to no longer agree with Mr. Wright — said growth and learning and changing occuring *after* the strong emotional bond between them developed.
I’d like to think that this was the case, but then I want to be able to think the best of people whenever I can.
Here I had assumed that we were supposed to be getting past race as a barrier and now I am hearing from multiple sources that not only are we not getting past it, but by demanding that we denounce racism we are ourselves racist.
I don’t think we’ve gotten past race as a barrier. Are things better than they were? Yes. Are they to the point where the barrier is gone? No … nor, perhaps, should we expect that. Tribalism runs deep in human nature.
But I don’t see “by demanding that we denounce racism we are ourselves racist”, at least, not from Sen. Obama’s speech. In his speech, he *did* denounce racism — both the racism of Mr. Wright and the racism of his grandmother. We can criticize him for not having done so sooner, and I think those criticisms are cogent … but it doesn’t seem fair to accuse him of saying that those who ask that racism be denounced are racist.
Sharon – I have been sick recently so I have not had the opportunity to visit here or your site. I am very sorry to hear about your father. My prayers are with you.
Jeromy: Don’t you believe that there is a difference between John Hagee, a man who has endorsed Senator McCain but with whom Mr McCain has not been closely affiliated, and Jeremiah Wright, who was the pastor at the church Mr Obama attended for twenty years?
In the end, I don’t think that this story will have “legs.” The vast majority of the people for whom this story is important were never going to vote for Senator Obama anyway, and the people who were seriously considering voting for Mr Obama are unlikely to see this story as important.
But y’all remember that I said previously that even if we assume that Senator McCain wanted to play the race card, he wouldn’t have to lift a finger in that direction? The race card has been dealt — and apparently there are about 47 of ‘em in a deck — while Mr McCain is out of the country!
[...] Barack Obama gave the kind of speech some people will remain diametrically opposed to hearing. The substance of it challenges their rigid calcification. Where he asks Americans to elevate themselves above the old ways, some will refuse. Fortunately, so far, I’ve only seen refusal from rightwing establishment types like Gerson or the bowels of the rightwing blogosphere. The Corner is notable for nothing. How many times have you heard a rightwinger open up his argument with the conclusion, “I am not a racist!” before proving anything? It’s a strategy one should expect first in any sophisticated effort to diminish somebody black. [...]
Tune in next week for another episode of Rightwing Psychic Detective!
You don’t have to be a detective to draw certain conclusions from Obama’s behavior, Jeromy. He stayed with a church that had a bigot for a minister for 20 years. He was married by the bigot. He had his children baptized by the bigot. Regardless of his original protestations–and he did change his argument once cornered–Obama knew and understood the sort of racist, hate-filled rhetoric common in Wright’s sermons. It’s no great leap to assume that when one spends 20 years listening to a preacher that one must–somehow, somewhere–agree with that minister.
But please. Don’t let logic get in the way of your crush, Jeromy. I’ve said all along I dislike Obama because of his policies. Thanks for showing, yet again, why Democrats play the race card whenever possible.
Yorkshire: Sorry, I couldn’t untangle your rightwing boilerplate mumbo jumbo there. Something about it not being fair that Republicans get elected without denouncing nutbag Christianists while Obama doesn’t get credit for specifically denouncing the objectionable views of Wright? Something about you guys still not trusting McCain for daring to denounce Falwell and Robertson 2000?
“It’s no great leap to assume that when one spends 20 years listening to a preacher that one must–somehow, somewhere–agree with that minister.”
About everything, Sharon? Or somewhere? For surely Obama has stated that he agreed with much of what Wright preached…namely the Christian gospel and charity towards the poor.
But you want us to think Obama agreed with the hateful bits Wright preached. There is no evidence in Obama’s character that he does and truckloads of evidence that he doesn’t, but you want to have it that way to shave some points off his approval ratings and swiftboat him.
The real question is why such unprincipled hackery puts you in any position to judge anybody?
Dana: See my comment towards Yorkshire. John McCain said he was happy to have Hagee’s endorsement, which in just about any sane circle entitles us to ask him, “Do you agree with any of the horseshit he peddles?” Obama has answered us honestly to what extent he agrees with Wright, and that’s as much as he owes us. McCain won’t do that, because he tried it in 2000 and was roundly punished by the rightwing Christianist nuts who have kept the Republican Party alive for the past 30 years.
What evidence do you point to to determine that Obama doesn’t agree with the many, many controversial statements Wright screeched from the pulpit, Jeromy? Because Obama says he wants to unify? Because he first said he’d never heard various statements by Wright, then that he’d sort of heard some, then that — of course!– he’d heard them but rejected them? Which version of Obama’s kool aid are you willing to drink?
Obama hasn’t pulled an Al Sharpton for 20 years, no. But he never, ever had a problem with Wright’s rhetoric until it became a political liability for him. If I attended a racist church, regardless of my other actions, you would consider me to be a racist because the act of repeatedly attending the services is evidence of my agreement with the church. Try as you might to discredit this and say that his ONE speech on the subject covers his 20 years in the pews, it doesn’t work. Current polls show that, while Obama’s numbers are no longer in freefall, they aren’t going up, either. That’s because people who might have thought about Obama are now wondering if this is a guy who means anything he says. Lord knows he doesn’t have a record for anything.
Yorkshire: Sorry, I couldn’t untangle your rightwing boilerplate mumbo jumbo there. Something about it not being fair that Republicans get elected without denouncing nutbag Christianists while Obama doesn’t get credit for specifically denouncing the objectionable views of Wright? Something about you guys still not trusting McCain for daring to denounce Falwell and Robertson 2000?
OOOPPPSSSS, my bad. Should have used simpler words. When McCain says (that is speaks out and announces) that Hagee is his mentor (a person you admire and want to emulate) and has a 20 year personal relationship ( that is as his mentor he looks to him for guidance, officiates and blesses his marriage, baptizes his kids, and other acts) I will ask the same question. When McCain says Hagee is part of his family, then it is time to ask. Hope this wasn’t as complicated.
Sharon: Obama’s personal philosophies have been laid out explicitly and length, and the man has never uttered a word that would indicate he agrees with Wright’s more controversial statements, and the beliefs he has laid out are almost mutually exclusive to the Wright statements.
What you have is Obama’s church attendance and refusal to disown the man despite their disagreements, and his explanation, which happens to be completely in accordance with his expressed philosophies and beliefs about. Or you could believe that despite it all, Obama was completely unable to take Wright’s good words and deeds into account without agreeing with him 100% on every jot and tittle, behavior generally consistent with only the stupidest of human beings and Rush Limbaugh fans (I jest, but they’re the ones that call themselves dittoheads).
Honestly, the burden really is on you here, and you’re not making an even slightly reasonable case. Have you convinced me that Obama is a secret hater of the U.S. and white people? Not even close. Is that because I have a man-crush on Obama? Keep telling yourself that, sister. It’s your case that could only be believed by rightwing Kool-Aid drinkers or others governed by fear of blacks. Who else could so quickly interchange white racism with black racism? White racism has centuries of enslaving and terrorizing blacks under its belt, and Wright is of a generation that directly experienced much of that oppression. The man was in his late 20′s by the time black people were finally legally equal to whites. Black racism is borne of being the object of that terrorism and oppression.
Obama’s willingness to see the good in Wright and accept him and his church for all the good that they have done isn’t controversial at all. What’s amazing is his ability to see, understand, and embrace whites who have racist feelings towards blacks. Over and over again your rationale skips right past that part and leaps back to Obama not excluding Wright from his life, but the truth is that Obama used the same philosophy towards whites as blacks, in an effort to bridge the divide you keep perpetuating. Obama walks between both worlds, and you selfishly and blindly keep demanding he belong to your club alone.
This illusion you have created of Obama sitting in the pews for 20 years lapping up daily racist screeds with a smile is only reflective of you, Sharon. Not Obama. It’s indicative of the problem rightwingers have with race, so much so that Obama comes to you with an olive branch and you still can’t take it, because he won’t abandon the other side.
Your ways will not endure, even if your efforts succeed this time…and I do not think they will.
Yorkshire: Uh, no, dude, I didn’t need you to restate yourself. Congrats on the point sailing over your head while you engage in mindless repetition…the calling card of any rightwing hack.
Jeromy: Senator Obama is still pretty much of an unknown. His real persona might be known to his state senate constituents, who had an opportunity to observe him reasonably closely, but then he burst on the national scene, and has been nothing but hyped since. 99.99+% of the country will never get to know him without going through the filter of some third party, normally the media. His campaign is trying to portray him as a great leader-in-waiting, the one honest man for whom Diogenes searched, while Senatrix Clinton’s campaign wants you to see him as the unready, barely accomplished
Negrofreshman who hasn’t done anything of note yet.We’re all still examining the clues that we can to try to get a real measure of the man — and the Rev Dr Wright is a clue. How much of a clue he is, we don’t really know, and may never know, but there’s nothing intellectually illegitimate about examining the record.
You said,
It’s certainly true that Senator Obama has disavowed the Rev Dr Wright’s more inflammatory statements, but, then again, Hillary Clinton claimed that she was dodging bullets on a visit to Kosovo. One thing ought to be pretty obvious: just because a politician tells you something doesn’t mean that he’s told you the truth.
Jeromy’s arguments–that examining Obama’s record means one must be racist–is pretty much what I expect from Obamamaniacs and is precisely the BS we can assume will be hurled at critics in the general election.
Jeromy, I distrust the judgment of a man who spends 20 years listening to a bigot in church but tells me he doesn’t believe what the bigot says. It’s illogical–he could find another church which preached the Good News, if that were what he wanted. The fact is, he at least tolerated speech that someone preaching unity should find offensive. He did not…until it became a campaign issue.
I also find it offensive that he would compare private words of his grandmother–who said the same thing as Jesse Jackson–to the public ravings of his mentor and minister. I cannot buy that explanation.
I’m about the same age as Obama, so I grew up in the newly desegregated South of the 1970s. It’s not like I’m naive and think all black people had the same experiences that I did, and someone who was biracial probably had it worse. But by the time you are an adult–and we are talking about adult behavior here, Jeromy, not the innocence of youth–you are responsible for the choices you make.
I talk about your man crush on Obama because you willingly accept in him behavior you would excoriate in a white person. Maybe you’re just making up for your own white guilt like so many liberals. The difference is that I actually think people should be held to the same standard of behavior regardless of race.
And, btw, Wright’s behavior cannot be explained away by the era he lived in. He lived through the greatest advancement for black people since the Emancipation Proclamation. Plenty of black people came out of similar experiences and didn’t preach that white people tried to use AIDS to kill black people. There are crazy people who believe that, but that’s because they are nuts, not because of their experience.
But you are right; I do have a problem with people who preach unity but spend 20 years with separatists and tell me it is meaningless.
But a fair question is – did any of the more offensive stuff rub off? By the looks of things, no. I think conservatives have made their point here, and, to borrow a cliche, it’s time to “move on”. We just don’t know the totality of this Wright guy, maybe he DID have a positive influence on Obama, especially early on, and he stuck around that church out of loyalty. Remember, we have only a few minutes of trash talk out of what must have been hundreds of hours of sermons and related material.
In an ideal world, Obama would have left that church at the first whiff of controversy, but we don’t live in that world. Jeromy has a point in that Obama himself doesn’t seem to absorbed any of the “hate whitey” rhetoric or general looniness about AIDS or 9/11. i thought his speech last week was very well done, and, as far as I’m concerned at any rate, the issue is pretty much put to rest.
So why did Oprah bail out of this church in the late 90′s when she considered Wright to be too radical? Oprah knew what she didn’t want to hear, and BO stayed.
BO’s response reminds me of a recent tragedy in this area. A High School Senior shot and killed his parents and two siblings. The prosecutor argued no bail, and the defense attorney said the kid should be let out since he was an honor student and one badge away from being an Eagle Scout. But judge please consider only that and don’t look at the other stuff.
Except church membership isn’t the same as murder.
His speech I thought generally dealt honestly with the issue. Like I said, in an ideal world, he would have left, but he didn’t. He did disavow the Rev’s statements, which is really the important thing. Beyond that, what more is there to be said?
There’s probably not much more that can be said. He displayed bad judgment, both in staying in Rev. Wright’s church and in lying about not having heard Wright’s comments. He recovered, at least to his sycophants, with “The Speech.” Others will look at him more cynically, which may hurt his electability. Which is what this is about anyway, isn’t it?
Except church membership isn’t the same as murder.
His speech I thought generally dealt honestly with the issue. Like I said, in an ideal world, he would have left, but he didn’t. He did disavow the Rev’s statements, which is really the important thing. Beyond that, what more is there to be said?
Well, the analogy is. The murder is excused because of all the supposed good the kid did. Wright gets excused because of the supposed good he did.
But for all howls from the Left about mixing religion and politics, this gets the usual pass. I once attended a church that got political in a sermon, I never went back. Apparently a place where people go to congregate and collectively worship God, is instead a place to bash the country. Last time I checked hymnals in any Church, g-D America was not listed or shown.
Well, my take is this: I think Obama pretty much settled the issue in his speech. I’m content that he’s telling the truth, and that he doesn’t buy into Wright’s political rants.
Besides, the people most offended by this were never going to vote for him in the first place.
PS He did not “excuse” Wright, he DID condemn his remarks. Let’s be fair here.
PPS I admit I’m rooting for Obama to win the Democrat nomination. Someone needs to stop Hillary, and he’s in a good position to do just that. Besides, this is now off the news cycle, replaced by Hillary’s, er, exaggerations on her trip to Bosnia.
I guess the real question is: Does Obama actually believe the paranoid nonsense that Wright has preached? The answer seems to be NO. His rhetoric is generally positive and uplifting, and shows no signs of racial divisiveness.
Apparently, he is a better man than his preacher.
I guess the real question is: Does Obama actually believe the paranoid nonsense that Wright has preached? The answer seems to be NO. His rhetoric is generally positive and uplifting, and shows no signs of racial divisiveness.
Apparently, he is a better man than his preacher.
I couldn’t make a statement like that because we really don’t know. Up to this point, BO really hasn’t staked out firm public positions other than Hope, Change and Surrender. Although he denounces Wright’s words, I don’t have a good feeling he really believes that. He’s a polished orator and politician. And one thing I have come to believe in polished politicians is that they will say what they think you want to hear to make you feel good.
I’ve been burned enough in the last 20 years worth of elections to go on the words of trust me. I’m still waiting for promises made in 1988 to come true like No New Taxes. I guess that was mis-hearing on my part when it was said no nude taxes. BO does not have a track record to make me believe he can do what he says. And what he has said scares me.
Heh…oh, what rightwingers love to fill in the imaginary “We just don’t know!” box. I love it. We may never know if Barack Obama hates whitey!
Of course, Dana, we may also never know if you’ve had sex with a sheep. I guess it’s our duty to remain doubtful.
Or maybe, like Eric says, this is a dead horse?
I think the only impressive thing about this non-flap is how long you guys can keep talking without realizing Obama acknowledged all the white angst about blacks. Naturally, more white angst about blacks was the answer, weren’t it fellaz?
“Jeromy’s arguments–that examining Obama’s record means one must be racist…”
Seriousness just isn’t an option for you, is it, Sharon?
I think the only impressive thing about this non-flap is how long you guys can keep talking…
Oddly, no one else seemed interested in continuing to talk about this except you, Jeromy. Talk about beating a dead horse.
Seriousness just isn’t an option for you, is it, Sharon?
Intelligence isn’t an option for you, is it, Jeromy?
Mrs Clinton tried to use the Wright incident, saying that while you can’t choose your family, you can choose your pastor, and that she’d not have stayed ion a church with a pastor like the Rev Dr Wright. And I guess that Mr Obama agreed with her, because he said on The View last Friday that he’d probably have left if the Rev Dr Wright hadn’t retired.
My question is: was Mr Obama asleep in the pews for twenty years, or was he just becoming offended once the content of the Rev Dr Wright’s sermons became a political problem?
Wow, “I’m rubber you’re glue” just doesn’t get old for you, eh, Sharon? Try coming up with your own lines sometime, especially if you’re going to comment on intelligence.
Or responding to the points made. You’re not racist because you’re looking at Obama’s record. But you are ignoring the concessions he’s made towards white resentment while focusing on the fact that he saw past his pastor’s occasional nonsense, and happily informing black people how grateful they should be that white America deigned to eventually formally recognize them as human beings. You’re at least guilty of being extremely white-centric and utterly tone deaf to the perspective of most blacks.
All the while, they should be extremely attuned to your lily-white ass and make sure they discontinue relations with anybody you disapprove of, even if that person clearly has their back where you clearly do not.
Wow, “I’m rubber you’re glue†just doesn’t get old for you, eh, Sharon? Try coming up with your own lines sometime, especially if you’re going to comment on intelligence.
Says the man who is king of the ridiculous insult.
Jeromy, the arguments made–as I said months ago would happen–have boiled down to “you must be racist if you question X.” Now you are trying to use a variation of that, the “you must be racist cuz you don’t believe him when he says he doesn’t want to get whitey.”
You want to focus on one speech and act as if that makes up for his record. His record, Jeromy, is that of a radical who is trying to whitewash his past. This is a guy who bragged in his books about drug use as a young adult. He was a “community organizer,” who, in 1995, thought total opposition to hand gun ownership was logical but allowing porn shops anywhere in Chicago was a good thing. This is a guy who just got through saying he didn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby,” as though having children–even at a young age–was punishment rather than a consequence of their own behavior (and it exemplifies the fact that abortion wouldn’t be merely an option in the Obama house).
In short, Jeromy, the more we know about Obama, the more radical he becomes. Bigot Wright is just the tip of the iceberg here. Michael Medved offered an interesting alternative to Obama as a willing student of the bigot mentor (and you won’t like this one, either). His argument is that Obama truly didn’t know about Wright’s bigoted speech because he didn’t regularly attend services, but his membership in the Afro-centric church was just an attempt to prove his bonafides among potential black voters.
Me? I don’t really care what his motivation for attending a racist church are. I don’t think you would give any white person the pass you want to give Obama on this subject.
Now, of course, I can’t simply be someone who looks past the facade and recognizes Obama as a candidate who (a) lacks experience and (b) embraces a lot of radical ideas with which I disagree. Nope. That would imply that I actually don’t care about his skin color. So, just keep telling yourself that The Speech clears up all those ugly questions about Obama’s life before 2005.
That is some funny stuff right there.
“His record, Jeromy, is that of a radical who is trying to whitewash his past. This is a guy who bragged in his books about drug use as a young adult.”
Nice whitewashing he did there! He tucked that information away in his bestselling book…ha!
Why is community organizer in quotes, btw? Are you not sure that’s what he was?
And I don’t want to focus on one speech, I want to focus on Obama’s whole history and career, none of which reflect a shred of the nonsense bits and pieces of Wright’s sermons you don’t like. You want to keep yelling, “But he went to that church for 20 years!!!” and have that obliterate everything else. Yet you’re stuck trying to pretend you’re seriously afraid Barack Obama is some whitey-hatin’ Black Panther Manchurian Candidate. Your argument keeps leading you towards a patently ridiculous conclusion that nobody who has ever known or worked with Obama could back up. It’s called SMEARING, Sharon. And it’s a standard by which nearly every member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon-lovin’ Republican Party would be disqualified for office. Including John McCain, who can’t even tell us why he’s so happy to have John Hagee’s endorsement, or why he suddenly felt content to lick the toes of Jerry Falwell.
But I gotta hand it to you…you managed to top the whitewashing comment. “…as though having children–even at a young age–was punishment rather than a consequence of their own behavior…”
A consequence rather than punishment!!! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Sharon, you’re so stuck! Rightwingers DO want to punish extramarital fucking. You can’t exchange “consequence” for “punishment” and get out of it that simply, you complete hack. You guys are busted here, because Obama was directly referring to the rightwing attitude towards contraception. Social conservatives get their blood boiling at the thought that you can vaccinate a girl and give her contraceptives and she can actually have the option to go get her brains fucked out with no consequence/punishment/what-have-you. You guys want them to get cervical cancer, you want them to get knocked up, you want them to get ostracized and stigmatized for being knocked up so it’ll teach the other girls a lesson.
It is the height of illiterate rightwing stupidity to play a soundbite of Obama critiquing YOUR position on contraceptives and STD vaccinations and attack him as though it’s his position. Just when you thought you couldn’t get dumber, Sharon, you go and top yourself, you and your fellow dittoheads. You are so hoisted on your own petard. “Consequences are just results!” you’re going to come back with. If they were just results that you didn’t apply a moral value to, why not prevent them?