Obama's going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it's also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel "blacker" to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it's been the reverse and Obama's consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign's launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don't listen to, etc. The closest analogy would probably be to Hillary Clinton's inconsistent accounting of where she's from (bragging about midwestern roots when trying to win in Iowa, promptly forgetting those roots when explaining away a loss in Illinois, developing a sporadic affection for New York sports teams) — banal, mildly cynical shifts of association as context changes.
This is why I don't, as an American citizen, worry that President Obama would be objectionable. But Americans take their religion seriously and aren't going to want to hear this story. So Obama's going to have to do some awkward further distancing.
Yglesias may well be correct about Obama, but when you're left with the choice of either acknowledging that you had sincere close, personal, and political ties with a minister whose views most Americans find beyond the pale, or defending yourself by using the "hey, I'm just a cynical politician who uses religion to get votes just like anything else, and I don't believe in it any more than I really believe that NAFTA is bad" excuse, I think you may be in for some trouble.
UPDATE: An anecdotal report from my father from discussions with congregants after Friday night's service at a Reform synagogue in the Poconos in Pennsylvania: the congregants have turned against Obama because of Wright, and think McCain is a warmonger. Strong support for Clinton.
By the way, is this the only candidate you will regularly post on, DB? It's going to be long election on the VC.
That particular church intermingles them. He chose to be part of that intermingling, with his wife and kids, for 20 + years.
That 'preacher' doesn't just preach on Jesus and God and Heaven and Hell et al, he preaches "God Damn America". And that's not a paraphrase, that's what he's captured on video screaming over and over again, from the pulpit, while giving his sermon, IOW 'officially' in every way.
Personally, I don't want a President who screams 'God Damn America' at the top of his lungs over and over in front of crowds. Maybe you do.
And for Obama to say ' Well, I never heard him talk like that, I didn't know he said those things or held those views' - utter purest BS, if he said it under oath he'd be brought up on perjury. You don't belong to a church, as a regular attendee, for 20 years and not know what the Preacher says on Sunday morning.
IMO, Obama is 'ex candidate walking'. There is NO WAY he's electable in the general, even if he gets that far. Which he well may, it looks like. The people who vote in the Democrat primary have a very different value system than most.
However, if there's on thing that can unify conservatives behind McCain, it's Pastor Wright. They'll hold their noses and pull the lever, it's that simple. And independents will RUN from Obama in the general.
Are you serious? Arnt you a professor?
CJ, these are the options that Yglesias, who I believe supports Obama, seems to think are viable, and it's pretty hard to separate the politics from the religion if your pastor believes in black liberation theology, which is inherently political.
So, what is more important...
Healthcare, or the fact that the clearly moderate Obama used to have a pastor who made a few unwise comments over the course of a long career?
Which is more important...
The War in Iraq, which has resulted in 3,987 deaths of American Soldiers along with 29,320 wounded including 8,904 who were wounded so badly that they required air transport and has cost not to mention the numerous American citizens who have died while acting as security contractors, or the fact that the clearly moderate Obama used to have a pastor who made a few unwise comments over the course of a long career?
Which is more important...
The fact that we are in the midst of an economic disaster, with even well established financial institutions like Bear Stearns facing failure with huge repercussions for our economy, or the fact that the clearly moderate Obama used to have a pastor who made a few unwise comments over the course of a long career.
Lets get real.
The only reason that David Bernstein is even interested in this stuff is because he is a fanatical libertarian who disagrees with Obama on policy. He is hoping and praying that these silly distractions are enough to derail Obama and ensure 4 more years of dysfunctional Republican rule.
Yglesias is suggesting that Obama is cynical at best and hypocrite at worst. Of all possible charges against someone campaigning against Washington politics-as-usual, that has to be the dynamite. It may be true, but the evidence is still thin at this stage. One can't help but feel that saying he "may well be correct" is a bit much.
If you think there's the slightest chance of that with Obama--and apparently you do or why raise it--you are delusional.
That's something a lot of folks will take really seriously. To conflate 20 years of attending a church filled with that level of hate with McCain's Hagee problem is either absurd or intentionally deceptive.
Healthcare, or the fact that the clearly moderate Obama used to have a pastor who made a few unwise comments over the course of a long career? "
First, government-mandated purchase of health insurance, which is what the code wordds 'health care' mean in today's political debate, is NOT a priority, nor even desirable, to many people.
Second, the preacher did not 'make a few unwise comments', he espoused a philosophy of racial hatred and black supremecy consistently throughout his life. And Obama chose to select this hate-monger as his 'personal spiritual advisor'.
"clearly moderate Obama " ????
Swy what ?? He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, bar none !!!
If Obama was a regular church-goer, then yes, at some time, he heard Pastor Wright spew out his extreme Black-nationalist rhetoric. But I have no problem believing that Obama took this as his Pastor sermonizing to get attention and did not hold this as an example of Wright's core belief system, because he likely heard very many other sermons by Wright that did not mention AmeriKKKa or similar nonsense.
And I believe this is true from experience. My Rabbi growing up was known for his bizarre sermons: I remember the time he urged the congregation to save endangered species like the whales and the nauga (boycott naugahyde!), or the time he passionately and vociferously condemned the greatest evil in contemporary (early 1990's) society (dwarf tossing), or his occasional sermons given with the aid of hand puppets.
But these sermons were seldom delivered (maybe 1 out of every 20 sermons were ridiculous)- by far, most sermons were plain, ordinary, Torah-inspired, and to be honest, completely unmemorable. It was this potential for the bizarre that kept the congregation going (and explained why the Rabbi was able to hold on to his pulpit for over 30 years.)
So I have no problem believing this to be the case with Pastor Wright: most sermons (and the ones Obama would gladly associate with) dealt with more ordinary topics (the importance of faith, the importance of community service, etc.), and every once in a while, you would get a serving of venomous rhetoric just to keep the congregation from tuning out entirely.
That's something a lot of folks will take really seriously. To conflate 20 years of attending a church filled with that level of hate with McCain's Hagee problem is either absurd or intentionally deceptive.
Has McCain done anything to distance himself from Hagee's views?
Health care, Iraq, and the economy are obviously serious issues, and they challenge the best minds in the country. They are hard to understand, and hard to solve.
But, a Jesus-Jumping racist Elmer Gantry on TV is easy to understand, easy to judge, and easy to ridicule. And it's awfully hard to believe that Obama didn't know Wright's views over a twenty year relationship. So, for the marginal votes needed to win, Wright's antics and Obama's dissembling will have more impact health care, Iraq, or the economy.
Obama's defense is that for twenty years he was too stupid to know Wright was a loon. Would anyone accept that if it was David Duke rather than Wright?
1. Obama wins: Israel ceases to exist. Formation of American-Arab States (AAS).
2. Hillary wins: Bill opens up a 24/7 drive-thru bribe window at the White House. cf., "It's my money," Gore "investing" $25M, Marc Rich, et al.
3. McCain wins: "John, when you hear phlase 'pineapple junction' you will board Air Force One and order nuc-u-lar destruction of US and Europe. OK? Lememba! Pineapple junction. Ha ha ha ha!
As comic Yakov Smirnov used to say: "Vat a coontry."
Then I suggest if Reverend Wright runs for President of the United States, you vote against him.
I agree. Yet we keep hearing that over and over as if it makes any sense at all.
If Hillary can't carry a synagogue anywhere in the Poconos she is in trouble, and I'll leave the obvious racial overtones out of it. Your suggestion is far from a scientific sampling of PA as the Poconos are heavy on those who escaped from NYC as well as heavy on those who aren't particularly fond of "nonwhites".
This is a nontroversy in a slow news cycle.
Since you have gotten the most basic facts about the healthcare debate wrong (hint: Hillary has been attacking Obama for not including mandates), why should anyone believe your political prognostications?
Not badly played, given the circumstances in which the Obama campaign would surely, inevitably, find itself given his background with Wright. Seriously, has anything ever stuck to Obama?
Only in the sense that the members of Fred Phelps' congregation are "Christians."
I think if he goes into the convention with more pledged delegates, he is going to be the nominee.
Now, he could be badly damaged by these tapes being played endlessly in the last 60 days before the election, along with the Rezko deal. But that is not a satisfactory argument for ditching the guy who won the contest according to their rules. After all, Hillary has her own skeletons- pardons, library donors, tax returns, to name only the most obvious. And her poisonous attacks- saying he is not qualified to be commander in chief- make it hard to see how they can now be on the same ticket.
He CLAIMS to be devout, and to attend at every possible chance.
" then yes, at some time, he heard Pastor Wright spew out his extreme Black-nationalist rhetoric. But I have no problem believing that Obama took this as his Pastor sermonizing to get attention and did not hold this as an example of Wright's core belief system, because he likely heard very many other sermons by Wright that did not mention AmeriKKKa or similar nonsense."
So, you create an unsupported proposition, and then rely upon it for your conclusion.
So, following your 'logic', let's say it was a white guy, who attended KKK rallies 'only once in a while', and 'likely heard other things beside the racial hate that he liked'. You posit that this excuses him from responsibility for attending KKK meetings ? Would that be acceptable to you in a candidate for President, one how only attends KKK rallies 'once in a while', and 'you can guess he kinda doesn't agree with everything'.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'A man is known by the company he keeps' ?
"My Rabbi growing up was known for his bizarre sermons"
Isn't that a bit different than spewing racial hate, and treasonous rants focused on 'God Damn America' ? If that has been his' message', would you stil hvae chosen to call him your spiritual advisor ?
"Personally, I don't want a President who screams 'God Damn America' at the top of his lungs over and over in front of crowds. Maybe you do.
Then I suggest if Reverend Wright runs for President of the United States, you vote against him."
And I will SPEAK against him, both here and elsewhere.
"This is a nontroversy in a slow news cycle."
This is a death-knell for his campaign if he makes it to the general.
They don't need to say that outright, that's sort of the point. Anything that allows cowards to chuckle from the sidelines without having to make the incoherent arguments they are implying is considered pretty much A material.
For example:
"Your suggestion is far from a scientific sampling of PA as the Poconos are heavy on those who escaped from NYC as well as heavy on those who aren't particularly fond of "nonwhites."
In other words: maybe Bernstein's dad does hang out with a bunch of racists looking for the slimmest cover for it? If you are going to make that accusation, why not come out and say that directly instead of sliding coyly into it?
It's certainly funny how the mediacycle works, isn't it?
Clinton doesn't really need to be ahead on pledged delegates if the overwhelming consensus is that Obama is doomed because of this, Rezko or whatever. Enough super-deleagates (and maybe even pledged ones) will jump ship if his campaign implodes over the summer. Still this sort of complete meltdown is unlikely.
Kevin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&eurl=
McCain doesn't believe what Hagee believes; that's just pure political opportunism. The straight talk express must kowtow to the agents of intolerance in order to put together a winning coalition, however, so he did.
Meanwhile, Obama has to repudiate an agent of intolerance in order to put together a winning coalition.
The influence of the intolerant Christian right wing isn't going to be forgotten in the general election by independents or Democrats that care about things like the Supreme Court. The Christian right explicitly supported a doctrinaire political movement and President that turned out to be deeply flawed. Wright hurts Obama, but Wright isn't any more of a hater as many far-right Christianist congregations, and it is pretty unreasonable to believe that Obama hates America and holds a secret racial grudge that will somehow manifest itself in an Obama presidency. That will limit the damage, much to the chagrin of Paul Milligan, alas.
In any case, the feeble economy will sink the GOP. The Bush administration is such an abject failure across the board that either Clinton or Obama can win the Presidency with a modicum of help from the other regardless of the sideshows.
McCain doesn't believe what Hagee believes; that's just pure political opportunism. The straight talk express must kowtow to the agents of intolerance in order to put together a winning coalition, however, so he did.
Meanwhile, Obama has to repudiate an agent of intolerance in order to put together a winning coalition.
The influence of the intolerant Christian right wing isn't going to be forgotten in the general election by independents or Democrats that care about things like the Supreme Court. The Christian right explicitly supported a doctrinaire political movement and President that turned out to be deeply flawed. Wright hurts Obama, but Wright isn't any more of a hater as many far-right Christianist congregations, and it is pretty unreasonable to believe that Obama hates America and holds a secret racial grudge that will somehow manifest itself in an Obama presidency. That will limit the damage, much to the chagrin of Paul Milligan, alas.
In any case, the feeble economy will sink the GOP. The Bush administration is such an abject failure across the board that either Clinton or Obama can win the Presidency with a modicum of help from the other regardless of the sideshows.
Okay. Did you think there would be a problem resulting from making an anonymous comment on a blog? Is Obama not going to give you a balloon?
If Obama had come forward and said, "I know he's said that sort of stuff, and I strongly disagree with it, just like many people disagree with the political beliefs of their pastors," that would be one thing. But that perfectly reasonable statement is not what Obama said. Instead, he gave us the same "I didn't inhale"-type answer that we could get from Bill Clinton. Hey, didn't Obama mock Clinton's answer in that book of his?
We don't need to jump to any conclusions about Obama's beliefs about America. We don't need to think the underlying matter is of any importance. We can simply view Obama's statement and recognize that he's just a lying hack like all the other candidates.
Now, once we know he's a hack, we can look back at his stand against the Iraq War, when he was . . . oh, yeah. A man in a state legislature from an anti-war district. So he was perfectly safe in opposing the war, because he had no influence and took no risks, while if he supported the war he'd have risked electoral wrath. He didn't need vision or conscience to oppose the war; he just needed his lying, cynical political heart to choose the politically safe course. The exact same type of cynical calculation that resulted in Kerry and Edwards and Clinton all voting for the AUMF. The only change Obama represents is four quarters for ten dimes.
(Now, of course, those pulled in by Obama's pretty, calculated speeches will try to defend their hack's "honor"; after all, there's one thing you can count on a sucker to never do, and that's admit he's been had.)
Hey Lunatic, did you bother to read Obama's statement, or did you make up your mind about what he said without doing so? To wit:
Somehow I doubt you'll change your tune, but I guess I'm a "sucker" for believing you will.
One side has been whining about Islamofacists and gays and fifth columnists and treason for seven years, and has had the express support of much of Congress and the Executive Branch since 9-11. The right wing loonies have momentum going for them in the minds of the middle ground, compared to the blame-whitey team that's never quite gained a lot of mainstream traction over the decades.
Wright represents the blame-whitey faction, which instills MUCH more discomfort in the middle ground-ers, independents, moderates, centrists, other undecided voters. The Iraq War, poor Dollar, regulation-free subprime meltdown, Illegal Wiretapping, and Quadruple Guantanamo still can't hold a dim candle to blame whitey...
They will swing gladly back into the empty hypocritical arms of the right rather than associate with the Farrakhan / Wright / Panther crowd... That is the risk, the Gary Hart moment that endangers the Obama campaign. He wins over the middle when we don't see him associate with Jackson and Sharpton - the other firebrand / blame whitey group - and yet he probably won't escape that branding with this Wright incident.
One side has been whining about Islamofacists and gays and fifth columnists and treason for seven years, and has had the express support of much of Congress and the Executive Branch since 9-11. The right wing loonies have momentum going for them in the minds of the middle ground, compared to the blame-whitey team that's never quite gained a lot of mainstream traction over the decades.
Wright represents the blame-whitey faction, which instills MUCH more discomfort in the middle ground-ers, independents, moderates, centrists, other undecided voters. The Iraq War, poor Dollar, regulation-free subprime meltdown, Illegal Wiretapping, and Quadruple Guantanamo still can't hold a dim candle to blame whitey...
They will swing gladly back into the empty hypocritical arms of the right rather than associate with the Farrakhan / Wright / Panther crowd... That is the risk, the Gary Hart moment that endangers the Obama campaign. He wins over the middle when we don't see him associate with Jackson and Sharpton - the other firebrand / blame whitey group - and yet he probably won't escape that branding with this Wright incident.
That's true. But Obama did pick Wright.
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."
Never heard it while in the pews or in a private conversation? How about in a group discussion? Conversation with more than Obama and Wright? Heard it while sitting in a folding chair? Wright's writings? Related by others? Carried in newspapers? In the Church bulletin? On a DVD? While standing in church? Obama leaves open a whole lot of other opportunities to learn about his loony views. Wonder why he didn't just say he had no idea what Wright's ideas were?
It is the most insane type of spinning to suggest that the endorsement by a religious leader whose church you do not attend, who you have not met more than a handful of times in your life--and may have met only once is somehow equivilent to Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright.
If you actually believe that then you are smoking something illegal without a prescription.
I think Obama is doing what he can in terms of damage control but I wonder if it is enough. The people who care not a whit about religion and make fun of the religious at parties will not think this is a big deal--unfortunately for Obama, these people are already in his camp for the most part. For the people in the pews, the great unwashed who are obviously morons because they are Bible thumping evangelicals, this is one more reason to not only vote for John McCain, but to do so enthusiastically.
whose views most Americans find beyond the pale
"Beyond the pale" is of course the place where the czar did not allow Jews to go, which makes it an odd locution for someone Jewish to use, like saying Tel Aviv is a Mecca for Jews.
my father from discussions with congregants after Friday night's service at a Reform synagogue in the Poconos in Pennsylvania
What did the black members of your father's congregation think?
It's probably also worth noting that one of Senator Obama's co-congregationalists is Oprah Winfrey. Maybe the average American will believe that the crypto-Muslim candidate with the funny name wants God to damn America, but Oprah Winfrey? I don't think so.
But er, what is 'liberal with regard to race" these days? Is affirmative action liberal? Is bitter identity politics liberal? What is the difference between Liberal and liberal on race? (I suppose one could add liberal....)
If I prefer MLK's refraining from bitterness over Rev. Wright's race-baiting, doesn't that make me conservative?
Great whitewashing. You know, you might care up to read on the beliefs of those who brought you F=ma, probability theory, large portions of telecom theory, and a host of other scientific discoveries. Obviously morons - you couldn't hold a candle to Newton, Pascal or Maxwell any day.
The Rev. Wright's statements are explicitly racist to most white people in the country.
The Black Liberation principle that when folks of the "oppressed race" say this stuff it is "not racist" may be persuasive to 30 % of the country, but it is total bs to the other 70%.
Even in big blue states like Ohio, Michigan, New York, and especially Pennsylvania, the percentages are no better than 45% persuasive to 55% bs. If BHO is perceived by whites as an anti-white candidate, or the least bit racist, he loses the Dem. primary. It is the kiss of death.
And BHO, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the vast majority of the professional "superdelegates" know this better than anyone else in America. You can take that to the bank.
As the Corleone's said, it's not personal, it's business.
REVEREND WRIGHT IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
And I don't give a god damn what he says.
I consider myself fairly liberal on theological issues. I understand the theory of evolution and subscribe to it. The world is several billion years old and the Genesis story is myth. That said, I find nothing in modern scientific theory that conflicts with my religious faith. But I do find it amazing when people sneer at religious folks (like you did) because they make assumptions about religious people that are just plain wrong.
He has a one run lead, and he's the closer.
I hate to break up a perfectly good food fight, but aren't you two arguing past each other on the same side?
To the first, Wright is straight out of the Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver school of radical blacks. His black liberation theology is a scam, allowing him to fill his coffers with shiny ducats and his flock with HATE WHITE AMERICA propaganda.
Well it won't play and it's not going away, so Obama is finished. The Negro he always sought out, eschewing his white family in favor of the black communities Cincinnatus has been exposed as a ruse. It's just too darn hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
This proves nothing. Of course jews are more liberal on issues of racial discrimination --- it's called self-interest. But along many other lines of racial harmony/interaction (things like intermarriage rates with each other, belonging to the same social clubs / organizations, etc.), I'll bet dollars to donuts that reform jews lag far behind non-jewish whites of similar socioeconomic status. My anecdotal evidence among the reform jews I know is that they are militantly against racial discrimination in law and public accomodation, but personally rather hostile to African-American culture and custom.
I'm not saying it's not justified --- people like Wright can cause a reaction. But the mere fact that most European-Americans don't think twice about Wright (they just consider him a kook) while jews obsess about it only serves to reinforce strong anti-black perceptions among jews.
Flame away!
It is not raist to dislike someone's culture or customs, or to treasure your won. It is racist to think less of someone because of his provenance than someone whose behabvior is identical but has a different provenance.
Please. That's a complete crock. Especially so if you've ever belonged to a church congregation.
In the fall, I'll be voting for McCain barring something unforeseeable. But I count his embrace of Hagee against him more than I do Obama's attendance at Wright's church. People _join_ congregations for all kinds of reasons: parental choice, geographic location, spousal preferance, community reputation, walking in at random, etc.. After a while, membership in a congregation can then become like membership in an extended family. Even when you disagree, completely, with the pastor or church elders on important, substantive issues it can be excrutiatingly difficult to walk away. Tolerating occasional over-the-top jeremiad's isn't a sign of a major character defect so much as of a normal personality.
But if you're just a politician pandering for votes, there is really just ONE excuse for overlooking a man's disgusting views while pleading for an endorsement. Obviously, you care more about the endorser's ability to drum up votes than anything he actually tells his followers. In McCain's case, this gives lie to his whole "Straight-Talk Express" image.
I'm a Catholic. It may come as no surprise that I find Hagee even more obnoxious than Wright. But I'm not voting for one of those two. I'm choosing between McCain and either Hillary or Obama. And none of the three seem to have anything in common with the ministers but occasional geographic proximity.
There's at least one vote Obama has lost, and it's a Black vote.
You can bet that all you want, but do you have anything resembling data? Anecdotally, there are lots of famous black-Jewish couples/offspring, see Lani Guinier, Alice Walker, Marian Wright Edelman, Lenny Kravitz, Lisa Bonet.
What elements of "culture and custom?" I'm sure they are hostile to, for example, the tolerance of anti-Semitism in certain segments of the community that would lead Obama's church to give an award to Farrakhan.
The hypocrisy of the left is repulsive.
He didn't, he stuck with Wright until last week. He won't and shouldn't be President.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
There is, however, no evidence that Obama himself agrees with these statements. Again, I can't tell if the self-righteous indignation is faked or the product of a narrow worldview, but in my experience the vast majority of Americans do not appear to actually concern themselves with the political views of their priests/ministers/pastors/rabbis/etc. Maybe somebody, somewhere, interviews potential faith leaders before deciding whether to start attending their houses of worship. And maybe somebody, somewhere, quits a church because of a political disagreement with a faith leader. But I've never heard of someone doing that. I myself have strongly disagreed with the political views of every faith leader in every church I've ever attended, but I go because I enjoy the faith community. But I guess maybe Bernstein and the other commenters above parse every word in a religious service and then jump up and scream, "I denounce and reject!!!!" and run out of the building upon hearing something they disagree with.
With regard to Hagee, I find it very amusing that a number of people say that is different because McCain isn't a regular parishioner of Hagee. While it is a different situation, it actually makes it worse for McCain. He actively sought Hagee's endorsement. Obama began attending his church years prior to running for public office.
I'll close by noting that I know what I've said above doesn't matter one bit. Bernstein has clearly been suffering from "Obama Derangement Syndrome" for months and it's not going to change.
Really? Care to explain rather than just state?
I'll have to agree with an earlier poster who pointed out that McCain is clearly more at fault here as he actively sought Hagee's endorsement. People rarely agree with everything their pastors say, even on big issues. My mother is a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday, sings in the choir, listens to her priest rail against abortion, and is pro choice. Should we assume that any Catholic politicians who claim to be pro-death penalty are actually lying because they are at odds with their church's teachings?
"Maybe the average American will believe that the crypto-Muslim candidate with the funny name wants God to damn America, but Oprah Winfrey? I don't think so."
Just maybe Oprah's audience will look upon here in a new light when they realize she is a member of Wright's congregation. The latest Oprah Book Club pick may also undergo greater scrutiny.
While it may turn out that Obama isn't a racist, the fact that remains that Obama chose to remain in the hatemonger congregation for a very long time. If Obama didn't agree with the views, he stayed in the congregation either for the political benefits or because of his wife, who I suspect actually bears views similar to that of Wright.
c.gray and Wugong,
The Catholic experience is a bit different from most Protestant denominations. Protestants typically don't stay with a church that the disagree with as readily as Catholics.
Moreover, Wright had been pastor at Trinity United for well over 10 years before Obama started attending the church. Prior to Trinty United, Obama did not attend church.
c.gray, just dropping by, and Wugong,
Wright is more to Obama than the guy that just happened to be Obama's pastor. LINK
Let me get this straight. You can attend a bigot's churck for 20 years (and devote 20 pages in your autobiography to the relationship) but that is "Okey-doke" because, hey, you go to church for reasons other than to hear the pastor.
On the other hand, if you receive a political endorsement, and meet with that person for ten minutes, you are stuck with every view of the endorser, no matter how repugnant. In fact, being in the same room with that person makes you a closet bigot.
The liberal hypocrisy disconnect is astounding.
I'm disturbed by McCain's clear pandering towards the social conservatives/religious right because I don't think it is sincere in the least.
If we're going to a Christian vs Christian smackdown with McCain vs Obama over who is the bestest Christian? Obama or McCain?
Wasn't this exactly what Obama did? Of course his concern was not that Wright was too radical but rather not radical enough (although Wright was able to allay this concern). Obama then donated tens of thousands of dollars to the church, giving $25K or so in 2006 alone.
Obama did not continue attending this church in spite of Wright's political views but rather sought out Wright's church specifically because of its political content.
Also, isn't it just a bit odd to have a presidential candidate who has based his campaign largely on unity and overcoming bitter racial and partisan divides also being an active and devout member of a separatist church that preaches "black liberation theology" is a core belief?
This is pathetic. First you want to accuse my pointing to a jewish conspiracy, when all I did was repeat a fact: jews showed greater support for anti-discrimination laws in part because of self-interest. To say that this isn't true, because we have to look at people as individuals, well that's just burying your head in the sand. Why don't you just say that blacks aren't disproportionately poor, because we have to look at individuals.
(And check your facts. Jewish opposition to affirmative action is far greater than their opposition to basic civil rights, almost assuredly in part because of self-interest.)
Then, you turn 180 degrees and (in agreement with the exact part of my post that you didn't quote) say that you're "sure" that jews as a group might be hostile to African American culture and custom.
Why yes! The very point of my post. Let me put it as nicely as possible, so as not to offend you further: Jews —- yes, the group —- have pretty good reason for being hostile toward the black community. This has resulted in lower rates of intermarriage between jews/blacks that between non-jewish whites/blacks of similar socioeconomic status and less social interaction. These things have added to the already hostile relationship between the groups. All of this is slightly ironic, given that jews were more supportive of civil rights than non-jewish whites.
I pay attention to Democratic campaign advertising on black urban radio stations. It spews the same kind of hate-filled fantasies. This is pretty good evidence that a significant proportion of black voters believe this crap. So it is political suicide for urban black Democratic candidates to openly refute it. Hence Barack Obama turning at least a blind eye to it, and Michelle Obama spouting some of it.
But this is poison in the general election for a Presidental nominee or even a vice-presidential nominee, i.e., the whole ticket would then go down.
In my opinion, the first black President can only be someone who has no possible association with such hate. This almost certainly means a black Republican former general like Colin Powell.
I just don't see race, you know.
Then 20 to 75%+ of African-Americans believe things which would disqualify them from making a good president.
You're talking as if the fact that this view is widespread among blacks means it's okay. It doesn't.
No, because 75% isn't all, and "close to" is a relative term and not all black people are so close to such preachers.
We have managed to survive corrupt presidents and incompetent presidents but I am not entirely certain if we have ever had a post-modern america hating president. Is Barack a slightly more urbane version of his america hating mentor-what would tell me the answer is "No""?
There are quite a few black Democrats who escape this problem too. Of the top of my head people like former Gov Wilder of VA, the former mayor of Houston (Kirk IIRC), maybe McCall (treasurer from NY) and Tom Bradley (former mayor of LA) come to mind. What these people share is having to win over multiracial electorates and executive experience. Having to win elections where blacks are not even close to a majority weeds out the race baiters. Executive office allows politicians to flourish based on their results rather than just their rhetoric.
In any case, this scandal is as big as it is because of the type of campaign Obama ran. The "Second Coming of Jesus" campaign doesn't work quite as well when you find out it's Black Jesus only for black people.
Did McCain enbrace Hagee or did Hagee endorse McCain.
Both. McCain went out of his way to praise Hagee.
Perhaps it's that Obama keeps switching his "blackness" on and off like a light switch.
We'll know it's really bad when Obama starts talking about how he hangs out with (former ? KKK member) Bob Byrd.
Please provide some evidence that McCain "actively sought" Hagee's endorsement. If he did, I would certainly think less of him because of it.
Farrakhan has endorsed Obama. Did Obama actively seek his endorsement? If he did, I would certainly think less of him because of it.
Does the mere fact of an endorsement prove that the endorsement was "actively sought"?
I say this with sadness, because I am an independent voter who has been open to Obama's candidacy.
You probably do to hold a joint press conference though, which I'm not aware of Obama arranging with Farrakhan.
"Please provide some evidence that McCain "actively sought" Hagee's endorsement. If he did, I would certainly think less of him because of it."
Um, the endorsement was at a joint press conference with both McCain and Hagee praising each other to their faces. Here's McCain:
"I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today," McCain said at a news conference. "He has been the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas, but especially, most especially, his close ties and advocacy for the freedom and independence of the state of Israel"
...until God destroys those faithless Jews and brings the wondrous end times, which can't happen soon enough, according to Hagee. Oh, and the Holocaust was their own fault for being so disobedient, or something. Oh, and those gays in Katrina got what they deserved, praise be.
And so on.
The November election is more than seven months off. You believe in making early decisions, don't you?
Is there a way impersonally not to vote for somebody?
Kenyans and Kansans? When? Where?
As others have shown, McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement, and appeared at a mutual admiration press conference with him. He also had high praise for Rod Parsley, calling him "one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide…thank you for your leadership and your guidance."
Let's hear the excuses.
Evidence, please. I would like to accept your word for this but since I don't know you, I would prefer some evidence.
OK. And they have had a pass on stupidity for a long time. Now they are being called on it. That's what happens when you get in the big leagues. They can no longer hide behind the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. If we don't accept the notion that the US government created AIDS to kill blacks from anyone else, why accept it from blacks?
Stop the presses! A politician said something nice about a man who is respected within his community and who has some views that a number of people would find objectionable. Clearly McCain is unfit to be President.
But seriously, as I pointed out earlier, comparing McCain-Hagee-Parsley to Obama-Wright is comparing apples to oranges.
Has Obama never said nice things about people who have views that a number of people would find objectionable? He would be a truly unique politician if this has never occured.
Kenyans and Kansans? When? Where?
Clever, but you need to work on your reading comprehension.
How much more evidence do you need than McCain and him holding a joint press conference to announce the endorsement, along with McCain repeatedly talking it up in the days afterwards?
Did you somehow miss this story entirely?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA
I mean, the Catholic League's Donohue was as outraged as he's ever been, which is to say, always is.
You're kidding, right?
1. It's not clear that Obama is moderate. He has a history of very left-leaning voting while in office ("progressive" voting, if you will). He also speaks often of what he calls "social justice" and income redistribution. But mostly, he is very vague when he speaks of "change". What change, Obama? - be specific.
2. A FEW, Unwise comments?!?! This man is spewing hatred from his pulpit, and imbibing his flock with hate and divisiveness to the extreme. And this appears to be a long-term pattern with the Good Reverend.
3. Obama's relationship with this man is not distant. He went to this church for about 20 years, supported it with his money, and describes Wright as a personal mentor and advisor. For goodness sake, he consulted this man and prayed with him before deciding to run for President.
This should trouble us all. Can you imagine an Obama presidency when Rev. Wright is a frequent visitor to the White House, invited to offer guidance and advice? YIKES!
BYW, I have left churches where I felt the true message of Christ was not being taught, including one where the minister spoke hatefully about other religions. If you don't want to leave such a church, then you should get together with other parishioners to change the message or the messenger. But you DON'T continue to sit there and let a "man of God" distort God's message. To just sit there - not very couragous.
OK. Maybe you can help us out a bit. Here's the full para in question:
"Did Wright say God Damn America? The same America that for a century treated his people like farm animals? The same America that for a further century legally treated his people like subhumans? Why, that ungrateful so-and-so. Didn't Dr. King say it was time for us all to join hands and sing kumbaya, and just forget about all that old stuff like it never happened?"
So, help us out. Did America treat Kenyans like farm animals? When? Where? Was his father treated like a farm animal when he came from Kenya and attended the U of Hawaii and Harvard?
And how about those Kansans? Were they treated like farm animals by America? Again, when? Where?
African-Americans. Haven't you heard?
Proving again that repulsion is in the eye of the beholder. I get repelled one person at a time, and partisan demagoguery like yours is what tends to do it.
This is true? If so, we need to shine a light on it and work to change this. The white communities I know have worked hard to change this pattern, and I guess its time for the Black communities (and Latino Communities) to work for change too. We all have to live together; we are all tied to the same fate. I, like MLK Jr, look forward to a time when we are all judged on the content of our character, not the color of our skin. No matter what color our skin.
We have the videos
Evidence? And I mean evidence that self-interest actually is the motive, not just that it might serve self-interest to adopt that political alignment. Because, I assume you know, there are other possible motives.
Evidence?
Apparently we know different Jews, so again, unless you have evidence that your Jews are more representative than mine....
We have all seen the Wright videos. Has he been asked if he believes what he is actually saying?
On the other hand, Hagee has a web site and has this to say:
I have learned again and again (most recently in an article in the McClatchy papers by Warren Strobel) that if you want to know the truth, you should go to original sources. Well, in this case, Hagee is an original source for Hagee.
So those of you who claim an moral equivalence between Hagee and Wright, please link to the sermons that Hagee gave that compare to Wright's.