It will certainly be interesting to see how he handles this.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 03:40 PMDemocrat will have themselves to blame if they nominate a candidate that they knew very little about.
Posted by New Age at March 17, 2008 03:54 PMI don't think a comparison of Wright to Hagee is legitimate. Hagee isn't McCain's spiritual mentor, nor has he gone to his church for the past 20 years. Anyone who wants to excuse Wright by comparing him to Hagee needs to get that through their minds. Most of middle America is rightly horrified by Wright's hate speech, and they wonder why Obama would go to such a church for 20 years if he objected. Claiming that Wright is of the old school out of the '60's also won't wash. Martin Luther King came out of the '60's and he most definitely did NOT indulge in hate speech attempting to inflame his followers. There is a huge difference between the two. I think this whole mess is toxic for Obama's candidacy. And I think Obama's upcoming speech is just going to keep this in the news.
This is a link to his church. On the front page is a white preacher, president of The United Church of Christ, paying tribute to pastor Wright.
I have to wonder why the media is simply playing the few minutes of inflammatory language over and over and over again and I have not seen a single interview with any member of the church, this white president of UCC, any other preachers who know Wright, anyone the church has helped nor have they gone to any effort whatsoever to play any more of any sermons - including the rest of the hours of the sermons where the quotes come from. They have not reported on its ministries, what it does to help the community. Nothing.
Seems lazy reporting to me.
There has not been an effort in the media to talk about the issues that are brought up, the differences between white and black churches, and yes, Turkana, absolutely nothing about the white preacher guys on the right who have said many more inflammatory things. However, their comments are based on god smiting us all - god's direct wrath.
Perhaps god's wrath is OK but a black man's is not.
The media just goes on and on with more and more flaming crap and nothing in depth.
Posted by Anjha at March 17, 2008 04:15 PMWhat Obama says tomorrow will be really interesting. This is totally toxic. Why? Because Barack Obama has given different answers to the Rev. Wright question that don't really explain why this man was a part of his campaign and not just his pastor. He has to explain why he was a part of the campaign AFTER he was told that the inflamatory nature of Rev. Wright might be a problem. After all, this is a man who campaigns on hope, change and JUDGMENT. He has to explain his words (which are on video) about Rev. Wright and explain why he's only speaking about it NOW. It's going to be very difficult for him, no matter what.
People at Fox news who've been talking about Rev. Wright for MONTHS, will scrutinize EVERY SINGLE WORD Obama has said about the man, they will determine which sermons he was actually in church for, and a 527 will run relentless ads of Obama praising Wright and questioning his TIMING in distancing himself from the man and its sincerity. Because although a lot of Black people understand it, Black Nationistic speech scares a lot of White voters and they will wonder how this speech could be any different than a White inflamatory preacher blaming Black people for crime etc.
Posted by kacey at March 17, 2008 04:20 PMkacey,
you nailed the real danger- what the 527s will do with it, this summer and fall. that's why obama really needs to do something to defuse it, tomorrow.
Posted by Turkana at March 17, 2008 04:36 PMI think Obama will just bloviate tomorrow about religious tolerance and the undeniable evils of racism, hoping the media spins it as a Kennedy moment. They probably will, but it won't help him against the Republicans unless he throws Rev. Wright under the bus and runs him over a few times.
Posted by cygnus at March 17, 2008 05:36 PMobama really needs to do something to defuse it, tomorrow.
I'm curious to see what he'll say, but I really can't see how he's going to get back the reins on this apparently runaway narrative. Remember when Romney was forced to do a speech about his "religion?" It was regarded as the beginning of the end with him, though he never seemed particularly viable in the first place. And that worked so well with Romney, the right will attempt to do the same kinda thing with Obama. Using Wright, they'll make his brand of evangelism seem exotic and dangerous, which'll make the mushy middle nervous about Obama by proxy. Unfortunately, appeals to embracing different "cultures" (a term someone here used earlier to - rightfully, I think - describe the different styles of worship in different congregations) will only enhance the impression of otherness amongst Peorians in the GE.
How can Obama turn this narrative around with a speech? Especially when we all know his words aren't going to really matter in the long run; the important thing will be how the media chooses to interpret those words, and what kind of penance they'll demand of him before they will allow the story to die, if they ever do so.
So what will Obama do tomorrow? Throw Wright under the bus? Try to explain what Wright was saying? I would expect that he might address the "Obama's a Muslim" rumor, as well - it's as good an opening as he's going to get, assuming his speech will be covered by all the usual suspects, right? So, yeah, it might be interesting.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 17, 2008 05:36 PMOne has to start asking the question, was Obama against the war because his pastor is anti-America?
God bless America
Posted by New Age at March 17, 2008 05:49 PMWith a raging imam like Obama's got, he might as well be a dirty mooslim.
Posted by onar at March 17, 2008 05:54 PMObama will weather this storm just fine. Just like Rezko. Tempest in a tea pot. Rev. Wright isn't running for president. Obama is.
I remember the same predictions of doom for Barack's candidacy over Rezko. And now Obama's got the endorsement of the media organ -- Chicago Tribune -- that was gunning the hardest for him over Rezko. Trust me, Wight's not going to bother Obama's candidacy.
You know, I think I know at least half of what's bugging you Hillary supporters, and you don't even recognize what it is. It's ENVY. Look at Obama dance around these things. Hillary doesn't come close to demonstrating the same skill.
Drug use? Check. Remember Bill and even Al getting crucified over the pot use. Dubya never admitted to it and it wasn't enough to stop him, but let's be honest, the media got in some good hard shots at Dubya over that. Obama? The man practically proclaims with pride that he used to snort coke -- COKE, not just a bit of pot, but COCAINE, a heavy, heavy, hard drug. Does he pay any kind of price over this? Hell, no. In fact, the other candidates try to make it an issue that he didn't do as much as it may have seemed like. LMAO! Could you imagine Hillary getting away with admissions like this? The public doesn't even blink over this, let alone the press.
Government experience? He's got enough and the rest doesn't even phase the public or the press because he's got some intangible "good" judgment.
Rezko? The public and the press remain unperturbed, and some, the aforementioned conservative Chicago Tribune, are now singing Obama's praises. Could you imagine Clinton -- either of them -- having a friend like that? Her candidacy would be truly dead and not just DOA as it is now. She'd be lucky if she weren't facing a grand jury herself over something like Rezko. Not Obama, he's just steps around it, no problem. Teflon.
And now we come to Wright, which we've been by a few times already. It's not going to stick to him, not one bit. The media and the public will eat whatever shit he feeds them over this right out of his hand. Hillary could never even hope to pull that kind of trick off. You know why?
Because Obama is an incredible politician. Much better than Bill Clinton ever was. Hillary just hasn't worked out those skills, yet, and likely never will. Obama is skillful in the public arena. It's why he's the better candidate. Because they can't touch him. It helps that Obama's honest about this kind of stuff, his instinct is to get down to some real straight talk over this kind of thing. It takes him awhile, but he gets there. He doesn't hide from it. Other politicians, such as Hillary, probably couldn't be honest about this kind of thing and get away with it. Their instincts to hide mistakes are probably correct. The press would just crucify most other politicians and Hillary over this sort of stuff.
But, it's not that the press or the public is giving Obama a free ride. It's that he's a skillful speaker, a skillful organizer, a skillful campaigner, and a skillful politician. They're not giving Obama a free ride. Obama's earning the win with his skills, and Hillary's supporters are envious that HRC doesn't have the mad skills to pull of the same feats.
Anyway, Wright won't even make a dent in the ongoing Obama-rama. Look for him to gain a point or two over this. LOL!
Posted by Brian Bell at March 17, 2008 06:12 PMWright is going to be honored with the Brite Divinity School’s Black Church Leader Award at freeking Texas Christian University in fracking Fort Worth, Texas weekend after next.
He's an influential figure in a mainstream Protestant denomination, and anybody who throws down big stakes demonizing him is going to look foolish in a few weeks.
I genuinely doubt that it will profit either of Obama's opponents to get into a fight over who is a better Christian.
Posted by Tom at March 17, 2008 06:36 PMMeanwhile, back in reality, there's this graph.
Posted by Blue Jean at March 17, 2008 06:41 PMFor seven+ years Republicans have used Christianity/Patriotism cudgel to bash Democrats. Now Hillary supporters are using it to bash Obama. I never thought it could happen. But then maybe Hillary's supporters, like their morally challenged candidate, will do anything to win.
Posted by nerdoff at March 17, 2008 07:06 PMNow Hillary supporters are using it to bash Obama.
What Hillary supporters are using it to bash Obama? Or does acknowledging that it's going to be a challange to his campaign and wondering how he's going to handle it constitute bashing?
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 07:23 PM"Now Hillary supporters are using it to bash Obama."
So it is Hillary's supporters fault, that Obama's preacher of 20 years said all those hateful things. Or would you just rather not ever hear about them.
Posted by D Jessup at March 17, 2008 07:26 PMSnark please don't read my mind :)
Posted by D Jessup at March 17, 2008 07:28 PMMyDD, a blog with a significantly larger, though equally idiotic readership, is wall to wall Wrightgate. Take a tour, I'm sure you'd love it. So would your typical right wing nutbag.
Posted by at March 17, 2008 07:44 PMOne of the interesting by-products of this silly Pastor Wright flap is that it provided Obama with an opportunity to establish beyond all doubt that he is a practicing Christian, and not a Muslim.
This blows one of the Right's favorite talking points right out of the water.
Posted by vinnie's cousin at March 17, 2008 07:47 PMYou mean like the post that ends this way;
I must say though, that seeing this part of Obama, and getting beyond the marketing crapola of his faux-evangelical 'movement' campaign, I've come to like even more where he's coming from as a person. -Jerome Armstrong
Is that the Obama bashing you're talking about? Armstrong presents negative polling results on the issue and finishes the post by saying he likes even more where obama is coming from as a person and that's using the issue as a bludgeon?
You're the idiot.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 07:57 PMTry this one:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/22324/0397
Admit it Hillary fans, you're loving Wrightgate. Sure it's evidence that you're a fascist, but I'm sure it feels great.
Posted by at March 17, 2008 08:12 PMLearn how to insert a link.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 08:18 PMAnjha, once again you are correct. Thanks. You wrote my comment for me. It's all bullcrap. The media is certainly winning by keeping the Democrats from talking issues. Must be difficult to always be on the defensive. Wonder if they can keep it up until November?
Posted by Judith at March 17, 2008 08:25 PMTomorrow Obama will give a speech--yes a speech--in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, about race in America. Cable news and subnormal prison guards like snark will explain it away as damage control. In reality Obama will be behaving as a leader, addressing an issue in dire need of attention. Can anyone imagine Hillary--bland, programed, corrupt--having the courage to speak out this way?
Posted by at March 17, 2008 08:41 PMCable news and subnormal prison guards like snark will explain it away as damage control.
Says the supporter of the unity candidate.
I really don't have any problem with Obama but the caliber of the people who seem to support him makes me wonder.
Posted by snark at March 17, 2008 09:02 PMThe web site added that video image Anjha. It wasn't there a week ago. Seems Obama's official site is scrubbing the Rev. Wright's name from it too. Soon, references to him will appear to never have been there.
Folks, he lied to you on Friday. He lied to you last year. This guy is but a speech, that's all. A front man...
McOld's over meeting with folks Obama should have already met. Obama's is a committee chair that suppose to oversee Europe and Nato. He's never gone over there...Experience was there to be had...and he fumbled it. While McOld is over looking presidential, Obama is giving speeches trying to avert this catastrophe that is the Rev. Wright and his twenty years under his pastorate. As someone above has already said...trying to equate the Rev Wright and his influence with any endorsement from the several right wing preachers, I'm sorry...you've missed the boat. There isn't any comparison. Obama placed his children under this guys care...they heard this hate message, Sunday after Sunday.
The only person he thanked at his 2004 victory winning the US Senate seat was the Rev. Wright...no other person was named. This guy is more than important to him. He asked and received his council about running for president. This story has been out there...y'all chose to ignore it...now its front and center. Those many stories y'all discounted are now boring down upon you. His many rants about an old man's preaching, not meaning anything...more deception...
****
Now it looks like Michigan and Florida will not re-vote. Apparently several/many Democrats thought to influence the Republican race. Their voters card has a "Republican" stamp on it. They cannot recast their vote for a Democrat now. They cannot vote for Obama now that he might be on a new ballot.
Where was the outrage when Giuliana courted the Religious Right's Pat Robertson, and sought his consultation and support? You know, the guy who said:
1. "The US should kill President Hugo Chavez."
2. Gays and lesbians: "Self-absorbed hedonists, that want to impose their particular sexuality on the rest of America."
3. Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for "dividing God's land" of Israel, igniting his latest trademark controversy.
4. Suggested that the threat to the United States from liberal "activist judges" was "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."
Judith...Guiliani isn't running. Republicans noted your problems with him and went elsewhere. Thanks...next
Posted by peter at March 17, 2008 09:19 PM"The statement of Wright's which seems to be causing the most upset...is his suggestion that there is a causal link between (a) America's constant bombings of and other interference with Middle Eastern countries and (b) the willingness of some Middle Eastern fanatics to attack the U.S."
The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers, Glenn Greenwald, Unclaimed Territory, Salon, Mon 17Mar2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/index.html
Q: Why do Iraq Veterans Against the War call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
A: There are several reasons why immediate withdrawal is the critical first step toward solving the problems in Iraq.
3. The occupation is a primary motivation for the insurgency and global religious extremism.
The insurgency can be broken down into many individually named factions with various goals, beliefs, and techniques. However, our membership of veterans believe that the occupation of Iraq is the primary thing encouraging the insurgency and giving it legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Likewise, other people of the Islamic faith are encouraged to resist America ’s policies internationally based on how they perceive our military operations in the Middle East.
Why we're against the war, Iraq Veterans Against the War, FAQ http://ivaw.org/faq
Senator Obama may denounce IVAW as well as repudiate Rev. Wright.
At least he'll be discussing the issue and warmed up for Chalmers Johnson.
1980 - Ronald Reagan gives a speech on "states rights" in Philadelphia, MS.
2008 - Barack Obama gives a speech on race and religion in Philadelphia, PA.
Good lord the stakes could not be any higher.
Posted by Mike P at March 17, 2008 11:21 PMThe fact is that the Obama campaign started this whole thing long ago. How far back does (Clinton - D, Punjab) go? Is that type of racism okay? Not if they were 12% of the population and a huge segment of Democratic primary voters.
Will Obama talk about that racism or just racism against AAs? Furthermore, what about the whole gaybashfest that Obama was at and created with his reformed gays and Donnie McClurkin? What do you think those ministers were saying? Funny how Obama resisted even agreeing that this homophobic crap might offend anyone concerned with prejudice and discrimination until he was hounded by the once progressive blogosphere (before people like Aravosis and Kos saw they could rake in money pandering to the Obama crowd) Yet the media completely ignored the garbage that those preachers were spewing. Actually, some thought his embrace of them - but not the anti-gay message - would put him in good stead with the AA community and some other "Southern" type voters.
Now he says he was confused by the question and he doesn't support the decriminalization of marijuana. He doesn't want people under 21 who serve in the military to be able to have a beer. But it's okay to let young people serve in the military under 21? This is the most hypocritical, pandering person who has ever run for President as a Democrat.
Posted by jeter at March 17, 2008 11:41 PMHere's exactly what Obama should say:
THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!
If that doesn't work, he doesn't deserve to win.
Posted by myiq2xu at March 18, 2008 12:00 AMI think we could use some actual data in this discussion, but we have so little as the recent Wright thingie just broke again.
The Rasmussen stuff is just awful. The main poll linked to and referred to in the diary here is about Wright, not Obama. Wright's not running, though, Obama is.
Now, I hate tracking polls because they're so silly, not real scientific polls. (What is asking the same people the same questions over and over supposed to show?) But, right now, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is the only thing I could find that has been updated since Rev. Wright came to the fore.
Obama's favorables are at 47% and his unfavorables are at 44%.
Hillary's favorables are at 46% and her unfavorables are at 52%.
In other words, Obama leads Hillary by a hair in favorables (a statistically insignificant hair), and Obama has considerably less unfavorables than Clinton (by a statistically significant number). Obama did drop in favorables by 3% overnight, but this is within the margin of error and is thus statistically insignificant. To sum up these numbers, Wright has NOT affected Obama's numbers, at least not yet. This noise about Wright is Hillary's campaign grasping at straws.
More interesting stuff from the poll... There appears to be a downward trend in general in favorables for Obama in the past week and, oddly, a general downward trend in unfavorables, too, over the past few days. For Hillary, there appears to be a downward trend over the last month in favorables and an increase in unfavorables. The trends, of course, would tell us little about this Wright thing again, but it seems to show Clinton falling over the past week and a half. The real story is McCain is increasing in favorables and decreasing in unfavorables over the past couple weeks, which is exactly what you would expect in an election with a dirty campaigner like Hillary who is engaged in trying to split the Democratic party for her personal benefit.
I reiterate, the media and the public will eat whatever shit Obama feeds them right out of his hand over this Wright crud, because Obama is a masterful politician. This won't stick to him.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 18, 2008 12:12 AMa bit ago, i tried to inject some commentary over the rev. wright incident, specifically addressing how the black church affects its community. kasey, admirably agreed and pointed out differences, that i too agreed with. however, another poster above, rightfully pointed out that no one interviewed the congregation, nor did they note how rev. wright busses white congregants to his church, nor did they note how racially diverse his congregation is. the entire congregation supports rev. wright. for obama, it is difficult to separate from someone you knew for 20+ years, married you, baptized your kids, and mainly brought your life to Christ. that's a tall order to ask anyone. due to the fallout, he now has to do it because most of america is calling his pastor a racist, through capsules/ snapshots of his sermons. did any of his inflammatory sermons get played in their entirety? today, the washington post has an article about this issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702796.html?hpid=topnews
it's worth a read.
Posted by anthony at March 18, 2008 01:34 AMreverend wright
20 yrs obama sat in that church...what's up?
judgement?..that man brought him to jesus...that man married him...that man christened his children..come on obamamites..come on..are you kidding me..can you even possibly imagine if hillary ever once attended an anti black meeting..get fucking real
Posted by dennis at March 18, 2008 02:19 AMDennis, when did Obama attend an anti-white rally? Oh, yeah, he didn't, and that's a ridiculous implication. Obama's running for president. Wright's retiring. I reiterate, this has not and will not stick to Obama. The real thing that troubles Hillary supporters is how he avoids this stuff from sticking to him, and the answer is because he's a better politician then Hillary.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 18, 2008 02:26 AMbrian bell
didn't say hillary did...but if the congregation she had attended for 20 yrs..spewed racism for blacks..do you think there would be an uproar..this is sticking..as it should..judgement??? his strong point..little suspect..obama is a showhorse..not a workhorse ..as his short time in the senate can attest to..he can talk about bobby kennedy..but he is not bobby kennedy..i can't imagine any advisor of bobby kennedys' winking at the canadians and saying we're only playing politics with nafta..or telling overseas journalists..we're not really gonna pull our troops right out of iraq..barack obama is an illusion...gives a hell of a speech though..if it's scripted..
Posted by dennis at March 18, 2008 03:14 AMthe obama camp has played the racism card..big time..they tried to use geraldine ferraro as a conduit...only it backfired..what she said was the plain and simple truth..if he weren't black..he wouldn't be where he is today..that's the truth and nothing but the truth..
Posted by dennis at March 18, 2008 03:21 AMThat's right, Brian. Obama IS A POLITICIAN who will say anything, do anything to win! Funny how his memory got so faulty in the last few days. He will throw his minister under the bus, waffle on issues, give anothere speech of "Just Words". Who will he plagarize this time? He's a regular chameleon that changes before our very eyes. The candidate of Hope and Change that uses Republican Talking Points and says he is the Uniter (that is the divider, just like GWB!) A candidate with supporters who justify MOB RULE--remember 2000--to STOP COUNTING the VOTES. As someone said earlier, it really isn't Obama that is so unpalatable -- it's his CDS supporters. If he "steals" the nomination via his phony caucus results this is one democratic voter that will pull the lever for McCain to spite all the Obama supporters who think they can poison the atmosphere with their Clinton Hatred and then count of my vote. Think again. Until the Democratic Party can nominate a winner, and purge the faux democrats in the blogoshere,count me out.
Posted by KathyVT at March 18, 2008 03:23 AMWHAT MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING: RE: TRINITY CHURCH!
Rev. Thomas (Pastor of Mainly White Congreation of UCC) denounces e-mail smear campaign against UCC’s largest congregation - Written by J. Bennett Guess, Jan. 11, 2008
"Trinity UCC is rooted in and proud of its Afrocentric heritage," Thomas said. "This is no different than the hundreds of UCC churches from the German Evangelical and Reformed stream that continue to own and celebrate their German heritage, insisting on annual sausage and sauerkraut dinners and singing Stille Nacht on Christmas Eve. ." While Trinity UCC is predominately African American, it does include and welcome non-Black members. The Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, has been a member of the congregation for years.
"Trinity is a destination church for many members of the UCC, a multi-racial, multi-cultural denomination that is largely Caucasian," Thomas pointed out. "When in Chicago, many UCC members flock to Trinity to share in and learn from its vibrant ministries, dynamic worship and justice-minded membership. Contrary to the claims made in these hateful emails, UCC members know Trinity to be one of the most welcoming, hospitable and generous congregations in our denomination." [...]
Rev. Steve] Gray, a member of First Congregational UCC in Indianapolis (mainly caucasian), has worshiped several times at Trinity UCC and is most impressed by the overflowing sense of welcome it extends to visitors. "When you're Euro-American, (White) the people [at Trinity UCC] are so exceedingly gracious, warm and welcoming. They hug you and say, 'Welcome to our church!'"
This ramped-up smear campaign against the UCC's largest congregation and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's home church — Trinity UCC in Chicago — has raised the ire of the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, who called the e-mail-driven claims "absurd, mean-spirited and politically motivated."
The Main Stream Media has been filled with images and video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements for the past four days, 24/7, which Obama has strongly condemned. My concern, however, relates to equal time. When Senator Obama, who, after all , is actually the Candidate, gave a speech in Indiana, addressing his faith, diversity, and unity, and Invoking Robert Kennedy, it has gotten such a tiny percentage of coverage in comparison to Rev. Wright's controversial statements shown every hour in the hour. The main stream media has asked the questions how is Obama to deal with this controversy and when he does they give very little air time to his Answer, which he spells out beautifully in this Indiana Speech. This is just not Right.
On the Other hand we have an Interesting article on Huffington Post describing how a right-wing preacher is treated with similar contoversial remarks:
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
May be this is part of Obama's mission, since he is a Unifying Force. In order to be a Unifier, one must get the people talking about those issues which stand and impede unity and discuss those issues so one can understand and overcome these issues.
Posted by bacaangel at March 18, 2008 04:13 AMI'll be honest. I'm absolutely loving the water-boarding the press is giving to Obama.
Clinton has had this crap flung at her by the right, and by the right-wing-talking-points crowd on the left, since she was a Governor's wife. This crap has been going on, by my count, nearly TWENTY YEARS, and she's weathered it all as well as anyone ever could.
And now Obama is getting the treatment. And the panties at DKos and HuffPo are in a serious wad about just how "unfair" it all is...
LMAO. The Obamaites played the same game. Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. Enjoy.
Posted by Moses at March 18, 2008 04:32 AM"In order to be a Unifier, one must get the people talking about those issues which stand and impede unity and discuss those issues so one can understand and overcome these issues."
Bacaangel, even if Obama were to address the real issues, the media would not be interested. Today, the media will be talking about a pregnant Britney dying her hair, a Governor who had an extra male in his marital bed, and another Governor who likes expensive paramours. These are the real issues that the media wants to talk, about. Issues? Get serious.
hate to point this out, but there is a definite difference between worship in black churches vs. that of white churches, period. you disagree with what he said, fine... i don't agree exactly with what he said either; however, take it in the entire context of the sermon. again, why has no one interviewed the congregation? why has no one interviewed the white members of the congregation? explain how a racist pastor can continue to have white members at his church, where they feel welcomed? how is that? it's easy to call him out when you can sit back and throw stones, attend any black church, and you'd hear the same message, not the particular allegory, but the same message just the same, but i guess, by your reasoning, black churches are anti american and racist...
Posted by anthony at March 18, 2008 05:33 AManthony,
I think you're confused about what many on the left are concerned about with this issue. I have no problem with Rev. Wright preaching however he sees fit. I have no problem with black Americans worshipping however they like. The problem for Obama is going to be with the large segment of Americans who hear a person, regardless of what their race is, say "God damn America" and have a visceral reaction to it. That's the problem this is going to cause for Obama. "Folks" in the rust belt don't believe that "America deserved what it got on 9/11". Whether he's speaking the truth or not is not the issue. The issue is it's going to have a really sour impact on a lot of voters.
So I hope he gives one hell of a speech today.
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 05:57 AMWhat's interesting to me about the Wright coverage is that, while they show all the video clips, the narrative seems to be racism, not anti-Americanism. They're basically saying that since Wright said goddamn America, he's racist. I find some of his assertions loony (the US gov't invented AIDS and injected it into the black community?) but it's his anti-American comments that I think will bother mainstream (for lack of a better word) voters the most.
What bothers me (and I don't buy for one second that Obama was not aware of his pastors views, whether or not he'd heard them preached in church) is the way Obama is able to compartmentalize so much. Maybe it's a good thing, I don't know, but when I know someone who's views I totally disagree with to the point that they make me cringe, I don't want to be close to that person. I may have a casual association with them, but I don't want to get close to them. If I'm already close to them (this has happened) I find myself gradually backing off the friendship because what they say bugs me so much. So I don't understand Obama's willingness to be so close to someone with views that he says he completely disagrees with.
As for Wright retiring, the guy taking over is his protege and I doubt he'll be any different. Fine--I would hope Obama doesn't become good friends with him.
I think since Obama wants to bring people together, he could talk today in his speech about how we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. That there are good things you can learn from people even if there are areas of serious disagreement. That a person can do good work in the community (as Wright has apparently done) even if they hold some disagreeable views. But it all makes me wonder about his judgment if he is surrounding himself with people like Wright and Rezko.
As for McCain and Hagee and other right-wingers who embrace nutty preachers, I agree that there is a total double standard. Why is the bar set so low for republicans?
Posted by CG at March 18, 2008 06:01 AMDennis, it's kind of impossible for Wright to be a racist or to spew "racism for blacks." (I think they prefer African-American, by the way.) Wright is an African-American man in a white-dominated society and culture, who ran an integrated church no less. It's a bit impossible under those circumstances for him to be racist, which is one of the reasons this won't stick to Obama. To those who think this will stick to him, I've shown you the numbers, above. It doesn't appear to be doing Obama any harm, only Wright, and given that Wright is not the candidate, there won't be any problem. W00t! LOL! One day, you Hillary supporters may get it.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 18, 2008 06:09 AMHow long has McOld spent around Hagee? How many times has McOld seeked Hagee's council or advise? How often has McOld seeked any of the others council or advise? Have any of them been as close to be a spiritial advisor to McOld? Been to dinner? Married them? Baptised their kids? Heck, I don't even know what church McOld goes to, much less than who his preacher is. He might not even go to church for all I know. These two occurances are not in any way the same. Read...no double standard...no lowering the bar for Republicans in this area.
Posted by peter at March 18, 2008 06:11 AMsnark and cg
little to much reality in both of your comments...for the obanamites
Posted by dennis at March 18, 2008 06:11 AMIf he does manage to slither by the nomination I would still wait for the 527s before you start hooting, Brian:)
Posted by KathyVT at March 18, 2008 06:18 AMand right on cue pants pissing peter slithers in to spew his venom
and McBush actively sought the endorsement of "the Catholic Church is a Great Whore" Hagee [yeah, that would be a great ad, too]
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 18, 2008 06:26 AMAnd for our friends that believe the NYTimes is in our pocket...You won't find Wright's utterance "God **** America" anywhere within their website, well Bill Kristol mentioned it, but nowhere else. If that's your only news source, you wouldn't know what the fuss is about.
Posted by peter at March 18, 2008 06:29 AM(I think they prefer African-American, by the way.)
I don't think you could be more patronizingly condescending if you tried Brian.
You never cease to amaze.
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 06:29 AMGlenn Greenwald is one of the best writers on the internet:
"...the idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe -- who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator -- blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank...."
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 18, 2008 06:38 AMFrom John Ridley
The full text of the pastors remarks are: The government gives them (blacks) the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America. Put in context, there is a difference. Personally, not a song I would sing, but there is reasoning to the argument.Posted by Seven of Six at March 18, 2008 06:55 AM
hello snark:
i hear your points, and they are valid. i am focused on the "racist," thing, as all i seem to read was how racist rev. wright is due to his comments. i advised listening to the entire sermon before pulling a line or two out to justify a point.
to answer the 'rust belt,' question, is it not a double standard for him to echo what other mainstream evangelists have said, as gay veteran pointed out?
to answer peter, mc cain just distanced himself from hagee and that was ok... mc cain's religion has never been in question, he's never had to justify it. ever...
there is a double standard here, and the appearance is that of the black church/ pastor being continually attacked by what he said. while his counterparts say equally if not more so, provactive statements and it does not get the 24 hour play rev. wright has received. not only that, but none of the congregants were interviewed, but he is labled as such.
i think this could be turned around, focusing on the good the church accomplished in the community, catering to the homeless factory workers in its past, remaining in downtown chicago when its bretheren moved to more 'gentle,' surroundings. preaching tolerance to the homosexual community or taking care of your neighbor. unfortunately, that message gets lost in the fervor albeit stupid, words.
and another thing, why does obama have to make a speech on race. how ironic is it that an african american needs to speak on race in a presidential contest???
i anticipate his hitting this out of the park, unfortunately, i will not be able to watch it. its 1500 where i am. where could i find a link??
Posted by anthony at March 18, 2008 07:09 AMDamn you rich! You already have your compensation.Damn you who are well-fed! You will know hunger.
Damn you who laugh now! You will weep and grieve.
Damn you when everybody speaks well of you!
"A rant from a radical preacher? Without a doubt. Someone on the Obama campaign? Well, Sen. Obama says so. That's the Scholars Translation of Luke 6:24-26, and the speaker is Jesus of Nazareth."
h/t Devilstower
Posted by Seven of Six at March 18, 2008 07:12 AMSo where is the 'change' message there GV? All you're doing is, at best, say he's one of the many. That he's no different than the other politicians. How refreshing...
Or even better...he's just like Sen. Inhofe. They're the same type of person...alrighty then. That makes things better.
Posted by peter at March 18, 2008 07:18 AMto answer the 'rust belt,' question, is it not a double standard for him to echo what other mainstream evangelists have said, as gay veteran pointed out?
Yes, it is a double standard. But that's never been too much of a disincentive to Americans in the past.
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 07:19 AM...and the speaker is Jesus of Nazareth."
And we all know what happened to him, don't we.
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 07:20 AMAnthony...try CNN
Posted by peter at March 18, 2008 07:23 AMAbout none of the congregants being interviewed, they were asked by the church not to speak to the media.
When is Obama's speech?
I think it's going to be tricky for him. If he tried to point out the good things Wright has done, he'll be seen as excusing him. If he tries to explain the black church experience (which I doubt he'll do--how can white America understand that just from a speech he gives?) he'll be seen as excusing him. If he points out the double standard, he'll be seen as whining. I'm really not sure what he can say. I'm trying to think of what I want to hear from him and I'm not sure what that is.
Posted by CG at March 18, 2008 07:29 AMI'm trying to think of what I want to hear from him and I'm not sure what that is.
Imagine the conundrum his advisors are in!
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 07:31 AMAnd we all know what happened to him, don't we.
Yep... Wright is being crucified alright.
Taking a few statements from a man's entire life work and he is suddenly Public Enemy #1.
I'll just add this to the file of scary Black man who preaches truth to rich, white power.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 18, 2008 07:40 AMYep... Wright is being crucified alright.
Question is is Obama gonna behave like Peter?
According to MSNBC he has already notably ended more of his campaign stops by saying, "God bless you, and God Bless America." (not vouching for the veracity of MSNBC.)
Has the cock crowed yet?
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 07:48 AMIs Obama going to act more like Bush might be the better question snark.
And BTW, where's the equal time...CNN/Foxnews are carrying the whole Obama message. Will Clinton get her equal time? McCain?
Posted by peter at March 18, 2008 08:22 AMDifferent Peter, peter.
Posted by snark at March 18, 2008 08:25 AMDifferent Peter, peter.
Just like him to think that highly of himself snark! LOL
Posted by Seven of Six at March 18, 2008 11:32 AM