Obama: It's All About Me, Me, Meeeee

Michael Young | April 30, 2008

Is it me, or did you also feel that Barack Obama's responses to the series of comments by Reverend Jeremiah Wright were overly focused on, well, how Wright had personally dissed Barack Obama and his campaign?

Here are some samples:

The fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry, but also saddens me.

At a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me. It's also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign.

Whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign and what we're trying to do for the American people.

Of course, Obama is entitled to defend himself, especially when Wright basically accused Obama of being a hypocrite in his so-called "race speech" in Philadelphia. However, for the candidate to repeatedly suggest that the problem with Wright is one of personal affront, of disrespect for Obama and his campaign, is to miss the point that voters will see things in a decidedly less self-centered light. For them, what Wright says reflects a worldview, a worldview Obama apparently managed to live with for some 20 years. They won't see the episode as just a thing between Obama and Wright.

In fact, Obama might have inadvertently confirmed what Wright told the National Press Club audience a few days ago, when he spoke about how Obama had distanced himself from the reverend: "He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Obama's latest comments echo those very same thoughts: His priority is clearly (and understandably) to save his campaign, but much less to determine what Wright's comments really tell us about the relationship between blacks and whites in America. But that's what many voters are interested in, because Obama's attitude on race relations will say a lot about whether he's presidential material. Instead, all they see today is someone nonplussed that Wright showed so little personal concern for him.

Comments

|4.30.08 @ 5:39AM|#

well i guess this post proves that we'll see what we want to see. maybe i need to go re-watch that news conference.

Highway 61 Revisited|4.30.08 @ 6:01AM|#

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"

Tom Thumb|4.30.08 @ 6:04AM|#

Up on Housing Project Hill it's either fortune or fame; you must pick one or the other though neither of them are to be what they claim.

The Wright Stuff|4.30.08 @ 6:09AM|#

Obama ditches Wright. Too Late, Too Little to try again with You. Moron Obama, now you've become the enemy. Shame.

Boyscout|4.30.08 @ 6:19AM|#

Willet Creekesque Treachery! Bake Sale (and Boy Scouts don't have 'em) Mr.Freakin' Obama? Why? Why kill a good thing? Now you are saying that you're guilty by association. And Wright wasn't all that wrong.

Throw Obama from the Train|4.30.08 @ 6:22AM|#

Almost famous.

Once You\'re Gone, You Can\'t |4.30.08 @ 6:27AM|#

When You're Outta the Blue & into the Black

I Come From Nowhere|4.30.08 @ 6:44AM|#

These days, the preferred purpose of religion in the USA is to rubber stamp (or at least gloss over) whatever unholy acts our nation is currently undertaking, and thus alleviate some of the cognitive dissonance that is our nation's dominating trait. Because of this, the proles get all cagey when a religious leader says anything about the pathetic shape of our nation's collective morality. We are the greatest nation evah. If you want to be a religious leader of any repute, you'd better keep that in mind. Follow the Pope's lead and talk about sex scandals. Along with aggressive invasions, belligerent occupation, abortions, throwing too many people into prison, and generally spending/wasting money we don't have, 'mericans love the sex scandals.

|4.30.08 @ 6:49AM|#

Obama needs to quit being upset and refute Wright's racist, anti-American rantings point by point, forcefully and without quibbling. Nothing else can save him.

\'Cause When Life Looks Like E|4.30.08 @ 7:08AM|#

...there is danger at your door.

Yes, he should denounce that sermon point by point, but he won't. He feels that he cannot. Agree with Wright that America is Imperialist? None dare!

Thankfully, he's denounced AIDS conspiracies. That's 'easy street'. But he should denounce his participation simply on the basis that his church is political and he is a politician.

Let us separate church and state. If he said merely: "I attend x for communion and that's all folks" I'd be cool with it. It's NOT that. Wright is a whackjob preacher just like Huckabee. If he sways that way in any way, may he be held at bay.

Bill Cooke|4.30.08 @ 7:33AM|#

Obama is less personally offensive to me than Clinton or even McCain, but at the end of the day who really cares. I'm going to vote Libertarian anyway. Yeah, I may be throwing my vote away. But the majority is throwing its country away.

|4.30.08 @ 7:44AM|#

I think Obama's speech yesterday was an over-reaction. I would have just let it slide. Then, when it came up again in the fall during the general, I would have brushed it off as old news. I hope he didn't do himself more harm than good yesterday, I like the guy.

|4.30.08 @ 7:49AM|#

A political figure...seeing the world from a self-interested, self-absorbed point of view...who would ever figure that?

Has politics always been about celebrity, or is attention whoring new to the post-greatest generation?

The Huge Over-Reaction|4.30.08 @ 7:56AM|#

Of course that's what it was. Why, Obama? Why?

I didn't like your platform (but then again ,
I'm a libertarian), but I thought you were smart enough. I guess not.

Now if I can trust you to keep us out of Iran and possibly withdraw from Iraq. Maybe it's a tall order.

|4.30.08 @ 7:57AM|#

I think this a very dishonest post. If you go to the first NYTimes link above and take a look at Obama's prepared remarks it doesn't seem that "Barack Obama's responses to the series of comments by Reverend Jeremiah Wright were overly focused on, well, how Wright had personally dissed Barack Obama and his campaign." In fact, they address Wright's ideas quite squarely. The part M. Young quotes comes from answers to press questions (some of which were "how is this going to effect your campaign") and not his prepared text. If someone asks you "how will this effect you" and you answer I'm not sure that reflects a preooccupation with yourself. I think MY knew that, or should have known that, if he read the entire thing.

Having said that, Obama is toast. This is one of the problems with a candidate like Obama, one I was worried about in the very beginning. It's not (at least I hope) the color of a black man's skin that makes many Americans worried about a black candidate, it's that they have seen a lot of people with pull in the black community possess some bizarre and/or angry thoughts. The black community (perhaps understandably considering history) has some truly loony beliefs that are very mainstream in that community (AIDs created by the government, the CIA putting crack into the ghetto, Kentucky Fried Chicken being secertly owned by the KKK, etc). A leader from that community usually has to speak these loony ideas.

Everyone thought Obama was different. But why? But let's face it, the Dems were hoodwinked in the worst way. This guy gave a good speech at the 2004 convention and they took that one mere event and deluded themselves into thinking he was a viable candidate, though he was a one term Senator (who won when his opponent imploded). The Dems have only themselves to blame for letting "wish become reality" in choosing such a potentially disasterous candidate...

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 8:11AM|#

Many politicians (and Americans generally, it seems) are of the mind that the church ought to be in strict service to the state. Many pastors, for their part, seem more than happy to verbally fellate the members of the ruling class.

Is it such a wild idea to use Jesus as the model for the Ministry of Jesus? Where are the pastors who would kick over a table or two in the temple square?

My question to all the indignant white Christians these past few days has been, what did your pastor say last week that wasn't every bit as radical sounding as what Wright said on those clips? Nothing? Why the hell not? Why do you put up with the spiritual sodomy that is church worship of the idol of the State?

|4.30.08 @ 8:11AM|#

Mr. Nice Guy wins the thread for the most intelligent and cogent post.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 8:13AM|#

For his part, Obama has been seriously irritating me with his lack of bravery in addressing how these issues have been presented, and shown little ability to speak in a forthright and nuanced fashion the way he seemed to start to in Philadelphia a few weeks back.

As Wright said, Obama is doing the miserable job of what politicians must do to win the audience to which they are assigned; that excuse has merit, but it goes only so far.

|4.30.08 @ 8:19AM|#

Oy, Michael "Stab 'em in the Back" Young returns to the attack. Since when did you become an expert on American politics, Mike? Since you became terrified that Obama wouldn't keep an American army in the Middle East forever?

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 8:21AM|#

It's not (at least I hope) the color of a black man's skin that makes many Americans worried about a black candidate, it's that they have seen a lot of people with pull in the black community possess some bizarre and/or angry thoughts.

Bizzare and/or angry thoughts, much like the ideas current in the white community that black women only have babies to get bigger welfare checks, or that black people have a genetic predisposition towards violence and crime, or that liberation theology is a cult embracing a crypto-racist supremacy endorsing the rightness for the black man to rise up, slay whites and take their stuff.

Come on. All groups of people nurse and harbor hateful and/or silly stereotypes about those who are different, especially when those differences are highlighted by embittering historical events and current conditions. This is almost a tacit admission that a black man can never be elected to high office in the US. Do you really believe that?

|4.30.08 @ 8:31AM|#

Elemenope | April 30, 2008, 8:21am | #
"This is almost a tacit admission that a black man can never be elected to high office in the US. Do you really believe that?"

Yes I think it true that a black man can not be elected to the office of potus. I wish it were not so, but we are a very white nation still. We all have our stereotypes of others, but the white folk still have the money and the power.

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 8:34AM|#

Wright is the gift that keeps on giving. Hopefully he doesn't kneecap Obama too much and give Hillary a clear victory, because then we'd lose out on the long knives convention.

(rubs hands in anticipation)

Rhywun|4.30.08 @ 8:40AM|#

Why doesn't Obama just come right out and say that Wright is a Clinton stooge and be done with it?

Wright On, Brother|4.30.08 @ 8:42AM|#

'Bizarre & angry thoughts' are understandable at this website, but won't be elsewhere. Obama admitted guilt and will be taken to the cleaners for it.

I cannot understand how he got talked into it. Mind you I don't like his politics, but neither do I like Hillary's or John's.

I was at least hoping that the campaigns would come down to simple questions: Iraq War? Y/N Universal Health Care Gov't Monopoly? Y/N Continued Weak Dollar Policy? Y/N of course hoping for a negative consensus.

My Barack Pages|4.30.08 @ 8:48AM|#

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
"Rip down all hate", I screamed
Lies that life is black & white
spoke from my skull. I dreamed

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 8:54AM|#

Why doesn't Obama just come right out and say that Wright is a Clinton stooge and be done with it?

Well, if it is true, then Obama is a moron for having and celebrating such a close association. Admitting you are a moron is probably a bad move.

Plus, it would sound utterly paranoid, and Obama isn't that stupid.

|4.30.08 @ 8:55AM|#

Well thank the Gods for that... I voted for a black man once for US Senate who was running against Jesse Helms. But for the Presidency?
Nay-perish the thought. This may be the first presidential election since 1974 wherein I will not cast a vote for either major party.

ChrisL

|4.30.08 @ 9:01AM|#

I think that Obama correctly identified the attacks on him by Wright as personal, but failed to notice that Americans don't really care. They just want to know that Obama won't take this kind of stuff from people and that he doesn't agree with Wright. They want him to seperate himself ideologically, not so much personally.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 9:02AM|#

...Kentucky Fried Chicken being secretly owned by the KKK...

Also, WTF? This is certainly a new one on me.

Though it would explain a lot.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 9:05AM|#

Is it me, or did you also feel that Barack Obama's responses to the series of comments by Reverend Jeremiah Wright were overly focused on, well, how Wright had personally dissed Barack Obama and his campaign?

Well, not in an inappropriate way. When defending himself from what Rev. Wright said at the National Press Club, it is already about the Senator.

However, this whole issue would not be a different story if Sen. Obama had said he was just going to that Church for the social appearance, rather than pretending that he was unaware of the preachings during the 20 years he was there.

If he had come out with this sort of a distancing back when FOX was the only place reporting it (and getting trashed for even paying attention) then it might be more believable too.

That said, I really don't believe that he sat there for 20 years and agreed with Rev. Wright, I believe that he was going there out of a sense of community, not unlike the way Benjamin Franklin went to Church, but Sen. Obama kept his count down to one Church, vs. three or more for Franklin.

I doubt that he ever thought that he would be accused of concurance by silence and when he was he tried to minimize it until he had to put the true feelings he has had for years on the table, whil spinning it as a revelation.

Those of you who think this makes him toast? I don't think so. This is shaping up more like Jimmy Carter's Church story from the 1970s.

|4.30.08 @ 9:05AM|#

I was wondering what lame spin the "Why won't Obama denounce Wright?" people would put out once he actually did.

After weeks of being assured that this isn't about Obama's views, but his personal character, now he's speaking about it in too personal terms, and it raises questions about his views.

Lame, incredibly transparent hackery, from someone terrified that the next president is gonig to end his beloved Crusade.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 9:19AM|#

Those of you who think this makes him toast? I don't think so. This is shaping up more like Jimmy Carter's Church story from the 1970s.

Jimmy Carter just said as much on Monday, on Larry King I believe.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 9:22AM|#

Jimmy Carter just said as much on Monday, on Larry King I believe.

Ah, completly missed that and did not expect Mr. Carter would even bring it up. Need to go back and look at the transcript to see if it was brough up honestly or in that Carter-revisionist way that he tends to do.

|4.30.08 @ 9:26AM|#

The cable nooz bobbleheads are talking about this as a Sistah Souljah moment. Of course, Bill Clinton didn't have a personal relationship with Sistah Souljah.

I remember during Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick's very similar "Hope" campaign, I liked him a lot, but I kept thinking "I want to see him kick somebody's ass." I was thinking about the legislative leadership in Massachusetts, and not being sure he was actually tough and mean enough to put up a good fight.

Well, congratulations, Barack. You kicked somebody's ass. You can be one mean summbitch.

Yeah, the old man had it coming with his antics lately, especially at that press conference. I imagine that made it easier for him.

There's nothing white America likes better in a black man than the willingness to fight against the BAD black men. Yes, this will help him. Whoopie.

|4.30.08 @ 9:29AM|#

I say Michael Young is full of WIN for his proper usage of "nonplussed". W00t!

Sidenote: What the hell is up with the odd poster names and even weirder, performance-art-like posts? Get offa my lawn, damn kids!

Neil|4.30.08 @ 9:30AM|#

He waited 20 years to ditch a racist black supremacist preacher, and in the meantime Joe and the other liberal Kos Kids bended over backwards to defend this racist idiot? What a weak, Jimmy Carter-like decision.

Still defending Wright Joe?

|4.30.08 @ 9:37AM|#

Still defending his sermons, Neil. Haven't budged an inch.

But the old man seems to be losing his marbles lately.

It's sad what age does to people. Wright should enjoy a quite retirement, as befits someone his age, not go around embarrassing himself like this. I have to wonder if he's got anyone in his life who can tell him to shut it down.

Neil|4.30.08 @ 9:43AM|#

How come he took 20 years Joe? Weak, weak weak. Don't give me the stuff about his age. Wright was always an insane racist.

How can you trust him to make tough Presidential decisions when he wavered and twisted in the wind about whether or not to disown Wright?

Kevin B. O\'Reilly|4.30.08 @ 9:44AM|#

Michael Young's analysis of domestic politics is just as trenchant as his foreign affairs commentary. No, that's not a compliment.

|4.30.08 @ 9:44AM|#

This may be of some importance. The National Press Club event with the reverend Wright was organized by Barbara Reynolds, Reynolds News Service, an enthusiastic Hillary supporter. She talks well of Hillary and explains why she voted for her in a primary in February and talks bad about Obama on her website.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 9:45AM|#

Sidenote: What the hell is up with the odd poster names and even weirder, performance-art-like posts? Get offa my lawn, damn kids!

A post modernist mobster approched me the other day with an offer that I could not understand.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 9:46AM|#

Hey, Neil, just curious: When was the last time your preacher spoke any truth to power worth remembering?

Or is he just another another petty theocrat happily stroking cardboard cutouts of George W. Bush?

Would Jesus be pleased?

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 9:48AM|#

brotherben,

Heard that last night. Interesting info.

So, now the dot connectors have Rev. Wright in President Clinton's "great wall of preachers" back during the impeachment days and this new datapoint.

Can't wait to see where this goes :)

|4.30.08 @ 9:48AM|#

"This may be of some importance. The National Press Club event with the reverend Wright was organized by Barbara Reynolds, Reynolds News Service, an enthusiastic Hillary supporter. She talks well of Hillary and explains why she voted for her in a primary in February and talks bad about Obama on her website."

Hillary knows how to play the game.

|4.30.08 @ 9:50AM|#

"Hillary knows how to play the game."


Well, she is married to The. Best. Ever.

|4.30.08 @ 9:53AM|#

Five bucks says that after Obama drops out (yes I still say he will) Hillary will, before the general election, say that it is shameful the way folks treated the poor man on account of his black heritage.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 9:54AM|#

Still defending his sermons, Neil. Haven't budged an inch.

But the old man seems to be losing his marbles lately.

Joe, not for nothing, but Wright's Bill Moyers appearance and his Nat'l Press club appearance were like a week apart. I personally see no inconsistency between the two, and no sign that the guy is "losing his marbles", though he responded impoliticly to some damn-fool "are you still beating your wife"-style questions, to be sure.

Then again, he ain't runnin' for office and should be free to speak his mind. Why should he much care that the truths he sees fit to point out are politically inconvenient to one candidate or another? If Obama, for example, really wants to be the post-racial reconciliatory figure he sells himself as, he needs to be able to translate the theology of oppression, which comes in angry terms (and certainly doesn't come unbidden from the void, but rather from very real personal experiences) into a language that can be understood and accepted by people with very different experiences. If he can't do that, how can he hope to speak to *both* sides of the racial divide? Wright should not have to apologize simply because that job is really hard; it is the job that Obama appointed himself to do.

In throwing Wright (and much of the liberation theology movement and language) under the bus, Obama risks overcompensating, and leaping into a language space that fails to speak to black America's concerns, and papers over issues from that perspective.

|4.30.08 @ 10:04AM|#

How come he took 20 years Joe? Because he wasn't the man we saw in that news conference 20 years ago, according to the only person in a position to know who's said anything about the matter.

Wright was always an insane racist. Really? How long have you been attending Trinity United, Neil? Did you start going immediately after you moved to the South Side of Chicago? Or are you still just talking out of your ass about the scary black people you've never met?

How can you trust him to make tough Presidential decisions when he wavered and twisted in the wind about whether or not to disown Wright? Not beng a political fanatic or asshole, I actually find it appealing that Obama has enough loyalty and human sentiment to find it difficult to cut longtime friends out of his life for political gain.

I guess it's a liberal thing to greet such a sight with resignation and mixed feelings, rather than cheering because there's blood on the floor, so you probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Neil|4.30.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Joe Hillary Clinton and John McCain would've thrown this guy under the bus a loooong time ago.

Neil lolcat|4.30.08 @ 10:11AM|#

I kan haz Chaoz?

Neil|4.30.08 @ 10:13AM|#

You will have chaos in Denver!

|4.30.08 @ 10:15AM|#

Elemenope,

I thought he did pretty well in Moyers interview, but he really went off the rails at the National Press Club.

If he'd said his piece to Moyers and exited the stage, he could have just dropped from view with his dignity and reputation intact.

Why should he much care that the truths he sees fit to point out are politically inconvenient to one candidate or another? Because he is using the media glare from the campaign to promote himself. He doesn't get to play the political naif if he's going to try to use a political campaign and the discourse surrounding it to make himself a national figure. He gets to be judged on that level, because (as his press tour demonstrates) he's working to put himself on that level.

Obama had no responsibility to distance himself from a private pastor who said things in sermons on Sundays. The God/Ceasar distinction applied two weeks ago. But now, Wright has decided that he wants to cross to the other side, so the calculus changes.

One last thing: the job Obama appointed himself to - national racial counsellor - involves calling out political figures who are picking at the wound and putting out more heat than light, to promote themselves. That job requires carrots, and sticks. Nobody said it was all going to be kumbaya.

Professor Chaos|4.30.08 @ 10:16AM|#

HA HA HA HA HA HA

General Disarray|4.30.08 @ 10:17AM|#

Simpsons did it!

Neil|4.30.08 @ 10:18AM|#

I'll be the one laughing when the riots come. It looks like Obama won't close the deal next Tuesday, either, since Hillary is catching up in NC and ahead in IN.

|4.30.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Neil | April 30, 2008, 10:08am | #

Joe Hillary Clinton and John McCain would've thrown this guy under the bus a loooong time ago.

Yes. Neither one of them would have had any difficulty severing ties with a friend for political gain. Neither one of them would have stuck their necks out even an inch to try to use the uproar to do anything but show how happy they are to stick the shiv in a bad guy.

Yes, you sure are right about that.

jtuf|4.30.08 @ 10:21AM|#

Look, we are talking about Obama's personal relationships. Of course Obama should factor in how someone treats him personally when deciding to keep or reject a relationship with that person.

When Rev. Wright's comments first came out, Obama denounced the comments. He kept his relationship with Rev. Wright for multiple reasons. Firstly, he thought the good in Rev. Wright outweighed the bad. Secondly, he thought some of Rev. Wright's attitudes were a response to past prejudice. Thirdly, he did not want to throw away a relationship that meant so much to him.

Rev. Wright's cynicism towards Obama at the press club made the latter two reasons for keeping him as a pastor less valid. Obama gave Wright the benefit of the doubt, but Wright did not reciprocate. Obama saw how Wright's views were a product to the times he grew up in, but Wright did not see how Obama's optimism came from the comparatively egalitarian times he grew up in. Obama rejected the Wright's comments but kept Wright even though doing so risked Obama's aspirations. Wright clung to comments that angered the public, but threw a member of his flock overboard to save his career as a preacher. I think if I was in Obama's shoes, I would follow the same path of denouncing with the hope of reconciliation followed by severing the relationship once reconciliation seemed impossible.

|4.30.08 @ 10:21AM|#

You will have chaos in Denver!

After Obama's statement yesterday, it is now a near-certainty that the superdelegates will flock to him, and the race will be over in June.

Hillary is catching up in NC and ahead in IN.

And now, we're going to see those trends reverse themselves.

Shall we make our predictions again, Neil?

|4.30.08 @ 10:24AM|#

This is almost a tacit admission that a black man can never be elected to high office in the US. Do you really believe that?

no. i also don't believe that a white politician who has a life-long close association with a minister espousing some of the crazy-white-folks beliefs you mentioned could get elected.

Neil|4.30.08 @ 10:25AM|#

Yeah I'll make my predictions Joe.

Hillary wins by 5 or more in IN and Obama wins by 10 or less in NC.

Neil 4-30-08

|4.30.08 @ 10:25AM|#

joe, I would suggest that Obama has held the ties for political gain in the black community. He is only cutting them now because they have become more of a liability than a asset. Maybe he formed the original ties for political gain as well. Who knows?

Rick H.|4.30.08 @ 10:27AM|#

Jesus F. Christ.

"Neil," you're like a modern-day Criswell with your endless stupid predictions. Go back to the Corner. No one cares.

Edward|4.30.08 @ 10:28AM|#

If the libertarian right ever came up with a candidate a tenth as bright, appealing, and talented as Barack Obama, you would be shitting your pants so abundantly that Reason would have to suspend publication for the clean up. Ron Paul? Bob Barr? Fuck!

|4.30.08 @ 10:28AM|#

brotherben,

They became a liability rather than an asset a month and a half ago, and Obama made a point of "loving the sinner, hating the sin." If his calculation was as you describe, he would have renounced Wright entirely in the More Perfect Union speech.

Neil,

Obama does no worse than a 2 point loss in Indiana, and wins North Carolina by more than 10.

Rick H.|4.30.08 @ 10:32AM|#

Dammit, joe. Now you're soliciting predictions. Thanks a lot.

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 10:33AM|#

Let's recap. Obama goes to a pastor for 20 years, writes a book using a sermon as a title, etc. Some controversy blows up, not a big deal.

But then Wright totally turns on Obama. Yes, he's hurt. But that asks the question: is Obama such a bad judge of character that he was inspired by and trusted a man who would sell him out as soon as he saw an opportunity to become a national figure?

Which is it? Obama is a terrible judge of character, in which case his ability to choose staff, advisors, judicial nominees, cabinet members, etc. is questionable...or Obama was associating with Wright for simple political expediency just like your standard politician?

I know Obama fans want it to be the former, and will accuse me of cynicism, but at every instance of Obama issues, there is a choice between tortured rationalization, or just fucking acknowledging that Obama is just another politician, albeit with a good sales pitch.

Time to wake up, folks.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Hillary Clinton and John McCain would've thrown this guy under the bus a loooong time ago.

Thus showing themselves to be callow and lukewarm. You really do know how to pick 'em, Neil. At least with Obama I get the sense that it is painful for him to throw his friend under the bus. (I also suspect that McCain, if he had a similar friend who was a political liability, would not be as mercenary as you think he would be. At least less than Hillary.)

He doesn't get to play the political naif if he's going to try to use a political campaign and the discourse surrounding it to make himself a national figure. He gets to be judged on that level, because (as his press tour demonstrates) he's working to put himself on that level.

I agree, though I think it to be less political naivete than political unconcern. He sees his role, national or otherwise, as something other than as a *political* figure. More Cornel West than Jesse Jackson, if you will. That he was originally thrust into the spotlight somewhat against his will doesn't mean it is inappropriate to embrace that as a "teaching moment".

As for the NPC Q&A, what did you find objectionable? Is it so crazy to say things like that the US should consider apologizing for the inexcusable things it did fifty, a hundred, two hundred years ago (like he pointed out Britain had managed to bring itself to do)? What is at stake in doing those things except pride? I think he also did a good job of reinforcing the point that criticizing "America" per se is primarily a criticism of policy makers, of leaders, rather than the mass of people.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 10:36AM|#

Obama is just another politician, albeit with a good sales pitch.

So was Reagan. I'll take that shit over politicians with bad sales pitches any day of the damn week.

Neil|4.30.08 @ 10:42AM|#

Elemenope, you gotta be tough to be President. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy, too, how did he work out?

Mad Max|4.30.08 @ 10:44AM|#

Are't Rev. Wright's 15 minutes up yet?

Neil|4.30.08 @ 10:44AM|#

I think we should apologize for slavery once the Africans apologize for selling their own people in the first place.

|4.30.08 @ 10:46AM|#

Mad Max, his 15 minutes will expire when Hillary has the nomination. Then it will be time for Hagee to get the spotlight.

adrian|4.30.08 @ 10:46AM|#

i enjoy the way joe squirms when neil is in the conversation.

bravo Neil!

Naga Sadow|4.30.08 @ 10:47AM|#

Mad Max,

His 15 minutes will end when he drops out of the race, loses the presidential seat, or wins the presidential seat. Sorry.

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 10:52AM|#

I'll take that shit over politicians with bad sales pitches any day of the damn week.

O Rly? Why? How is a scheming politician who is good at pulling the wool over peoples' eyes better than one who sucks at it? Do you like being lied to well rather than badly?

If Nixon had been charming and eloquent, you think we'd have found out about Watergate?

|4.30.08 @ 10:52AM|#

I love it the way people pat themselves on the back for noticing that a United States Senator, former State Senator from Chicago, and Presidential candidate is, in fact, a politician.

As if they are making some great discovery the unwashed masses don't realize.

A politician? Really? You mean, the guy travelling around the country soliciting votes and money for his political ambitions is a politician?

Wow. How did you ever guess?

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 10:55AM|#

If Nixon had been charming and eloquent, you think we'd have found out about Watergate?

I'm going to riff off myself here:

Richard Nixon's Head: Nixon...with charisma? I COULD RULE THE UNIVERSE!

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 10:56AM|#

Super response, joe. Total evasion of the question.

Is Obama a terrible judge of character, or is he a totally opportunistic politician?

|4.30.08 @ 10:57AM|#

Yeah, Neil, because you know, those Europeans had no interest in slaves until those Africans sold them.

|4.30.08 @ 10:59AM|#

Why shouldn't Obama focus on how Wright's comments affect him & his campaign? Obama is running for president. Wright is only famous because of his connection to Obama. Everyone else is weighing the effect those Wright speeches will have on Obama's campaign, why should Obama himself be any different?

Or are we supposed to be shocked that someone running for president has a big ego?

In any case, this whole monthlong crazy Reverend debacle was obviously a carefully staged diversion designed to conceal the fact that Obama is a Muslim. Why won't the MSM tell the truth?!?

|4.30.08 @ 11:00AM|#

Yes joe, and because he is a career politician I expect that everything he says and does and all his associations are guided by his sense of their political expediancy. He just doesn't have the skill set necessary for the big show.

|4.30.08 @ 11:00AM|#

Elemenope,

As for the NPC Q&A, what did you find objectionable?

Well, substantively, I didn't like his characterization of Louis Farrakhan.

But my larger complaint is about how he has decided to use his points and beliefs to promote himself at Obama's expense. He is knowingly jumping into the spotlight and skewing the presidential race, regardless of the actual consequences. It's the cynical self-promotion that bothers me. Nobody is going to talk about slavery apologies and whatnot because of Wright's speech. They're going to keep talking about Wright and his significant in national politics. It's all about Wright.

|4.30.08 @ 11:01AM|#

Claiming a candidate is a 'bad judge of character' when the rival candidate remains highly involved with and supportive of one of only two presidents to be impeached is just a silly way to go. What does that say about her, hmm?
You want to make character a campaign issue, Clinton loses, Keating Five or no.

|4.30.08 @ 11:01AM|#

Episarch- Your question to Joe seems to rest on the pre-supposition that Wright is unchanging. In other words, Wright has always said things that some people find offensive. (Many of his criticisms are demonstrably true, a few are questionable, and a few are batshit insane) I don't seen any evidence of that. We do know that several snippets of a few of Wright's sermons have been stripped on context and played on an endless loop in the media. That tells us precisely nothing about what has gone on for the past 20 years, why Obama chose to attend that church, or what his thoughts about whatever Wright said on most Sundays were. I don't know that, and you don't know that.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 11:02AM|#

Has there ever been a riot in Denver since 1871? I mean a serious one, like 1968 Chicago, not that street party 2000 in LA.

|4.30.08 @ 11:02AM|#

Joe, if his cynical self promotion was helping Obama, would you still dislike it?

|4.30.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Is Obama a terrible judge of character, or is he a totally opportunistic politician?

Holy fasle dilemma, Batman!

Of course, Obama can't be right about Wright changing. Of course, he can't be genuinely offended by Wright's performance.

Nope, the only possibilities that people who base their outsized self-regard on, and hide their ignorance of the nuts and bolts of politics behind, a pose of wordly cycnism are those two.

Neil|4.30.08 @ 11:04AM|#

There will be in August, Guy. A great way to cap off the Greatest Democrat Party Primary Ever!

|4.30.08 @ 11:04AM|#

Episiarch, do you constantly trumpet how much smarter you are for making sure not to know anything about individual politicians because you didn't enough attention as a child, or because of your teeny weenie?

Pick one. Don't evade the question.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Elemenope, you gotta be tough to be President. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy, too, how did he work out?

You mean the guy who came closest *in human history* to brokering peace in the Middle East? I dunno, Neil, how *did* he work out?

I think we should apologize for slavery once the Africans apologize for selling their own people in the first place.

Yeah, neil. We should wait to do the right thing until *everyone else* decides to do the right thing. Did you go to the Ethics Night School for Cowards, or something?

O Rly? Why? How is a scheming politician who is good at pulling the wool over peoples' eyes better than one who sucks at it? Do you like being lied to well rather than badly?

I think we're working on two different uses of "sales pitch". I prefer that a politician say he's going to do x, y, and z, where x, y, and z are things I'd like to see happen. Then if he doesn't do x, y, and z (or at least try), e.g. the carpet doesn't match the drapes, then you have something to work with to call him on later.

Whereas with a politician who simply sells him/herself as the more "patriotic" choice gives you nothing to work with either way. Like or hate Reagan, he was coming from *somewhere*, ideologically, and could be criticized and complemented on those terms.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 11:07AM|#

Oh and p.s., Neil, from many personal reports, Carter *isn't* that nice a guy.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 11:08AM|#

I mean a serious one, like 1968 Chicago, not that street party 2000 in LA.

Everyone can use a good street party.

|4.30.08 @ 11:08AM|#

brotherben,

Yes joe, and because he is a career politician I expect that everything he says and does and all his associations are guided by his sense of their political expediancy. That just doesn't jibe with his decision to take a nuanced position on Wright in the Philadelphia speech, when it would have been so much more expedient to disown him completely then and there.

He just doesn't have the skill set necessary for the big show. Uh, yeah, that's it; Barack Obama just doesn't have much in the way of political skills. That's why he's beating Hillary Clinton, and why he's been able to build a better ground operation in a year and a half than she built in 15.

Joe, if his cynical self promotion was helping Obama, would you still dislike it? The question doesn't make sense. Cyncial self-promotion by a candidate's acquaintances harms the candidate, by definition, if only by being a distraction.

|4.30.08 @ 11:09AM|#

Number 6,

The assumption that Wright has never changed helps Episiarch feel superior and wordly, and that's how decides what's true.

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 11:10AM|#

joe once again proves his superior intellect and debating skills by instantly devolving into "tiny weenie" attacks. But at least you didn't fail to do exactly what I wanted you to do joe: bristle and attack the instant I criticized Obama--and basically politely, too.

Your tortured rationalizations of everything and anything about Obama are obvious and laughable, joe, and you display that in every one of these threads.

I just wanted to see if you would, as always, do exactly the same thing. You did, thanks.

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 11:10AM|#

Did you see the way Wright knocked it out of the park the other day? The Republicans are going to be sorry they ever misrepresented Wright as the American people clearly see that this is a thoughtful, clear sighted man. They are beginning to see the truth in his great 'God and Government ' speech that you Republicans have been distorting with your highly selective and out of context quotes.

But what fun that was! Wright way he punched out those questions the press (doing the GOP's bidding) like Joe Fraizer. He moved left, jabbed right, moved right, jabbed left.

Oh, you Reppubs are finished!

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 11:12AM|#

You mean the guy who came closest *in human history* to brokering peace in the Middle East? I dunno, Neil, how *did* he work out?

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

|4.30.08 @ 11:12AM|#

joe once again...

Good move. I wouldn't respond to my points, either. Your position is completely indefensible, so flopping like an English soccer player and going for sympathy is probably your best move.

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 11:14AM|#

Brilliant move by Obama distancing himself with that crazy preacher. The American people appreciate frankness, and that is what Obama gave them yesterday with his condemnation of Wright. You Republicans love nothing more than to see a Good Black man go after a bad one, and you got your wish, but your wish is going to back fire on you.

Nothing can touch him. You punch from the left, Obama jabs right, you punch right, Obama steps out and jabs left, and pretty soon you are just punch drunk.

Have you seen the polls. You Republicans are toast!

Neil|4.30.08 @ 11:14AM|#

When our hostages were taken Carter could've bombed Iran back to the stone age to punish the bastards for sticking their finger in our face. But no, lil Jimmy had to plead and play nice with the Mullahs instead of showing them whose boss. So yeah, hes too nice of a guy.

I bet neither John McCain or even Hillary Clinton would've let the Mad Mullahs get away with that.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 11:15AM|#

BAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Um, giggle all you like. Egypt and Jordan now recognize Israel as a nation in no small part because of his mediations.

|4.30.08 @ 11:18AM|#

Gee, I wonder who's posting as "Partisan Hack?"

Such a mystery. Who could it possibly be?

My guess would be, someone who likes to think of himself as above partisanship, who only even criticizes Democrats, and who has recently gone into a snit.

With the bit about the polls, it's obviously someone who has a problem with me (since I'm the one who backs up my statements about the race with poll data more than anyone else), so it's also someone with a problem with me.

Really. It's baffling. Just one of those mysteries, I guess.

|4.30.08 @ 11:19AM|#

Sure, I'm sick of people worshipping Obama and making lame excuses for his lame mistakes and psycho friends, but the thing I am really sick of is "threw X under the bus." Good grief, it is even more annoying than "fire in the belly." Every freaking political conversation has to include "threw X under the bus" now. Please, just cut it out.

|4.30.08 @ 11:20AM|#

Oh, look, Chickenhawk Neil would have been happy to see 400 embassy personnel executed, in order to save face.

Why is this not surprising?

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 11:21AM|#

Unlike you Republicans and Libertarians. I don't just stand around on a street corner looking all cool leaning against a wall telling every body how 'above it all' I am. At least I believe in some one, in a some cause, and I'm willing to get involved and get myself dirty.

Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 11:23AM|#

joe, I got what I wanted from you. I do not post sockpuppet posts--unlike you--and all my joke posts include my URL. Ask the reason editors if you wish. Leave me out of your paranoia, please.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Why is this not surprising?

Because death before national dishonor is a perverse fixation of those who have never been confronted with their own.

And also Klingons, I suppose.

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 11:24AM|#

Any way, I got the numbers (hey, who cares about that electoral college vote, it is the popular vote that counts) . . oh wait, this will have to continue later, I see my high horse is coming up the street.

|4.30.08 @ 11:28AM|#

joe, I got what I wanted from you.

Good. Now you can go away, and let those of us whose ambitions extend higher than striking a pose of superiority continue the conversation you lack the ability to contribute to.

|4.30.08 @ 11:29AM|#

"the rival candidate remains highly involved with and supportive of one of only two presidents to be impeached"

That's one of the things I like about Hillary. The bogus impeachment brought shame upon the plotters, not the target.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 11:30AM|#

As interesting as all of this is, remember, Mrs. Clinton says 'the majority of people who cast votes voted for me'. Not sure if she is only counting the living, one ote per person, or that other way the Democrats usually do it.

Oh, and she also implies that all the electronic voting machines are rigged by the Republicans.

Not sure of Senator Obama can overcome this issue.

|4.30.08 @ 11:31AM|#

Partisan Hack isn't one of those elitists, with their fancy numbers and understanding of the political process.

Electoral college? Uh, you know this is a primary, right?

P.S. - love the bit about "Partisan Hacks," "Republicans," and "Libertarians."

Good think you're not a partisan hack, sock puppet.

|4.30.08 @ 11:32AM|#

"Has there ever been a riot in Denver since 1871? I mean a serious one, like 1968 Chicago, not that street party 2000 in LA."

Have blacks ever been disenfranchised when a black candidate that they're supporting is denyed the nomination inspite of having the most pledged delegates?

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 11:36AM|#

That's one of the things I like about Hillary. The bogus impeachment brought shame upon the plotters, not the target.

Also, it revealed the hysterical misogyny of those who would say that Hillary's continued fealty to her husband could only come from some cynical political calculation and not from the affections of the bonds of marriage.

|4.30.08 @ 11:36AM|#

"remember, Mrs. Clinton says 'the majority of people who cast votes voted for me'."

She's counting Florida and Michigan which don't count. Michigan certainly shouldn't count as Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

|4.30.08 @ 11:42AM|#

Also, it revealed the hysterical misogyny of those who would say that Hillary's continued fealty to her husband could only come from some cynical political calculation and not from the affections of the bonds of marriage.

Outside of a limited base, the only thing that people find appealing about Hillary Clinton is the venality of her enemies.

'the majority of people who cast votes voted for me' is a carefully-constructed phrase intended to eliminate from consideration the millions of people who participated in caucuses that don't inlcude the casting of ballots.

|4.30.08 @ 11:47AM|#

From Wright's Press Club reaction (and from the Moyers interview), one can surmise that Obama's comments during the More Perfect Union speech (which basically amounted to, "Jeremiah Wright is an old black man with outdated views so let's try to work on changing people like him") must have just pissed off Wright to the very core of his being.

Personally, I don't believe Obama shared Wright's views for the past 20 years. Obama just seems too reasonable a person to go along with all those conspiracy theories. I think he went to that church to try to fit in with the black community and then over time it became just a habit that didn't need to be broken. In his mind it was a separate part of his life (like so many people feel about church; They go every Sunday because that's what they've always done).

Although I don't agree with Obama's positions (except for the Iraq War), I'm thinking I may vote for him simply because I think the country needs a black president now to weaken the positions of Wright, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.

Tunes2Swoon2|4.30.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Could I be lost
Could I disappear
Could I be lost
Would you find me here?
Could I be lost in a secret place?
Could I rest in the shadow of your face


When I hurt, when I bleed
You're holding me
Feel you scratching at the surface
Under my skin [2x]

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 12:00PM|#

She's counting Florida and Michigan which don't count. Michigan certainly shouldn't count as Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Yea, thanks for the hot tip. I was giving an approximate quote from her, not me.

Kinda funny, the "count every vote" party sure ain't doing a good job of it with their on primary. I wonder how the counties run by them do on this issue?

|4.30.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Kinda funny, the "count every vote" party sure ain't doing a good job of it with their on primary.

And how the Law and Order Party is taking only symbolic action of no consequence in response to the violation of its bylaws.

And between Ohio and Washington, D.C., I'd say we have a pretty good idea of how places run by them do on following the law.

|4.30.08 @ 12:04PM|#

intended to eliminate from consideration the millions of people who participated in caucuses

IANA political wonk or anything, but even if all 50 states caucaused, and had 50,000 participants in each one, that would only be 2.5 million participants.

So, yeah, I highly doubt that "millions" actually cacaused, joe. Just sayin'

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 12:05PM|#

What does the primary matter, Joe? A real Obama man like me only looks to the general election because the fat lady has sung and only the counting is left to be done. Stand aside, you easy pickings Republican bait. Fancy Feast is not just something you feed your cat!

|4.30.08 @ 12:05PM|#

And between Ohio and Washington, D.C., I'd say we have a pretty good idea of how places run by them do on following the law.

Wait, what? Are you saying the GOP runs Ohio and The District?

I am confused.

And I hope you're not going back to the 2004 cry of "Blackwell stole the election for Bush", because that's a load of crap.

alan|4.30.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Hey guys, anything I miss? Wait a sec, I got to go freshen my tea.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Wait, what? Are you saying the GOP runs Ohio and The District?

Don't forget San Fran, Miami, LA and Chicago. Didn't you know? The GOP secretly runs everything.

|4.30.08 @ 12:20PM|#

Ayn Randian,

There were hundreds of thousands of people in the Iowa caucus alone.

If you go to realclearpolitics.com, they keep a couple of different popular vote totals, including one that estimates the popular vote from caucuses that don't report the actual vote totals (they only report delegates selected), and those four amount to a six-digit figure.

Fluffy|4.30.08 @ 12:21PM|#

Of course, he can't be genuinely offended by Wright's performance.

Frankly, Joe, I think it reflects worse on Obama is he's actually offended.

Wright has said two things that were truly objectionable: his belief that the government created AIDS, and his belief that there are genetic differences in the brains of whites and blacks. But in these beliefs he is merely mistaken, and not malicious, as far as I am concerned.

And I have to note that Obama didn't denounce Wright solely for these statements. Obama specifically denounced him for claiming that 9/11 was at least in part the result of US foreign policy. By doing so, Obama essentially granted the guys over at The Corner something they have wanted for a long time: the explicit admission by the Democrat candidate that no deviation from neocon political talking points will be acceptable in our discourse. Period.

By declaring Wright anti-American, despite Wright's protestations that he is not anti-American, Obama has thrown in his lot with the flag pin motherfuckers of the world. The new definition of anti-American, thanks to Obama, is "whatever makes the guys at the Corner complain, if they complain long enough and if the mainstream media covers the story".

Is Obama going to denounce his wife now? That's going to be the next demand from the flag pin fuckwads out there.

I know that what I am saying here will frustrate you, because the political reality is that Obama "had" to do what he did, but I don't give a shit about that. Based solely on the merits of his statement about Wright, Obama just fucked over everyone who doesn't roll over and play dead every time W yells "9/11!" When did Rudy Giuliani take over the Obama campaign?

Fluffy|4.30.08 @ 12:21PM|#

Sorry, that should have read: "...IF he's actually offended."

|4.30.08 @ 12:22PM|#

What does the primary matter, Joe?

It makes you look like an idiot, as you took cheap shots at me by talking about the Electoral Colledge.

Since you seem to think sparring with me is so incredibly important, I'm just going with the flow.

|4.30.08 @ 12:28PM|#

But in these beliefs he is merely mistaken, and not malicious, as far as I am concerned. Regardless, he is using divisive rhetoric while discussing his points, for the purpose of continuing the media frenzy. That's offensive.

Obama specifically denounced him for claiming that 9/11 was at least in part the result of US foreign policy.? He went further than saying "at least in part," and when given the opportunity to take a more nuanced position which acknowledges that that is not the whole story, he slapped it down.

By declaring Wright anti-American, despite Wright's protestations that he is not anti-American, Obama has thrown in his lot with the flag pin motherfuckers of the world. I disagree. I think there is a middle ground, and don't see how buying into the argument of the Cornerites that there is none is terribly helpful.

Is Obama going to denounce his wife now? His wife has never said anything that remotely approaches what Wright has said and done, even if the guys at the Corner keep tellig you there is no difference between them.

chipotle|4.30.08 @ 12:35PM|#

his belief that there are genetic differences in the brains of whites and blacks

There are pretty obvious general physical differences between blacks and whites, and the brain is a physical organ, so it's not out of the question. Whether Wright was right in the specifics of what he said is another question...

J sub D|4.30.08 @ 12:35PM|#

My humble take on the whole brouhaha.
Rev. Wright has gooten his taste of FAME. Fame is intoxicating and addictive for many people, Rev. Wright included. He is viewing this as a golden opportunity to spread his mixed bag of views. He is not politically astute and is being played by those who are.

None of this has any bearing on my views on the Obama candicacy. When Catholic clergy slammed Kerry, going so far as to saying that they would deny him communion, that affected my views similarly. I don't think either of those politicians decide their positions based on clergy pronouncements.

Does anybody here think otherwise?

peein on Ayn\'s Lawn|4.30.08 @ 12:35PM|#

I'm not sure how anyone who read the transcript of Wright's NPC appearance can call that "self promotion." His prepared words were entirely focused on the visibility (or lack thereof) of the "black church." He reiterated this focus during the Q&A.

He also never came close to slamming or criticizing Obama. He called Obama a "politician", and expressed a realistic view of what the press/public expects of a politician on the campaign.

Therefore, for Obama to complain about Wright "commanding the stage," "insulting" his campaign and "disrespecting" him, is pathetic. It's like he's angry that somebody else has a soap-box, too.

Why shouldn't Wright use some air time to promote the history of the black church?

crw|4.30.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Question: wtf does this whole guilt-by-association freak show have to do with free markets and free minds? Criticize Obama for his paternalistic economic policy. This whole flap makes about as much sense as diving tea leaves to try to psychically read someone's mind. It's on the same level as nailing Ron Paul because he occasionally speaks to 9/11 conspiracy groups about sane foreign policy or whatever. It doesn't really tell us whether Obama will advance or hinder the cause of freedom. Way to help make libertarian causes a campaign issue, guys...

|4.30.08 @ 12:38PM|#

I skoolz u!!1!

|4.30.08 @ 12:39PM|#

Don't forget San Fran, Miami, LA and Chicago. Didn't you know? The GOP secretly runs everything.

Only the ones who are also Masons.

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Only the ones who are also Masons.

Yea, but who runs the Masons? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Guy Montag|4.30.08 @ 12:43PM|#

crw,

wtf does this whole guilt-by-association freak show have to do with free markets and free minds?

hint: the last word of your sentence is key.

|4.30.08 @ 12:56PM|#

All of this back-and-forth over a bunch of inconsequential crap is pretty amazing, isn't it?

As a non-Democrat, watching these piranhas devour each other is mighty entertaining. The only thing that could make things better is if McCain starts acting out his inner Captain Queeg. Which I guarantee you'll see by September.

Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 1:15PM|#

All of this back-and-forth over a bunch of inconsequential crap is pretty amazing, isn't it?

Race relations isn't exactly "inconsequential". Unless, of course, you're a white guy who desperately believes in post-racial or race-blind America as a present reality.

Then I suppose it would be.

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 1:21PM|#

Oh my, my, my, Joe. Still playing spell check master with your personal record in that regard? Hell, there is even a law named after you for that.

Anywho, it is not like I want to do this, but Obama asked me to stand beside you until the next bus rolls around. See, you are hurting the campaign because the half dozen tricks you keep popping out of that bag are played out, and the people are starting to see through it.

Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 1:30PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy wins the thread for the most intelligent and cogent post.

Nah.
MNG has been saying from the start that white people will never vote for a black guy. Seems he wants it to be true and posts stuff like this whenever something fits that narrative.

I don't buy the basic premise.

ChrisO,

I agree. I am not surprised when Fox leads with Wright, but I was a bit surprised that everyone else did too.

The fact that this is the best dirt they can get on Obama, some lame guilt by association shit, actually says that Obama is in good shape when the general election comes 'round.

Obama is suspected of not disagreeing strongly enough with his crazy friend who says bigoted and racist shit.

McCain says bigoted and racists shit himself.

If bigoted and racist views are gonna stop you from voting for someone who do you pick?

Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 1:35PM|#

chipotle,

his belief that there are genetic differences in the brains of whites and blacks

There are pretty obvious general physical differences between blacks and whites, and the brain is a physical organ, so it's not out of the question. Whether Wright was right in the specifics of what he said is another question...

I suspect that the Grand Chalupa is back in a new guise.

The problem with this is the attempt to strongly link a superficial feature (skin color) with something more robust in the basic human design. There is wide variability in human brain structure because its development is controlled by a large number of genetic and environmental factors. The correlation between the final outcome and skin color is trivial at best.

Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 1:35PM|#

Not to mention the weak correlation between skin color, genetic make-up, and self-identified race.

Edward|4.30.08 @ 1:38PM|#

So much media coverage of Rev. Wright, and so little of Ron Paul's newsletters. It helps to be a fucking little nobody with a miniscule following of lobotomized cultists, at least if you're loooking to keep your dirty underwear far from public view. It just flabbergats me that nitwits who got excited about Ron Paul feel they have anything sensible to contribute to a political discussion. And guess what? You don't.

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 1:48PM|#

Oh, and Joe, I'm not a sock puppet. I am a mirror. If you find me annoying, it is only because you are annoying. Ta ta.

|4.30.08 @ 2:24PM|#

Ayn Randian,

Wait, what? Are you saying the GOP runs Ohio and The District?

I'm saying that the GOP ran Ohio when it was going through its series of hilarious scandals, and ran the federal government during the hilarious series of scandals that characterized the period from 2001-2007. My favorite was Cunningham case; what's yours?

|4.30.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Partisan Hack | April 30, 2008, 1:48pm | #

Oh, and Joe, I'm not a sock puppet. I am a mirror.

You just keep telling yourself that. Really, such insight, with your content-free comments and determination to talk about me instead of any ideas.

|4.30.08 @ 2:57PM|#

Race relations isn't exactly "inconsequential". Unless, of course, you're a white guy who desperately believes in post-racial or race-blind America as a present reality.


Race relations are consequential. But a migraine-inducing thread over what Obama said about what his former Pastor said about he had said previously? That's inconsequential.

Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 3:25PM|#

John McCain,

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

This slip of the tongue by McCain does not require a "well since he associated with X, he must share X's views" kind of logic.

In a head to head, Obama wins on this issue.

imho

It would be nice, however, if the debate that the news programs push was about more substantive issues.

|4.30.08 @ 4:29PM|#

I'm saying that the GOP ran Ohio when it was going through its series of hilarious scandals

Oh you must mean the ones where Ohio AG Mark Dann has two investigations on sexual misconduct being performed externally on his office at the same time? (Note to non-Ohioans: stay away from people from Youngstown).

Or how Gov. Strickland is moving to wipe OhioQuits off the map by rewriting the law, because they dared sue the state from taking money from them (to which they are entitled under the Master Settlement Agreement)?

I was no fan of Taft by any stretch, but corrupt and stupid Ohio politics is not a partisan effort.

|4.30.08 @ 4:34PM|#

"Is it me"

It's you. Aside from committing hari kiri on live TV, what could Obama do that would please Michael Young?

About MY's latest missive, I'm sure that when his pastor disses him on national TV as he runs for the presidency, MY will not defend himself against any attacks. I mean, only narcissists would do such a thing!

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 4:36PM|#

You heard it from the man himself. Most of my earlier post were pulled from some of Joe's Greatest Hits, just not in an order that he would find to his liking since they shine a light on his severe case of cognitive dissonance being that he says one thing one day and contradicts himself on every other. What is Joe's verdict on Joe's greatest hits, content free

Partisan Hack|4.30.08 @ 4:48PM|#

If you had any presence of mind, it would have been obvious to you that Obama would be forced to disassociate himself from Wright's hate speech. No, you actually tried to make the case for Wright with the all too cute, I'll tell you, if he's trying to be a racist, segregationist, anti-American preacher, he needs to find another line of work, because he's not very good at it. Heck, he even managed to get himself made the pastor of the largest church in a majority-white denomination.

Sounds, pretty stupid now (did then, but you didn't see what was coming next), doesn't it?

Obama in these difficult days doesn't need an ass kisser like you, what he needs, is a friend who will be honest with him. Could you be that friend? No, you don't have it in you.

Sorry, sometimes the view in the mirror can get pretty ugly.

Speaking for the majority of r|4.30.08 @ 4:52PM|#

Why do you put up with the spiritual sodomy that is church worship of the idol of the State?

1) I only go to church becuase my parents dragged me kicking and screaming. After 16 years of that, I was psychologically beaten down to the point where I now feel a twinge of guilt if I don't have some sort of religion in my life, so I just stick with what's familiar. Beats asking difficult spiritual questions. Basically, I use religion as a front.

2) I go to the church my partner/spouse goes to because it's important to him/her and I don't want to create a needless argument. I can go to the services and ignore/pay lip service to whatever is being said. I'm trying to get laid, after all. Basically I use religion as a front.

3) I have political aspirations, and like #1 above, I feel a need to display some sort of proof that I believe in religion so as not to alienate myself to a significant portion of voters. Basically, I use religion as a front.

Obama fits profile #2 and #3. He certainly doesn't fit profile #1 as he has occasioned other religious practices (if not taken them as faiths) throughout his life.

Russ 2000|4.30.08 @ 4:57PM|#

Jimmy Carter just said as much on Monday, on Larry King I believe.

Still to come, Barack Obama secretly touches Mexicans.

|4.30.08 @ 9:52PM|#

Number six-

Episarch- Your question to Joe seems to rest on the pre-supposition that Wright is unchanging. In other words, Wright has always said things that some people find offensive.

Please show me the time period when Rev. Wright's opinions changed to these 'offensive' views... In Obambi's "race speech" in Philly, Barack actually said Wright should be expected to hold these exact same views- and, that it was excusable- simply because the Rev. had heard that some blacks had been victimized by racism during his childhood...

Meanwhile, Wright's entire "theology" has always been based on the "black liberation theology" propounded by James Cone.

James Cone... the same dude who said "God's purpose is to eliminate the white oppressor", and "If God won't destroy the "white oppressor", then 'blacks' must destroy God".


The only thing that has changed about Rev. Wright is his address... Despite his church's "Disavowal of 'middleclassness'", the racist Rev. just built a million dollar house in a gated community.