Ah Said, the Sheriff is a Ni-[DING!]

Guh. You don't need to be an Barack Obama partisan to find this Jonathan Martin enterprise story in The Politico sort of disturbing. The basics: Republican consultants are hopeful that the Jeremiah Wright episode will hammer home the meme that Obama is a black radical who hates his country.

If Michelle Obama’s gaffe caused some ripples in the right-wing pond, the Wright videos have detonated the equivalent of a daisy cutter on the conservative landscape, awakening an otherwise dispirited party base.

“I usually get three or four emails a week on Obama,” said Michigan Republican chairman Saul Anuzis Monday. “Today I received more than 10 – all of them on his minister.”

Among the e-mails Anuzis received was a link to a mash-up video splicing together Wright’s most extreme comments, Michelle Obama’s statement, footage of Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the anthem at a political event and images of Malcolm X and the two black Olympians in 1968 who raised their fists in the “black power” salute set to the iconic rap song by Public Enemy “Fight the Power.”

Very subtle. I've heard grumbling about Obama not saluting the flag for a while on the campaign trail. The day of the New Hampshire primary, some Republican activists (assuming Obama would win) said McCain would clobber him over that issue alone. The evolution of that meme into this one has been fascinating to watch.

“It’s harder for people to say it’s taken out of context because these are Wright’s own words,” noted Chris LaCivita, the Republican strategist who helped craft the Swift Boat commercials against Kerry that employed the use of their target’s own language when he returned from Vietnam and returned his medals. “You let people draw their own conclusions.”

“You don’t have to say that he’s unpatriotic, you don’t question his patriotism,” he added. “Because I guaran-damn-tee you that with that footage you don’t have to say it.”

I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with this. Obama's own "anti-America" moments in this chain have been limited to not wearing a flag pin and not putting his hand on his heart while singing the the national anthem. (The photos that circulate over e-mail claim this was actually during the Pledge, which isn't true.) The dynamite evidence in United States v. Obama (2008) is the rhetoric of Obama's wife and his pastor. We've had presidential candidates' wives attacked before (1992 comes to mind), but his pastor? This is new territory for a presidential campaign, I think. Left playing Mr. Nice Guy on this Mike Huckabee, who said this on Joe Scarborough's morning show.

Obama made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.

Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."

And Huckabee has, you know, given some sermons. Has the left been playing dirty pool by pulling statements out of Jerry Falwell sermons, though? Sometimes, maybe, although the most controversial thing Falwell said in his final decade (blaming the ACLU and abortionists for 9/11) was actually during a CNN appearence. The implication of the Wright-Obama attack, though, is not that Wright is crazy, but that Obama is a secret racist and America-hater, and that the truth of this is only revealed by the statements of his wife and his pastor.

Headline explained here.

Comments

highnumber | March 19, 2008, 9:10am | #

“It’s harder for people to say it’s taken out of context because these are Wright’s own words,”

That doesn't make sense.

Reverend Cleophus James | March 19, 2008, 9:13am | #

"And now, people...and now, people...when I woke up this morning, I heard a disturbing sound. I said, when I woke up this morning, I heard a disturbing sound. What I heard was the jingle-jangle of a thousand lost souls. And I'm talking about the soul of mortal men and women, departed from this life. Wait a minute, those lost, anguished souls roamin' unseen over the earth, seekin' the divine light they'll not find. Because it's too late...too late, yeah, too late...for them to ever see again, the light they once chose not to follow! Alright, alright, don't be lost when the time comes. For the day of the Lord cometh, as a thief in the night. Amen. DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?"

joe | March 19, 2008, 9:13am | #

“You don’t have to say that he’s unpatriotic, you don’t question his patriotism,” he added. “Because I guaran-damn-tee you that with that footage you don’t have to say it.”

You don't need to use any logic or arguments; you can just use imagery to make people have strong feelings, in order to short-circuit logic.

What Barack Obama had to say yesterday about race relations didn't insult my intelligence. The people going after him for Jeremiah Wright's conspiracy theories do.

SugarFree | March 19, 2008, 9:29am | #

Obama/Huckabee '08

The Likability Ticket

joe | March 19, 2008, 9:32am | #

Check it out, I was accidently cc'ed on an email.

To: Barack Obama
From: Bob Shrum
Re: Reverend Wright
Date: 03/11/08

Barack,

I am outraged about the attacks being launched at you, but the most important thing to remember is that you can't over-react.

Seriously, you shoud just ignore this. People are going to see these smears for what they are. You don't want to stoop to the level of your opponents.

Don't dignify them with a response. I'm telling you, it'll blow over if you just don't make a big deal about it!

Remember: it's only a story if you make it one. If you give a response, it will just be stooping to their level.

Whoops, sounds like Cokie needs another drinkie. C-ya.

creech | March 19, 2008, 9:34am | #

Most of us have friends or relatives who have opinions with which we disagree. I have a friend who has become steadily more libertarian over the years, but still harbors prejudice against Mexicans after working there (and speaking fluent Spanish). Everytime he begins to spout off, I chide him and argue against him. I hope you do to with your Archie Bunker uncle, or whatever.
And that's what disappoints me about Mr. Obama.
His "hope and change" campaign leads us to believe, to channel Ms. Clinton, that the skies will open, the light will come down, and celestial choirs will sing. In other words, he is going to sit down with a sharply divided America, with strongly partisan political foes, and using his charm and convincing rhetorical skills, get all sides to compromise and make nice. What I didn't hear from his race relations speech, which was beautifully crafted, was an assertion that he had spent twenty years trying to get Rev. Wright to change his views and divisive rhetoric. I would have welcomed a statement that he - as a prominent member of the congregation - "met with Rev. Wright every time he learned of the views he now condemns and counseled him, regretably to no avail." So, is there any evidence he even tried? If so,
was he even partially successful? If not, then how can we expect him to 1) even attempt to reconcile left and right and 2)be successful if he even tries?

Until further evidence is presented, I must conclude that Mr. Obama never called Rev. Wright on his views and only now deplores and condemns them when they become a campaign issue.

sixstring | March 19, 2008, 9:35am | #

and not putting his hand on his heart while signing the the national anthem

This was too beautiful of a typo to overlook. If he's signing the national anthem, won't his hands be busy?

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 9:36am | #

the Republican strategist who helped craft the Swift Boat commercials against Kerry that employed the use of their target’s own language when he returned from Vietnam and returned his medals.

The person who wrote that missed a few important details:

1. Senator Kerry's medals, that are normally awarded only one time and are not generally available for purchase, are in a shadow box in his Senate office.

2. He tossed a bunch of ribbons, that could be purchased by anybody, during a protest.

3. He was asked about his story, perpetuated for years and years, about throwing his medals by someone seeing the shadowbox in his office. He then said that he threw his ribbons, those of others and threw some medals too, that others ahd given him.

4. I do not recall his ever claiming to have "returned" his medals, would appreciate a link if someone has come across that claim by Senator Kerry.

Fluffy | March 19, 2008, 9:38am | #

I'm going to repost my last post in the topic below, since that thread appears to be dead and it actually fits better here, I think:

People who refuse to buy into notion that leftist policies and ideas such as socialized medicine have anything to do with "healing, progress and understanding".

Actually, this is a perfectly valid reason to oppose Obama.

Unless you're supporting McCain, from whom the stench of the big government looter rises just as sharply as it does from Obama. Maybe more, since he continually trumpets his greater "experience" at the matter.

What's not really cool is to sincerely oppose Obama because of his likely expansion of government, but to put on a lying air of faux outrage about his pastor's comments as your tactic for opposing him.

Anyone who is willing to pretend to believe the absurd ["Obama is a black supremacist!"] because they do not think the public will support their real reasons for opposing Obama ["Obama will expand government!" or "Obama will end an unpopular war that I am desperate to see continue!"] is a dishonest douchebag.

It's the sheer shameless disingenuousness of it all which is so offensive.

BTW, Mike Huckabee can kiss my ass. As far as I am concerned, "God damn America for the war on drugs!" and "God damn America for letting women work outside the home!" aren't statements about which the speakers should feel equally uncomfortable.

Other Matt | March 19, 2008, 9:40am | #

What Barack Obama had to say yesterday about race relations didn't insult my intelligence.

Ha ha! You're funny joe, like we really thought you had intelligence to insult.

I'm looking forward to your rushing to defend anyone, regardless of color, who gets accused of anything based on people they've generally associated with for any time period under twenty some odd years. Surely your new rules after his speech will apply evenly across the board, not like your other rules which change quicker than Spitzer's hookers on the way out the door.

Right, good then. Have a fun day with your cutsie pie emails.

Warty | March 19, 2008, 9:46am | #

Saul Anuzis. I remember that dickweed from when he was getting his panties all in a bunch about Ron Paul having the gall to say glaringly obvious things in the Republican debates.

joe | March 19, 2008, 9:49am | #

Some people just want to fight old battles forever.

Such people are pitiful.

joe | March 19, 2008, 9:51am | #

Other Matt,

There is no "we" that you speak for.

The only time anyone else acknowledges you is to chide you for your trolling.

henry | March 19, 2008, 9:52am | #

Look, let's face it--many on the right want to come out and say "We've got to stop that nigger", but they know they can't. So we are going to hear every kind of euphemism short of that.

I am not going to vote for Obama because of his leftist policies, but anybody who thinks this now a "post-racial" society has their head up their ass. We need at least one (if not two) more generations to croak before that meme might reflect reality.

It can't happen soon enough.

wayne | March 19, 2008, 9:54am | #

On Obama:

If a single speech can immunize Obama against the infection produced by his decades-long association with Rev. Wright, then it was the speech that Obama gave. Nobody can know what is in BO's heart, but his words in that speech were brilliant, and if he was telling the truth then I, for one, say: questions raised, and answered; let's move on. We can't know if he was telling the truth, though.

BO is far and away the best orator in the list of candidates, and the best I have ever listened to. Were oration the only requirement for a president then he would have my vote. Of course, there is more to the presidency than public speaking.

Where does he come down on the second amendment? What are his views on the overtly racist affirmative action programs codified in federal law that driven an irreconcilable, racial wedge between otherwise honorable people? There are lots of other fundamental questions about Obama.

Warty | March 19, 2008, 9:54am | #

henry, as long as there are groups of people that look and act differently, they won't like each other. That's about all there is to it.

Lamar | March 19, 2008, 9:54am | #

As the Swiftboating of both McCain and Kerry shows, it doesn't really matter what the substance of your accusations are as long as you say them with a self righteous sneer and indignant voice.

Fluffy | March 19, 2008, 9:56am | #

Joe, I'd respect it more if they actually really wanted to fight old battles forever.

Anybody wants to fight about the Civil Rights Act of 1963, I'm there.

But they don't give a shit about the old battles and never did. They had the Presidency and both houses of Congress and didn't do dick about the old battles.

All they care about is avoiding crushing defeat in November and they're willing to make up lots of stupid shit to try to do that.

Obama is obviously a liberal. It should be possible to run against a liberal honestly and beat him. It would be possible, if it weren't for the fact that the Bush administration sucks as badly as it does, and if it weren't for the fact that George Bush is the biggest big government liberal since Johnson, and fellating Bush all this time has tied his supporters' hands this election cycle.

So they have to make up this nonsense and latch on to it in a campaign of faux outrage that makes the one maintained by liberal academia look sincere by comparison.

When Reagan ran against Carter in 80, he just said, "This guy is a liberal. [Insert examples.] Vote for me instead."

But this crew is too cowardly, too compromised, and too dishonest to do that. If they ran against Carter in 80, they probably would have had to make up a rumor that Jimmy was gay, or had a black love child, or that his cousin's friend's pastor had a pot leaf bumper sticker on his VW bus. This is what the GOP is reduced to in the 21st century.

joe | March 19, 2008, 9:59am | #

Warty,

I think it is natural from people to be initially wary towards people who are different from them, and to want to stay away from them.

But I also think it's natural for people to overcome that as they go about their daily business and encounter people from the Other group, and for that barrier to be worn down by the constant experience of operating within a diverse environment. (That's why liberals like me are so big on desegregation and diversity.)

When this doesn't happen, it's because someone or something is working to stop it, and keep those barriers in place.

Daniel | March 19, 2008, 10:02am | #

"Until further evidence is presented, I must conclude that Mr. Obama never called Rev. Wright on his views and only now deplores and condemns them when they become a campaign issue."

This sums it up for me.

Obama not only attended the church for 20 years choosing Rev, Wright to preside over his wedding and Baptize his children but only left the church when campaigning for President.
He, also, claimed to have not heard any such language while attending the service but changed the story the following week to state that he heard similar statements but disagreed with them.

Which is it MR. Obama?

Either he attended the church for 20 years because he shared the view of the minister and congregation or he used it as an instrument to build support in the black community of Chicago.

Either answer is a concern.

capital L | March 19, 2008, 10:02am | #

"When Reagan ran against Carter in 80, he just said, "This guy is a liberal. [Insert examples.] Vote for me instead.""

That's just the trick though, isn't it? Obama hasn't really done much to point to-- and when one does find something to question, it must be racist.

Well he went to this church for 20 years, and his children were baptised by Rev. Wright. If his opponents can't be allowed to question this, then I wonder what is permissable.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:02am | #

Kinda funny that the guy's preacher is not supposed to get the same treatment as the Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and others who said that we were attacked on 11 Sep. 01 because of our immoral society.

Even funnier that the people I mention were automagically linked to a bunch of politicians who never, or only passingly, may have been in their presance on occasion, certainly none who had been attending their services on regular occasion for two decades.

Even funnier that the non-Dem politicians are called to (and do) denounce these sorts of Preachers just because the politicians had a speaking engagement ant their associated institutions.

All of a sudden Senator Obama has to gin-up a speech, full of reworked spoutings from the Rev. Jackson, about how he does not believe these things that his Preacher has been spouting the entire time that he and his spouse have been members of Rev. Wright's Church and we are supposed to both believe him and make excuses for the Preacher.

ANYBODY tossing out the race card saying that no Caucasian Preacher catches any criticism for the equivelant views of Rev. White, implying or directly saying that it is only because of his race, is the funniest of them all.

I happen to be someone who believes that the Rev. Wright should get EXACTLY THE SAME treatment as those mentioned above and the social proximity of Sen. Obama to the man deserves much more condemnation than any of the politicians got unjustly painted with from the things those guys said.

wayne | March 19, 2008, 10:04am | #

"All they care about is avoiding crushing defeat in November and they're willing to make up lots of stupid shit to try to do that."

I agree with you about their motivations, but "they" did not make up the stupid shit about Obama and his lunatic spiritual advisor, Obama created that story on his own over the last 20 years.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:06am | #

Everyone who has "called" their religious leader on his politics, please, regale us with your tale.

JLM | March 19, 2008, 10:06am | #

I'm sick of hearing about this stupid BS already. News flash: some preacher is an ignorant, biased, knuckle-dragging religious zealot. It goes with the territory.

I turned on the tube last night to see what what was being said about the Heller case and every news channel was talking about this non-stop.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:06am | #

Anybody remember Candidate Jimmy Carter's Church problem?

When he was running against Ford (I think, might have been Reagan) a [ghasp] Person of Color attempted to join the Church where Mr. Carter was a member. The Church split up over it. I honestly do not remember which portion for the Church that Mr. Carter moved to, so I will not speculate if it was the racially bigoted one or not.

P Brooks | March 19, 2008, 10:08am | #

I agree with Fluffy. A good case can be made against Obama's liberalism, and the likely economic economic policies we can expoect.

This cretinous handwringing over the "lapel pin gap" is pathetic.

wayne | March 19, 2008, 10:09am | #

"Look, let's face it--many on the right want to come out and say "We've got to stop that nigger", but they know they can't. So we are going to hear every kind of euphemism short of that."

I have associated with "many on the right" for years. The only ones I have heard utter the word "nigger" have been lefties, the most recent example being you.

P Brooks | March 19, 2008, 10:11am | #

economic
expoect

sheesh; stupid keyboard

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:12am | #

Me first: the priests and St. M____________'s talk about abortion in the Intentions at every mass I have ever attended.

At the Shrine of St. J_____________ the ____________, the priest called in a friend to give the homily on Palm Sunday, and he proceeded to go into an environmentalist rant - on Palm Sunday - that ended with him singing "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" while holding an inflatable globe.

Not a word.

What am I supposed to say? Please, all of you who, obviously since you are so comfortable denoncing Barack Obama for not abandoning his religious community because the pastor said some stupid things a few times, give me some guidance here.

How did YOU deal with it when your pastor said dumb things about politics? I'm eager to share in the wisdom of your vast experience.

Pain | March 19, 2008, 10:12am | #

Is it really surprising that a large number of conservatives, who place a great emphasis on religious values and their churches, are up in arms about this?

I think those of us, myself included, who do not place a great emphasis on religion in our lives may not realize how important this is for some. I think Obama would have gotten a pass if it had been a secular leader and not a religious one. To many, religion is a core value, and is representative of their true beliefs.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:13am | #

wayne,

Me too. The only people I hear using that talk are the ones trying to project dirt on their opponent because they have no proof of their own gratuitous assumptions or biases.

wayne | March 19, 2008, 10:13am | #

"What am I supposed to say? Please, all of you who, obviously since you are so comfortable denoncing Barack Obama for not abandoning his religious community because the pastor said some stupid things a few times, give me some guidance here.
"

Sure, happy to oblige. Don't run for president.

Abdul | March 19, 2008, 10:13am | #

Everyone who has "called" their religious leader on his politics, please, regale us with your tale.

I once attended a Catholic church where congregants spouted out their own intentions during part of Mass. For the most part, it was inoccuous things like "pray for my sick granny." Every once in a while, a political opinion would come up, like "pray for equality for homosexuals." Even though I agree with the idea of equality for homosexuals, I found it highly inappropriate to interject such opinions during Mass, and found a different catholic church to attend where we shuffle restlessly and silently in the pews at Mass the way St. Peter intended.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:15am | #

henry, I think the right is being completely cynical here, and using race-baiting they don't actually believe in for political purposes.

They don't oppose Obama because he's black; they oppose him because he's a liberal who's stands a very good chance of kicking their ass.

The race-baiting is just a means to an end; it's not really what motivates them.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 10:16am | #

"This is what the GOP is reduced to in the 21st century."

That's right Fluffy. Sean Hannity is a prime example. He's been harping on Wright for nearly a year now. Jack Kemp put him in his place on Sean's radio program Friday. Jack Kemp said the Republicans need to campaign on Obama's tax increase plans and his plan for socialized medicine instead of all this "guilt by association" stuff.

parse | March 19, 2008, 10:16am | #

Surely your new rules after his speech will apply evenly across the board, not like your other rules which change quicker than Spitzer's hookers on the way out the door.

How quickly do Spitzer's hookers change on their way out the door?

Fluffy | March 19, 2008, 10:16am | #

Kinda funny that the guy's preacher is not supposed to get the same treatment as the Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and others who said that we were attacked on 11 Sep. 01 because of our immoral society.

This is utterly false.

When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know.

Honestly, the only reason MIKE HUCKABEE'S OWN statements about the proper surrendered role of women in marriage, or the role of divine intervention in causing his electoral victories, or the way his campaign duplicated Biblical miracles, is because of its coverage in the blogosphere. None of this material got more than a passing reference in the broadcast media.

nueces | March 19, 2008, 10:17am | #

I have associated with "many on the right" for years. The only ones I have heard utter the word "nigger" have been lefties, the most recent example being you.

It's called projection, a specialty of people like henry.

P Brooks | March 19, 2008, 10:18am | #

I have not, other than as a tourist, been in a church for more then thirty-five years.

Does that count?

Kitty | March 19, 2008, 10:18am | #

Look, I couldn't give a rat's ass that Obama is half-black. That doesn't bother me, or anyone I know. What does bother me is that his wife and his bestfriend clearly hate America. He appears, at best, ambivilant about the country. I just think that immediately disqualifies you from the presidency. I just do, and and so do a lot of other people I know.

I know that people like joe are just going to say we're racists who were looking for a reason to not vote for him, but up until a couple months ago, we were all enthusiastic about Obama, or at least thought he was the least bad of the bunch. Now, I don't know anyone who would consider voting for him...

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:22am | #

Now he's his "best friend."

Yawn.

I know that people like joe are just going to say we're racists

Abdul | March 19, 2008, 10:22am | #

When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know.

This is a bad comparison because McCain is much less in the corner of religious conservatives. Look at the number of religious conservatives who were disappointed with his nomination.

A better example is the nubmer of times Romney was questioned about Mormonism, as if he were going to reinstate prohibition and mandate that wedding dresses only be sold in sets of ten.

henry | March 19, 2008, 10:22am | #

Joe,

And that alleged distinction matters...why?

I am not here to judge the hearts of those engaged in this bullshit. I am just saying the appeal they'd like to make to their cretin base, and how they'll dress it up in modern garb.

Angry black preachers are tiresome, but not half as much as crybaby angry white people. Seriously, I can't wait for another two generations to just fucking die already, to somewhat drain this poison from the body politic. (Unfortunately, I am in that that second generation, and I am not feeling too good already.)

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:24am | #

I haven't accused a single person of being racist in the entire debate over this issue, Kitty. But, hey, don't let that stop from donning that sweet, sweet cloack of victimhood!

joe:

henry, I think the right is being completely cynical here, and using race-baiting they don't actually believe in for political purposes.

It's almost enough to make you think that whining about mean liberals calling you a racist is some sort of ploy to gain sympathy that doesn't actually have any connection to reality.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:24am | #

Abdul,

Back when I actually attended services on a basis that could be stretched/confused into "regular", i.e., some months more than 2 services, I did mention to my Sunday School teacher that linking the collapse of the Soviet Union to the "end times" was purly a figmant of his political imagenation.

Otherwise, I have not gone enough in my adult life, and have not been a "member" of any Church, to add anything more than the above.

P Brooks | March 19, 2008, 10:24am | #

He appears, at best, ambivilant[sic] about the country.

If the alternative is more idiots who think "American exceptionalism" requires us to kill a lot of greasy, dark-skinned heathens, then I consider that to be a major point in his favor.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:25am | #

henry,

If it doesn't matter whether it's really in their hearts or is just a ploy, then why speculate what's in their hearts?

Pro Libertate | March 19, 2008, 10:25am | #

Jack Kemp. I'd vote for him--why isn't he running? He's too old probably to be a viable VP candidate, because of concerns about McCain's age, but if he's healthy and mentally alert, he'd be pretty good. Speaks well, has reasonable ideas, etc. He's not perfect of course, especially considering that he endorsed McCain.

Obama alone may or may not be too liberal. I suspect that he is, which is a bad thing in my mind as the left moves further to the left. However, him combined with a Democratic Congress is a bad idea. All the worse if he's good at rhetoric. Unless Congress looks like it's splitting or going back GOP, I'm not voting for Obama or Clinton. I'll vote Libertarian and bitch and moan for another 4-8 years instead.

John | March 19, 2008, 10:26am | #

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/18/213458/375

According to TalkLeft today, Obama is 26 points behind Hillary in Pennsylvania and 40 points behind her among whites. The Wright affair succeeded in turning Obama into another race candidate.

The best hypocrisy on this is Romney. Andrew Sullivan called Romney to account for the Mormon church's black on black priests, which ended in 1978. Jerimiah Wright? Not so much.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:26am | #

When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know.

I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:27am | #

He talks all the time about how his story could only happen in America, but since he also talks about America having problems, that means he's, at best, ambivalent about his country?

I don't political leaders to be suck-ups. I want them to call out problems when they see them.

My country, right or wrong? Yeah, sure: my mother, drunk or sober.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:28am | #

The Wright affair succeeded in turning Obama into another race candidate.

You must be so proud.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:29am | #

Obama is 26 points behind Hillary in Pennsylvania and 40 points behind her among whites.

What? In the Progressive, union-loving, not-in-the-'racist'-South, PA has a racial bias toward Mrs. Clinton?

Say it isn't so!

Calidore | March 19, 2008, 10:29am | #

Kitty,

What does it mean to be ambivalent about America?

If one were to find that some of the history of America is problematic at best would that make one ambivalent?

Mo | March 19, 2008, 10:29am | #

Guy,
Falwell and Robertson themselves were attacked for what they said. They said what they said on CNN, not sermons. Republicans as a whole were not attacked because of this.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:30am | #

One poll shows Obama 26 points behind. Others have him at 11, 14, 18, and 20.

That's where the Pennsylvania numbers have been for months.

Fluffy | March 19, 2008, 10:31am | #

What does bother me is that his wife and his bestfriend clearly hate America.

OK, at least here is an example of sincere opposition to Obama. This is the kind of brain-dead response the cocksuckers at the Corner and elsewhere hope to whip up.

This is the kind of person who is so unbelievably stupid that they actually believe that when Pat Robertson asks God to kill Americans, it's out of love, but when Jeremiah Wright says that God will damn America for her actions, he hates America.

Ronald Reagan in 1980 wanted substantial changes in American governance as it was then constituted. Why didn't that mean he hated America?

henry | March 19, 2008, 10:31am | #

Joe, I didn't--that is a gloss you put there. RTFP, again. The subjective beliefs of the people spewing this bullshit matters not much--they know who they are appealing to, and what are the reasonable limits of how they can appeal to them. Period. If they could get away with more ("He's one of THEM!"), they would.

For the record, the Clinton Brothers are no better, but somehow I doubt our fellow posters on the Right will criticize the Clintons on this score (just on every other one, real and imagined).

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:32am | #

Mo,

Sanatize your memory however you like.

nueces | March 19, 2008, 10:32am | #

Andrew Sullivan called Romney to account for the Mormon church's black on black priests

"Black on black priests"? Sounds kinky.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 10:33am | #

"What does bother me is that his wife and his bestfriend clearly hate America."

They're not running for President.

Fluffy | March 19, 2008, 10:33am | #

I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense.

Wrong, douchebag.

Pat Robertson can still go on any talk show or news program he wants and get a respectful hearing and be presented as a mainstream figure. Jerry Falwell could, until his dying day.

Can Louis Farrakhan?

John | March 19, 2008, 10:33am | #

"Republicans as a whole were not attacked because of this."

Their enemies certainly did. Most hard core Dmeocrats I know associate the Republican Party with Robertson and Fallwell. But that is what political enemies do. Most Republicans associate Democrats with Michael Moore and Al Sharpton. I don't think either is a bad thing. The nuts on both sides ought to be marginalized and the people in the mainstream who kiss their ass ought to be called out for it. Frankly, the Republicans deserve to take some heat for associating themselves with Fallwell and Robertson.

Warty | March 19, 2008, 10:34am | #

What? In the Progressive, union-loving, not-in-the-'racist'-South, PA has a racial bias toward Mrs. Clinton?

Dude, you will never find a bigger racist than some fucking old dago or pollack from Western PA who spent his life in a steel mill.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:34am | #

Wow Fluffy, just WOW.

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:35am | #

Warty,

I was being snarky.

wayne | March 19, 2008, 10:35am | #

"Their enemies certainly did. Most hard core Dmeocrats I know associate the Republican Party with Robertson and Fallwell. But that is what political enemies do. Most Republicans associate Democrats with Michael Moore and Al Sharpton. I don't think either is a bad thing. The nuts on both sides ought to be marginalized and the people in the mainstream who kiss their ass ought to be called out for it. Frankly, the Republicans deserve to take some heat for associating themselves with Fallwell and Robertson."

Well said. I agree.

Abdul | March 19, 2008, 10:37am | #

This is the kind of person who is so unbelievably stupid that they actually believe that when Pat Robertson asks God to kill Americans, it's out of love, but when Jeremiah Wright says that God will damn America for her actions, he hates America.

Oh come on. Even Obama acknowledged that Wright's comments were wrong, divisive, and Anti-American.

Whitey | March 19, 2008, 10:37am | #

I'm shocked (shocked!) at what goes on inside a black church. Who knew?

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:37am | #

I've seen plenty of Republicans "disassociate" themselves from particular remarks by Falwell or Robertson about "the gays" or some other ignorant, bigoted statement.

I've never seen any of them provide an actual critique about the underlying philosophy behind such statements, lay bare where they went wrong, and lay out an alternative viewpoint that incorporates a thoughtful expression of contraty principles.

Anyone can say, "No, I think that's bad" when a media firestorm erupts. Demonstrating that you actually dissent from that view on a fundamental level, and explain the basis of your dissent and of your alternative view, is something more.

Mo | March 19, 2008, 10:37am | #

Guy,
Really? Point to the part of the campaign in 2004 where Bush had to apologize for their behavior. Falwell and Robertson took back their words. The difference was they were the ones that actually said the words.

Warty | March 19, 2008, 10:38am | #

Yeah, I know, but people who have never lived there don't tend to realize how much yinzers really suck.

Jim Bob | March 19, 2008, 10:41am | #

Guy,

Can't medals also be purchased, say, from Ultrathin? When the Air Force gave me my medals, they came in a nice Air Force blue leather folder with the citation, which is not replaceable, but the medal itself can be purchased by anybody.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 10:41am | #

I just looked at the polling numbers: 56% of independents say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of the pastor and his favorable rating has dropped by 5 points in one week.

We'll have to wait to a week or two to see the impact of his speach, to see if it fixed anything, but frankly, I think he's toast and I bet the democrats will end up nominating Hillary as a result of all this...

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:41am | #

Mo,

Just scroll above and if you are really interested, do your own research.

Like I said, Falwell and Robertson deserved the criticism they got, so does Rev. Wright and Mr. Obama needs to be painted with a stronger association brush than the Republicans got just for being guys that Falwell and Robertson supported.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:43am | #

Even Obama acknowledged that Wright's comments were wrong, divisive, and Anti-American.

Yes, but he went further than that. He discussed how Wright focused so relentlessly on the negative that he generated a distorted, offensive vision of America.

There are negative things about America, things that need to change. America really does have a dark history of racism, and one whose effects continue to the current day. Only a fool or a coward would say otherwise - you know, a conventional politician.

The problem wasn't that Wright called America onto the carpet for its sins - Obama never denounced him for that. What he denounced him for was, on the political level, failing to "love the sinner, hate the sin." Wright let himself see America as the sum of its worst parts (hm, sort of like the armchair theologians criticizing Wright's entire ministry based on 25 seconds' worth of clips from a 36-year career?), because he is an embittered old man, who incorporated that bitterness into a juvenile political viewpoint.

creech | March 19, 2008, 10:43am | #

I don't have a religious advisor but have been dragged to my wife's Presbyterian church a few times. I have engaged the pastor in political discussion a few times afterwards - like how Jesus never told us to send men with guns to collect for charitable works. Had I been a member and the nonsense kept up, I would have dropped my membership in the church and told the pastor exactly why. I would not sit there for twenty years and be silent, though I can imagine many non-boat rockers would. Is Obama worried about rocking boats or doing the right thing?

Guy Montag | March 19, 2008, 10:44am | #

Jim Bob,

Can't medals also be purchased, say, from Ultrathin? When the Air Force gave me my medals, they came in a nice Air Force blue leather folder with the citation, which is not replaceable, but the medal itself can be purchased by anybody.

Replica medals can be found at places like that. Did not look to see if they are forging the Medal of Honor, but IIRC that one is a felony to replicate.

Original medals can only be got through the services.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 10:44am | #

"When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know."

"I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense."

Hagee has endorsed McCain and McCain has accepted his endorsement. Has the media or Obama scrutinized everything Hagee has ever said and then tried to make a connection with McCain as if McCain somehow shared those views?

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:46am | #

Mr. Obama needs to be painted with a stronger association brush than the Republicans got just for being guys that Falwell and Robertson supported.

Done. Did Bush, Old Bush, McCain, Reagan, or any Republican ever - ever - have to give a major speech distancing himself from a political figure, after their relationship dominated the news for a solid week?

The answer is no. You want an unprecedented level of attention on Obama for this? You got it.

I know this game: why don't X say Y? They did, here and here and here and here and here.

OK, but why don't they do it MORE?

henry | March 19, 2008, 10:47am | #

Jose, I agree with you, Obama is toast. Hillary has always been toast against a non-nutty GOP candidate, a role for which McCain may barely qualify (there is always a chance he could implode/explode).

Basically, the country is fucked for another four years.

See you at third party lever of the polling machine.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:48am | #

creech,

So in other words, you have no religious affiliation to speak of, you have no relationship with either the church or the clergyman, but you "woulda" done all sorts of things if you did? You're sure about that?

OK. If you say so.

P Brooks | March 19, 2008, 10:49am | #

I think he's toast and I bet the democrats will end up nominating Hillary as a result of all this...

And I, naturally, assume Hillary's operatives have been toiling assiduously to get (and keep) this in the public view.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 10:52am | #

"I would not sit there for twenty years and be silent, though I can imagine many non-boat rockers would. Is Obama worried about rocking boats or doing the right thing?"

Obama has said there are things his pastor has said that he strongly disagrees with, but otherwise, the are things he likes about his pastor. He continues to go to that church because of the things he likes about it. I don't think this whole matter is so serious that it disqualifies him to be President. I think Fluffy is right when he says that Republicans are avoiding campaigning on the issues because they don't expect to get much mileage out of those issues. They prefer to engage in slimey, dirty campaigning.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 10:52am | #

I was born and raised Catholic. Went to Church every freakin' Sunday of my life until the pedophile scandal broke. I was so disgusted by the reaction of my local church that I stopped attending, stopped donating money to Catholic Charities and basically quit religion for awhile.

Now, several years later, I've found a small parish nearby with a priet that I like. If he starts acting like a nut, I'll stop going to his church, too.

I don't think this is unusual behavior...

Tacos mmm... | March 19, 2008, 10:52am | #

Well he went to this church for 20 years, and his children were baptised by Rev. Wright. If his opponents can't be allowed to question this, then I wonder what is permissable.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone whose ever gone to church that if you changed churches every time the pastor said something you disagreed with, you'd have to find a new church at least every couple of months.

Secondly, a church is a lot more than a pastor, it's a community.

As far as I'm concerned, someone brought up the issue, Obama addressed it well, end of story.

Fluffy | March 19, 2008, 10:53am | #

Oh come on. Even Obama acknowledged that Wright's comments were wrong, divisive, and Anti-American.

Right, and yesterday my personal criticism of Obama was that by doing so he's pandering. And that he shouldn't have done that, however useful it may be electorally.

Personally, I never think of myself as "anti-American". But I despise just as many historical Americans as Wright does, and I have just as many - if not more - problems with our current system of governance and the existing code of laws. Anyone who makes any pretense about being a libertarian BY DEFINITION rejects about 90% of what the state currently does, and disdains the political history - and set of political actors - who brought it about.

But you know why I can oppose this much of the mainstream political narrative of America, but not consider myself anti-American? My automatic overriding sense of entitlement. I can always console myself with the thought that I am America, and the rest of you assholes are interlopers who have fucked everything up.

But I honestly can concede that this sort of use of self-centredness as a psychological defense probably isn't possible for a black American.

Black Americans were told they weren't really America for long enough that an outsider posture is still natural to them. Wright has obviously internalized it.

So where I see an unjust government and a political history of continual failure to live up to the promise of liberty, my White Guy Master of the Universe personality goes all Atlas Shrugged and identifies itself as the true inheritor of "America", and wants the rest of you to get the hell out of the way.

But it seems perfectly natural to me that a black Christian preacher might see himself as an outsider, in opposition to America.

Our critiques of America share many of the same elements, but our personal identification with that critique changes.

But I think that Wright's own manner of personally identifying with his critique is incorrect, and concedes too much. If he could be made to realize that "America" is actually good and just in essence, and that the word "America" belongs to me and not to George Bush, maybe he would change his frame and damn Bush, and not America, the way I do.

joe | March 19, 2008, 10:54am | #

Jose,

Molesting children = saying stuff?

No, not really.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 10:54am | #

"I think he's toast and I bet the democrats will end up nominating Hillary as a result of all this..."

I believe like Dick Morris, that this nonissue will fade before long.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 10:56am | #

joe - no one in my local parish molested children. I left because of what they said about the molestation of children... or, more accurately, what they didn't say.

Tacos mmm... | March 19, 2008, 10:57am | #

Had I been a member and the nonsense kept up, I would have dropped my membership in the church and told the pastor exactly why. I would not sit there for twenty years and be silent, though I can imagine many non-boat rockers would. Is Obama worried about rocking boats or doing the right thing?

In the real world, however, my parents have been going to a church where they dislike the pastor for the past four years, simply because they'd been going for the previous 20 and all their friend are there.

brotherben | March 19, 2008, 10:59am | #

Joe,
I have left several churches over the years for social, political, and theological differences. The latest, as a result of the leadership allowing a racist undertone among the congregants. I tried to address the disdain for black people attending and became an outcast for it.

I see church today as a membership store like costco. You pay your dues (tithe) and the more you pay, the more you get. Hangin with you buncha sharp ass heathens here hasn't made it easier to find a new church to attend.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 11:00am | #

The reality is that people join or leave churches all the time, it's not really that uncommon. For a Catholic, this usually just means finding a different local church with a better priest. For others, it might mean changing religion all together, becoming agnostic, or switching to a different preacher.

If you look at the growth of the evangelic churches in America, all that growth is coming from somewhere. So, obviously pretending that your religion is some static value that can't change is full-on nonsense.

I mean, Obama wasn't born into this church was he? He choose to join, he could have chosen to leave. He didn't, which is fine, but don't pretend that he didn't have a choice.

creech | March 19, 2008, 11:01am | #

Yes, Joe, I'm sure. Most libertarians don't suffer fools gladly. I've flaunted a political button and bumper sticker in front of my boss and asked embarrassing questions of Senator Specter at a meeting my boss hosted.
If Sen. Obama is the great conciliator then he is damned well obliged to speak out - if he disagrees - against prominent and influential people who enflame others. And that applies to McCain, Bush, whomever.

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:01am | #

Still, Jose, you left because of the crime of child molestation.

There is no crime that Wright committed, or covered up, or defended, or kept silent about.

He said stuff. He articulated positions. He ranted and raved. And that's it.

There are no suicides, no ruined lives, behind Jeremiah Wright, so it's really not the same thing as the Catholic Church.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 11:03am | #

joe - I was under the impression that he defended the actions of 9/11. Since when isn't terrorism a crime?

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:04am | #

creech,

You are quite the libertarian, if you think one's relationship with a priest is like one's relationship with a boss.

Pug | March 19, 2008, 11:05am | #

Kinda funny that the guy's preacher is not supposed to get the same treatment as the Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and others who said that we were attacked on 11 Sep. 01 because of our immoral society.

Yeah, it is kinda funny, isn't it? If he got the brutal old Falwell-Robertson treatment he would be getting phone calls from the White House about Supreme Court nominees, like Falwell, or running in the Democratic primaries and receiving millions of votes, like Robertson did in the Republican Party in 1988.

He isn't getting the Falwell-Robertson treatment, but I bet he wishes he was.

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:06am | #

Jose,

joe - I was under the impression that he defended the actions of 9/11.

You are wrong, then. Your "impressions" seem to be based more on what people trying to make political hay are saying about Wright's comments than about Wright's comments themselves.

Wright made the quite common poing that America has not been blameless in its foreign policy, and that 9/11 was blowback. Agree or not, this is not the same thing, even remotely, as defending the murders on 9/11.

Franky | March 19, 2008, 11:07am | #

Latest poll results from PA:

"After a week filled with bad news for the Obama campaign, Hillary
Clinton is out to a 56-30 lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary...

“The big story in the Presidential race over the last week has been the comments of
Barack Obama’s pastor about America,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. “It appears this issue has hurt him a good deal with likely primary voters in
Pennsylvania.”

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 11:07am | #

"But I think that Wright's own manner of personally identifying with his critique is incorrect, and concedes too much. If he could be made to realize that "America" is actually good and just in essence, and that the word "America" belongs to me and not to George Bush, maybe he would change his frame and damn Bush, and not America, the way I do."

People have the mistaken notion that our government is America. We, the people, are America. The government is supposed to be only our servant. Like Fluffy, my gripe is with the government, not with America. Our government is not serving us very well. And I think this is what Wright really meant when he said God damn America. God damn this government which he sees, rightly or wrongly, as oppressing his race.

Eric Atkinson | March 19, 2008, 11:07am | #

It's a JoeMama Obama Nation!
Obama being a Lefty Donk means that Obama can do no wrong..in Joe's eyes, unless he moves right of center. Center being Edward's other America.

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:08am | #

Hey, look, another commenter with a fake email address who's never been seen here before echoing the same Hillary Clinton press release.

What are the chances?

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:09am | #

Wow, Eric, that was so impressive, I almost didn't notice you don't have an argument.

First Little Pig | March 19, 2008, 11:10am | #

I know I am late to this party. But here's a thought.

Most of you commenting here are most likely 1) white, 2) intelligent, 3) male, 4) educated and in that order. This supposition comes from general observations about libertarians (something which many of you claim to be) in general and generally about those who comment on political blogs as well.

I would add that you are politically engaged and passionate about your views. Given these things, let's change one factor about you and see what would probably be the outcome: let's make you all black.

O.K. Now you are Black men who are passionate about politics and are intelligent and educated. What kind of political views would you most likely hold or at least have a great deal of sympathy for? And even if you did turn out as a bunch of Libertarians, don't you think that the vast majority of your friends and peers and girlfriends or even wives would harbor views more or less in the direction of the pastor in question?

And don't you think that would be brought up when you ran for high office?

Personally, I think it is inescapable that Obama would face at least some of these slings and arrows and that he has handled it all pretty well.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 11:11am | #

OK, I just looked up what he said about 9/11, and it is actually far worse that I had thought. In my mind, after reading this if Obama doesn't say that Pastor Wright is a truly EVIL monster with whom he will never again associate, then he has no chance of winning this election.

Here's what I found on ABC News:

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. "

brotherben | March 19, 2008, 11:11am | #

John | March 19, 2008, 11:11am | #

The fact is that to a decent minority of the black community nothing Wright said was that objectionable. Further, even the majority who disagree with him will not disassociate themselves from him or sharply criticize him in front of white people. The vast majority of white people, however, find the statements beyond the pale. Obama is stuck with the same conundrum every black politician faces; he can either totally repudiate these views and gain white support but have his own people look at him as being an Uncle Tom and a sellout or he can no repudiate them and keep his support among the black community but lose his ability to be a transcendent candidate to whites. He tried to walk the middle yesterday but I think he failed.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 11:12am | #

"Wright made the quite common poing that America has not been blameless in its foreign policy, and that 9/11 was blowback. Agree or not, this is not the same thing, even remotely, as defending the murders on 9/11."

And that's exactly right. Our government's policy in the Middle East has caused the blowback that resulted in 9/11. To say this is not to be an America hater, it is to blame our government's plicy for contributing or leading to the blowback of 9/11.

GILMORE | March 19, 2008, 11:13am | #

I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with thisM

Geezus, Weigel, NOW you start to get a weak stomach? You've been slinging bullshit gossip for a profession for years now. Why should this moment bring a bad taste to your mouth?

maybe it's getting old.

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:13am | #

Jose, you are a joke.

Finding out that he didn't "excuse" or "defend" the attacks on 9/11, but described a theory of what caused them, makes you think WORSE of them than when you thought he was actually defending them?

Sure. Whatever.

brotherben | March 19, 2008, 11:14am | #

anybody listening to Hillary right now?

Abdul | March 19, 2008, 11:14am | #

As much as the Wright connection hurts Obama, it is far too early to say that he's toast. This, combined with his nearly assured loss in PA, will take some wind out of his sails, but he's still beating Hillary with the delegate count.

I think if Obama loses, it will be the death of a thousand cuts. People suspect that black Americans may harbor resentment towards their country. People suspect this because America has given blacks a few legitimate reasons for such resentment. However, we still don't want our President to resent this country.

Obama seemed to be above resenting his country until he was seen not putting his hand over his heart, not wearing flag lapel pins. This meme grew stronger when Michelle Obama said she was only proud of America once in her adult life. Finally, we find out that Obama brings his kids to a church where the pastor blames America for 9/11 just five friggin' days after the attacks.

Obama gave a good speech, but he will still have to prove that he, like Rambo, only wants his country to love him as much as he loves it. Singlehandedly rescuing a dozen POW's from Vietnam despite the government's attempt to sabotage his mission would be a good start.

Bags | March 19, 2008, 11:15am | #

The over/under on the number of times joe posts in this thread is 50. Do I have any takers?

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:16am | #

bookworm,


Our government's policy in the Middle East has caused the blowback that resulted in 9/11. To say this is not to be an America hater, it is to blame our government's plicy for contributing or leading to the blowback of 9/11.

I don't actually believe that; or at least, I don't believe that's the whole truth. And yet, I can still recognize the difference between this point and "blaming America" or "defending" the attacks.

Cheap demogoguery, about cheap demogoguery, is what this scandal has turned into. Obama looks even better for rising above it.

Jose | March 19, 2008, 11:16am | #

joe - the difference is that I didn't know he made these statements on the Sunday after 9/11. To do so indicates some sort of sick glee that I find personally repulsive.

Warty | March 19, 2008, 11:18am | #

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

Nobody got all this pissed off when Ron Paul said the same thing.

GILMORE | March 19, 2008, 11:18am | #

this whole thread is more bullshit than the last post about Ron Paul

Seriously

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 11:19am | #

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism."

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. "

And every bit of that is true. Our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nothing but acts of terrorism. Anytime you deliberately target civilians in order to terrorise the enemy, you are engaging in an act of terrorism.

brotherben | March 19, 2008, 11:19am | #

"Cheap demogoguery, about cheap demogoguery"

Joe, isn't this what politics has come to here?
I mean this sincerely, not sarcasmically. Does this bug you so deeply because it is injust, or because you like Senator Obama more than the others?

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:20am | #

Jose,

THAT is a fair point.

Time and place for everything, you know? I don't think it's wholly out of bounds to talk about our own aggressive, imperialist foreign policy causing resentment and blowback.

But you shouldn't yell "nigger" from the pulpet on Christmas, and you don't need to make that particular point about blowback four days after 9/11. It's just insensitive.

highnumber | March 19, 2008, 11:20am | #

We have had ministers at my church who have said some things that I disagree with. If I have the opportunity, I may choose to discuss the issue with the minister. I may not. We are allowed to have differences of opinion. I still find his sermons engaging, thought provoking, and inspiring. I belong to a liberal church (for the religiously ignorant, liberal in this context does not refer to politics, although there does tend be an overlap in that regard) much like Obama, although mine is not necessarily Christian. The style of the sermons is quite different at my church, but the sentiments are probably often aligned. These sentiments that things are wrong, be it about issues of race, other forms of prejudice, poverty, whatever social ill you can think of, I share with my congregation. When it comes to what do about it, sometimes our ideas are different. Often they are not. I imagine that most of my congregation feels the same way as I do at times. Sometimes some people get more upset about something than I would or they view the problem as having a different cause than I do. It's not a bad thing to be engaged in a community of people who share basic common values but don't agree 100% on everything.

My rambling point being, Obama has chosen to stay engaged in a community that overall shares his values, though not necessarily his opinions. He has chosen to stand by a minister who inspires him, but with whom he feels free to disagree.

It's unlikely I'll vote for Obama, but, in a lot of ways, he seems like the best person among the major candidates, and so far I certainly respect him the most.

joe | March 19, 2008, 11:22am | #

brotherben,

Obama was my third choice for president.

What really bugs me is that, after yesterday, we have a window to actually elevate how we talk about race in this country, and all some people want to do is drag it back down to the trench warfare we all know and love.

bookworm | March 19, 2008, 11:24am | #

"Cheap demogoguery, about cheap demogoguery, is what this scandal has turned into. Obama looks even better for rising above it."

Obama had tried his best from the beginning of his campaign to not make race an issue, but the Clintons and the Republicans have seen to it that it did become an issue. Now, it will probably be an issue throughout the whole election, puttin