Now we will see how good Obama really is

[hifigator]

This Wright issue isn't going away. After the story first broke a month or so back, Obama made what many claimed to be an insightful speach, describing his views on racism, inclusion and other civil rights issues. At the time I thought he did a good job of being gracious and he is certainly charismatic, but I didn't think he did the right thing in not clearly making the point that he is not and we cannot be of the views of this radical tribalist loon. For a while it seemed like he had gotten away with it. Then yesterday Wright comes out and almost acts like he's offended by Obama's apparent distancing himself from him. Personally, I don't think that Obama distanced himself enough, but that is my view. In any case, Wright made it very clear that he really believes all the radical kookiness that he has been shadowed with of late and while expressing a degree of disappointment, was willing to essentially forgive Barack for not taking his side on these issues.

Now today, Barack came out and was a lot more clear as to his beliefs on many of these social issues. But I don't think he's out of the woods on this.

The whole thing just doesn't make sense.

On one hand, you have this very radical leader of a rather popular black church in a major city who is clearly and vocally anti-American, anti-Jew, anti-Italian, anti-almost everything but his own Tribe for lack of a better word. Then you have assorted explanations by many involved amounting to the fact that these views aren't really that radical, but are more emotionally motivated by oppressed groups. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Wright speaks for a large group of blacks across the Country with his looniness.

But regardless of what I think about this or that issue, one thing is very clear and that is who this Wright really is.

Earlier, Barack said that he could no more turn his back on Wright than he could turn his back on his black heritage. He danced around several issues without really taking a firm stance on the major focal points. Then after Wright responded yesterday and the day before in Detroit, Barack had to take a stance. While I agree 100% with his verbal positioning of himself, one must still ask some questions.

The most obvious of which, is how can Obama claim such views when he has had such a long term relationship with the church and its etremely radical leader at the time? The suggested idea that the vast majority of what Wright teaches is fine, but there are a couple of issues where we disagree is absurd. It takes all of about 10 minutes to see who that guy really is. Barack can't possibly act like this comes as a shock to him. Yet today, Obama's basic "excuse" -- for lack of a better word -- was that the Wright that spoke yesterday and the day before isn't the Wright that he has grown to know. Now that is incredibly hard to believe.

Think back to the days following 9/11. The overwhelming view of Americans was that we are all Americans. We aren't white Americans or black Americans or asian Americans etc... Yet at this very united time, just 5 days after the death of 3000 innocent Americans, this nut (Wright) is up there praising the NY bombings and the congregation is cheering and celebrating. There is absolutely no way that that could be some bizarre warp in the space time continuum. There can be no way that indicates anything other than who that guy is and what he believes and teaches. That was the time (and actually much, MUCH sooner) to disassociate with this guy. That was the time to say that this guy is nuts. Yet after that story breaks, Obama's initial reaction is almost as if that footage was taken out of context and really not the emotion of what was going on. We now know that isn't true and the footage is exactly as described. Wright opens his mouth more and more and it is very clear that he really is this radical kook. Given that's the case, Barack's suggestion that the Wright we see now wasn't the one he knows is rather tough to swallow.

The first fundamental question is why did he go to that church in the first place.

The second, and more important question is why did he continue to socialize with that nut.

Finally, the question he's asking himself is "forget the cheese, how do I get out of this trap?"

Here is where we will find out just how good he is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[theexorcist]

Really, can't the election just be over now? I can't take six more months of this.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Here's the issue with his pastor. Its a clever way of saying "but he's black" all over again. A lot of African-American congregations follow a liberation theology that is different from what a lot of white protestants (and Catholics) are used to hearing on Sunday. This can lead to some impassioned speeches from the pulpit, just like it can regarding a number of political topics. If the views of someone's priest, pastor, or rabbi are such an issue, where were the people decrying the inconsistencies between Kerry's views and his Catholic faith four years ago?

People go to church and don't necessarily believe everything that they hear. They also often form opinions that are different from what strict adherents to their religious views believe. I think it assumes that voters are pretty dumb to assume they will not vote on a single issue now or in November, but the views that someone associated with a presidential candidate has.

[Bando]

You're right, HiFi!. I'm totally not voting for Rev. Wright, he sucks!

Now if you can find, say, a memo from Wright to the president saying how he thinks torturing people is grand, or that there totally ARE wmds in Iraq, maybe I'll hold it against Obama.

Also, what St. Pete said.

[kchoya]

Apr 29, 2008 18:23:18 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Here's the issue with his pastor. Its a clever way of saying "but he's black" all over again. A lot of African-American congregations follow a liberation theology that is different from what a lot of white protestants (and Catholics) are used to hearing on Sunday. This can lead to some impassioned speeches from the pulpit, just like it can regarding a number of political topics. If the views of someone's priest, pastor, or rabbi are such an issue, where were the people decrying the inconsistencies between Kerry's views and his Catholic faith four years ago?

People go to church and don't necessarily believe everything that they hear. They also often form opinions that are different from what strict adherents to their religious views believe. I think it assumes that voters are pretty dumb to assume they will not vote on a single issue now or in November, but the views that someone associated with a presidential candidate has.

Growing up baptist, I never heard my pastor do a sermon on white supremacy and black inferiority, or go on and on about "God damn America" this and "God damn America" that.

We're not talking about Rev. Wright and his interpretation of Second Corinthians. This is not a disagreement over theology. Rev. Wright has made some pretty strong statements about race, politics, and social issues - statements that Obama has only recently started to distance himself from in the last few weeks.

It's not a black thing at all. Or at least it wasn't when past politicians would have to deal with statements made by Falwell/Robertson/Bob Jones, etc.

[Bando]

Apr 29, 2008 18:50:57 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Apr 29, 2008 18:23:18 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

Here's the issue with his pastor. Its a clever way of saying "but he's black" all over again. A lot of African-American congregations follow a liberation theology that is different from what a lot of white protestants (and Catholics) are used to hearing on Sunday. This can lead to some impassioned speeches from the pulpit, just like it can regarding a number of political topics. If the views of someone's priest, pastor, or rabbi are such an issue, where were the people decrying the inconsistencies between Kerry's views and his Catholic faith four years ago?

People go to church and don't necessarily believe everything that they hear. They also often form opinions that are different from what strict adherents to their religious views believe. I think it assumes that voters are pretty dumb to assume they will not vote on a single issue now or in November, but the views that someone associated with a presidential candidate has.

Growing up baptist, I never heard my pastor do a sermon on white supremacy and black inferiority, or go on and on about "God damn America" this and "God damn America" that.

We're not talking about Rev. Wright and his interpretation of Second Corinthians. This is not a disagreement over theology. Rev. Wright has made some pretty strong statements about race, politics, and social issues - statements that Obama has only recently started to distance himself from in the last few weeks.

It's not a black thing at all. Or at least it wasn't when past politicians would have to deal with statements made by Falwell/Robertson/Bob Jones, etc.

Ok, but isn't it abundantly clear that Obama doesn't believe these things, as evidenced by his words and actions over the course of his entire political career?

At least no one thinks he's a secret Muslim anymore.

[hilltopper2000]

Of course nobody actually believes that Obama shares Wright's political views. That is why this is so underhanded. It is a way of reminding voters that Obama is black and that they should be uncomfortable with that. I actually think that Wright's recent behavior could help Obama. He was attacking Obama in that speech yesterday. And Obama shot back today. Nobody can argue that these guys are joined at the hip. The worst thing you can say is what HiFi said, Obama should not have been in his church all those years. But I highly doubt that the vast majority of what Wright said in that church was like this stuff, though. In fact, a number of congregants have already said that it wasn't. (I'm waiting for Oprah to weigh in.) So, at the end, we are left with a rift between a candidate and his former pastor who has gone off the deep end.

[kchoya]

Did anyone forget the guy is black? Am I missing something?

Are the attacks on Bill Clinton just a way of reminding voters that Hillary is a woman?

[DFW HOYA]

Who invited Wright to the National Press Club?

latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/wrightsetup.html

[Boz]

Apr 29, 2008 20:38:37 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Who invited Wright to the National Press Club?

latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/wrightsetup.html

Probably some truth to that. But the NPC was only one of several appearances in which he put his crazy on display for all to see, so it's not like it wouldn't have been an issue if it was just the NAACP and not this event.

As far as I'm concerned, I have any number of reasons why I am not going to vote for Barack Obama. This is not one of them.

I will say that I do think that Rev. Wright influenced Obama over the course of their relationship, not in terms of hating America or anything stupid like that, but in terms of his liberal policy positions. Well, maybe that's putting it too strongly. I think he influenced Obama in a liberal outlook, which in turn guides his policy positions. But certainly I don't believe that Obama shares any of Wright's really nutty opinions. (His wife is possibly a different story -- she seems to me a very angry woman -- but I'm not voting for her either, so I don't care much what she says)

Are his opponents, both Clinton and the Republicans, going to take advantage of it anyway? Absolutely. That's politics and, as Obama has admitted himself, this relationship is a valid political issue. Obama did well yesterday, very well, but the opposing viewpoint already has come out that he only did this for political expediency, not because what Wright said over the weekend was any different from other things he has said in the past. So, no, I don't expect it to go away completely, not through the primaries or the general.

It is interesting political theater, but it is not guiding my vote in any way. I disagree with Obama on policy. Do I think it will affect voters negatively toward him? Sure. I think he can kiss the "Obama-cans" goodbye (if they ever really existed in statistically significant numbers), and this will hurt him in his battle with McCain for independants. Will it hurt him seriously? I don't know. I guess we'll see.

[rosslynhoya]

You also have to consider that after coming back to the U.S. from the madrassahs of Indonesia, young Barack was apparently had a rather normal mainstream Christian upbringing. He specifically sought out a radical church after moving to Chicago after finishing law school for the purpose of establishing his bona fides within his chosen community for the sake of a political career. Obama wasn't raised within this culture, he actively chose to identify with Reverend Wright for the past 20 years. Now he's got to reap what he's sown for two decades.

That's why the question of what Obama personally believes now is actually relevant as a political question, more so than it was for Kerry and Giuliani, and about as much as it mattered for a candidate like Huckabee (who in his short campaign took far more abuse for his religious beliefs than Obama has thus far).

[hifigator]

Interesting points that you bring up. I still haven't made up my mind. I am craving a legitimate moderate candidate. Barack in many cases says the right things with regard to disregarding color, and being one America. I think that at least his interests in major issues (education, health care etc) are to be commended, but he really hasn't given me enough meat and potatoes to determine if I agree or disagree with how exactly he is going to address the problems. I'm just scared to death that he is what the right says he is and that is a far left winger. McCain is certainly not my first choice, but he is a moderate. My main objections with him are that he is too far to the left on the wrong issues and too far to the right on others.

Steroids in baseball and internet gambling for example, should not be so high on his list. I do like some of his ideas on health care, but have not been thrilled with his immigration views, for example.

In any case, getting back to Obama: my main concern is that there isn't one single indication that the overplayed footage of Wright's tirade following 9/11 is anything but typical. If so, then Barack attended this church for the better part of 20 years. Barack was married by this kook. He had his children baptized by him as well. Lastly, when confronted with the footage for the first time (at least in public) his initial response was to skirt around the issue and try to explain that people see things differently. I don't see the ambiguity in that issue at all. I think what Barack now says is pretty much on the money, but is he doing it because he believes it or to help his election cause? If he really felt that way, then why did he not come out and say that a month and a half ago? I just think that the tribalism that Wright shows in his fiefdom (sp?), was far too obvious and have difficulty supporting someone for the highest position in the land who at least passively supported that very same tribalism.

[Bando]

To be fair, Wright is a former Marine who niece is now serving in Iraq. Sure he's an idiot, but he's not stocking up arms for the revolution or anything. Obama most likely joined his church because it was the most progressive in the area, welcoming gays and lesbians and having a strong poverty focus (most of Wright's pastoral work was with the poor).

It's weird that no one's bringing up Pastor John Hagee's endorsement of McCain during this. Hagee wasn't McCain's pastor, but St. McStraightTalk sought out his endorsement. Hagee called the Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and other such pleasantries, for those not in the know. By contrast, Louis Farrakhan endorsed Obama, but Obama did not seek his endorsement and in fact has said nothing but bad things about the NoI leader.

[hifigator]

There is a huge difference between being endorsed by someone and endorsing someone. Obviously Obama would hope that his attendence at the church in past years, would help him with their votes, but I don't think the entire thing was planned calculated strategy. Still, the radicalism with which Wright spews out his venom is seething. And attendence over that long of a period as well as additional factors such as performing his wedding ceremony implicitly give approval. In effect, Obama endorsed Wright. I just don't think there is any way around that. Initially Obama implied almost that the initial footage was taken out of context and that people see things differently in addition to coming at issues from differnent perspectives. THen he said that the Wright he sees now isn't the Wright that he knows. That just doesn't fly. Anyone with any sense at all can get a solid read on Wright immediately. I just don't think that Obama will be able to just dance his way out of this one, and in fairness, I'm not sure he should be able to.

enough for now ... more dicussions tomorrow

[Bando]

Whatever, HiFi. "Scary black man" it is.

[hilltopper2000]

Rosslyn -- did you serious say that Obama attended a madrassa?!?! I mean comm'on. That lie was debunked like 8 months ago and even people on this board are stating it like it was fact! And Obama wasn't raised even a nominal Christian. By all accounts, his parents were both atheists. He was looking for an authentic African-American experience, as he details in his book, when he started going to United Church of Christ. A lot of mainstream blacks in Chicago attend this church, including Oprah. Most attendees who have spoken to the media ahve confirmed that Wright's taped outbursts were not commonplace. Further, as Bando noted, Wright was welcoming of gays and lesbians and had an incredible poverty ministry. He was also the most sophisticated and best educated black pastor in Chicago at that time. He's a very well educated guy with a great life story--it isn't hard to see the attraction. So the question for me is, was he always to total wack-job or is this a more recent development. I'm guessing that Obama was right when he said that the man he met 20 years ago is very different from the Rev. Wright of today. In any event, as has been said, there is no way on earth that Obama agrees with Wright, so it isn't clear what the whole point of this inquiry is.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Apr 30, 2008 15:13:46 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

That's why the question of what Obama personally believes now is actually relevant as a political question, more so than it was for Kerry and Giuliani, and about as much as it mattered for a candidate like Huckabee (who in his short campaign took far more abuse for his religious beliefs than Obama has thus far).

I'm confused.

Are you talking about what Obama believes on the issues - that's pretty clear - he's got a whole website about that and has given several policy speeches on the topic.

If you're talking about how the religious beliefs of Obama or any other candidate should be probative of their ability to serve in a particular political office, I'd refer you to the following link.

[kchoya]

Apr 30, 2008 17:46:57 GMT -5 Bando said:

Whatever, HiFi. "Scary black man" it is.

Funny how the apparent left-wingers on here are the ones who keep bringing up "but he's black" and "scary black man" over and over.

[Bando]

Apr 30, 2008 18:59:23 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Apr 30, 2008 17:46:57 GMT -5 Bando said:

Whatever, HiFi. "Scary black man" it is.

Funny how the apparent left-wingers on here are the ones who keep bringing up "but he's black" and "scary black man" over and over.

Is being black some sort of negative quality that we shouldn't be mentioning? Please, kc, do elaborate.

[Boz]

OK, well in fairness, you did write the words "scary black man," which, yes, do imply a degree of negativity, no?

With respect to Hagee, I will stand corrected if anyone has additional information, but it seems that the only source who says that McCain sought out his endorsement is Hagee himself. Hagee is as much of an egomaniac as Wright, so I'm not really going to buy into that too much. If McCain or his campaign has made donations to his church, written letters soliciting his support, invited him to speak or anything else that would indicate "seeking out" an endorsement, that's one thing. But I put no more into the statement of this loon than I do the statements of the other loon in question, Rev. Wright.

Finally, this is a pretty simple analysis, at least in my opinion.

Barack Obama is a politician.
He joined this church for political advantage.
He stayed with Wright for 20 years for political advantage.
He is divesting himself now for political advantage (or political survival as the case may be).**

No problem. Politicians do that sort of thing. Yes, John McCain, Mr Maverick himself, included. But there is often a price to pay, and Obama is paying it. It won't destroy him, but it will hurt. As will some of Clinton's & McCain's political alliances over the course of the rest of this campaign.

**Edit: In a nod to fairness to Obama, everything in each of these stages probably wasn't 100% for political advantage. I'm sure there are/were some noble motives involved as well. But I'm sure it didn't hurt too much to join one of the most influential black churches in this part of Chicago to build his political career.