You got your USA lapel pin on? Neither do I! God damn America!

Repeat after me...it's just a pin. It's just a pin. Wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. I'll say it again, wearing a pin does not make you more of an American. This has been your reality wake up call.

God damn, Americans!

Why did he wear it in the first place then? It's the fact he used to wear it and then he stopped wearing it. That's the problem for me. He's a likeable guy -- perhaps too likeable but I don't trust him. Not one bit. I don't trust her either. I trust McCain the most out of the three of them but I'm not sure I like him. Ahhhhh.....American Political Fever -- catch it.

Exactly. Obama thought it was a big enough deal to stop wearing it.

Yeah McCain can be trusted, to continue the process of running the country into the ground.


Uh oh, looks like someone isn't swayed by the FUD. Quickly, someone send Paul Begala over there.

Generally, a president doens't run anything into the ground. Congress does. Congress runs the country both good and bad. All they have to do is stop funding the war. It's that simple. But they won't. They don't have the guts to do it. The system is perfectly designed as long as people are willing to do what it takes to stop abuses. If they're not, then you get situations like we have here.

As for our country running into the ground, that's going to continue to happen no matter who is elected. Our CITIZENS are the ones that are destroying it. We're the ones that run to the doctor for a sniffle and then cry when insurance rates skyrocket. We're the ones who have lost any sense of morality and right/wrong. We're the ones who spend more than we have and cry about it so the government will bail us out. We're the ones who have three kids too many but have a fourth just to get more money. We're the ones who won't allow schools to actually discipline and expect our kids to do what they're supposed to do.

NOBODY is going to help these things. It doesn't matter who goes in there.

So a person can't change, can't make new decisions based on new information?

Guess what's missing in this picture.



This kind of gotcha politics is so fucking stupid. Would wearing two flag pins be better? Or should you wear one big one like a super patriotic Flavor Flav? What about a flag suit? Or a full body flag tattoo?

My vote this year will be based on two factors, the metric volume of flag the candidate wears and how close the flag's colors match the Pantone colors of the base flag. That will be in a 62 to 38 ratio.

dola

Saw this summary of a new study that seems appropriate here.

He's not blaming America for 9/11 and saying God damn? Or what did you mean? :)

Tracy Morgan sounds drunk.

He always sounds drunk. but that bit was funny. "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch."

So now Obama blames America for 9/11 and says goddamn? By this logic McCain blames God for 9/11 and thinks the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.

Of course neither candidate believes any of this, which should be the point.

Hagee would better equate to Luis Farrakan. The relationship between Obama and Wright is not just a simple endorsement for President from a controversial person.

Regardless, Obama didn't say what you alleged.

But he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, or have a yellow "Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbon on his car. How much more clear can it be?

:D

I hope this is the beginning of the end. I look forward to the delicious revolt that will ensue and using this as the final thing to kill all of the hope of those not part of the baby boom generation. They want to take this country down with them and they'll succeed.

You're right. Like Obama, I could really care less about the lapel. It's what in his heart that matters. Of course, he gets most of his heart-felt guidance from Wright...but I digress. ;)

Wait who the hell are you guys going for?

As far as I am concerned we are fucked. McCain, Clinton, or Obama I would vote for Obama not because he is black but because he is in my eyes different then your normal Manchurian candidate. I simply refuse to vote for a women whose only thing of merit is standing by her cheating husband who has been doing it for years so she can use him for political gain.

I am so tired of this dog and puppy show.

Getting back on track, here's why I believe that Obama doesn't stand much of a chance in the general election. He's a three year senator with no legislative accomplisments. This has been a non-issue during the primaries, but it will be a big deal during the fall campaign.

They were getting ahead of this a while ago (this stuff was posted on the web back in January), so they knew it would blow up eventually.

from C&L...

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

So why again is Obama under so much scrutiny and McCain is getting a pass?

1.) The visual of Wright screaming "God Damn America" is almost tailor-made to get people upset.

2.) Most Americans are white Christians, so most Americans realize that it is possible to be Christian and not agree with Robertson, etc. Indeed, most Americans probably fit into that camp. So it is easier for them to reconcile the idea that just because Falwell endorses a politican does not mean that the politician beleives everything that Falwell says. Since most Americans do not belong to a "black" church, they are not as comfortable with the idea that every black Christian does not beleive the most inflammatory statements made by the leadership of the religion. (See also, Islam).

3.) Wright raises the specter of "Black Militants." Catholic/white Christian militants have not been as much of a problem since the Crusades. (But see, abortion clinic bombings).

4.) Deep down, most of us know that Robertson, etc. are crazy old men. It just isn't news anymore. We don't respect them enough to be shocked when they go on one of their "God hates the fags and the myspace.com" rants.

Hagee is not a personal friend of McCain. McCain basically got an endorsement from a fringe guy.

Obama got an endorsement from a fringe guy, but one that he has had a 20 year relationship with. One who married he and his wife, baptised his children, etc. He went to this person's church for 20 years. So you are going to tell me that he went to this guy's church for 20 years, and never said, "You know what, I disagree with what this guy is preaching. Let's go to another church."

The other problem that I have, is this shows a big problem with his ability to judge people. Let's look at Bush. People despise Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and co. People have claimed that Bush is a poor judge of talent and character (which I think is a difference in ideology rather than talent or ability). Yet, here is Obama, who shows an even greater (IMO) lack of judgement, and we are supposed to over look it.

Because black candidates can't be angry or associate with angry black folks. It scares white people and that's not acceptable.

As well it should. I may not be a huge fan of McCain. I may disagree with much of the stuff that he has done, but out of the people remaining in the race, he is the only one that has gotten stuff done in Washington.

And angry white folks are considered acceptable candidates? I mean come one, Pat Buchanan in '12 baby!

Link


I think it's a mistake to keep addressing it and yet, I think he wants to be a watershed speech on the role of faith in this election. One thing this whole reverend this has done by accident, is it's burnished the idea that he's a Christian in the mainstream media to where people won't be duped by the "OMG he's a Moslem!" talk if he were to win the Dem nomination.

In a way, that might be the reason his team played along with this. Because even though this sucks, they'd much rather fight this versus accusations that he's of a different faith. In some ways, it might make him "more black" to have a fiery black preacher.

The folks who think this will torpedo his campaign don't understand how small this thing is in the grand scheme of things and of all of the things that could come up for them, it's better than Rezko or other stuff. So...it might been a blessing in disguise, a conclusion that I didn't come to until just now.

Yep, that's about right. I mean this isn't some random guy pledging fealty to the candidate. This is a guy that he's known and associated with for a couple decades now. And this guy hasn't recently been nuts. He's been saying this stuff for years. Now, granted, Obama may have been going up there for political reasons (the preacher is quite a powerful person in that neck of the woods), but that does run in the face of his message of ending politics as usual.

So it's a bigger deal here for real reasons.

Bad example. We're talking about candidates who associate with people who might have crazy ideas or say outrageous things that make people squirm. Going to Falwell's church or to Bob Jones University back when it still had a campus rule that outlawed interracial dating was still something that was acceptable and even required by candidates in the GOP.

These aren't exactly bastions of "progressive" thought from the perspective of embracing all Americans. But that's allowed because folks just dismiss them as being wingnuts on the margins of religious thought.

On the flip, the experience of the 'average' person with the black church is nil and so, hearing what Wright said seemed outrageous out of context because it forces them to confront things in a perspective that they'd not really willing to delve into.

But what informs that rhetoric has a lot more layers and so, while I'd hardly call it 'acceptable', I'll say that it's on par with what those other people did or still do. And the conservative southern church circuit is still and will be undoubtedly part of what helps the GOP win again this year.

It's on par, but they're treating (Wright) as if he's worse, when it's not.

I'd be astounded if John McCain will be able to beat Obama or Clinton. McCain is no Reagan, he's basically a liberal version of Bob Dole. I just don't see how he'll be able to connect to the larger public, unless the vaunted split of the left happens between now and November.

Folks here are using their brains too hard on this one. You imagine a debate between McCain and Obama and think that McCain will wipe the floor with him due to his knowledge of specifics and detail of which he understands certain issues.

But it's not going to be that easy for the geezer. Because this is a beauty pageant, not an election and hasn't been for a while. McCain is going to be sold as Bush III and will have a hard time separating himself from that. If Gore couldn't beat Bush riding the wave of the "success" of the Clinton years, you can only imagine that McCain's uphill battle will be just as fierce, even if it doesn't look that way right now.

The best is yet to come.

Yes, it was necessary to get votes, but we're not talking about having a personal relationship with these people or even having to share some of their views.

Additionally, Bob Jones was always looked upon as a wacko place (can't comment on Falwell's church cause I never really listened to what he had to say).



You're missing the point. The difference is the closeness to the candidate. Obama has close ties to Wright. That is the problem with this. No republican candidate has had close ties to Bob Jones University, that I am aware of.

Well, tomorrow should be interesting with Obama promising to "deliver a major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this moment in our history."

I have to say I admire Obama's guts to continue to try and respond to this. It's either a gutsy move or an incredibly stupid one. As Warhammer and others have noted, this isn't the same as Hagee or a Falwell endorsing McCain. This is Obama's pastor. The man who officiated at Obama's marriage. The man who baptized the Obama children. The man who blessed the Obama house. There are many Americans who attend church every Sunday who don't have the close relationship with their pastor that Obama has with Rev. Wright.

Forget the "God Damn America" comment for a second. What about "The U-S of K-K-K A"? Or "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." Or hell, let's use the whole "God Damn America quote.


As a white guy, I have a problem with these statements. As the father of two black children, I have a problem with these statements. Further, I cannot imagine being a part of a church whose pastor routinely made statements like this, no matter the color of his skin. It's not a message of unity. It's a message of division. It's not the audacity of hope. It's the abdicating of personal responsibility and the scapegoating of government for all of our ills.

And what has Obama said to this point about Wright?

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

"[He] is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with"

And from his campaign:
"Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

I'm at a loss as to what Obama says next. He's clearly NOT disassociated himself from Rev. Wright, all the while suggesting that Wright's comments have nothing to do with his [Obama's] political beliefs. Well, what about personal ideology? Much of Obama's support comes from people who don't know a thing about his record. They're basing their support on the feelings he inspires in them. So what can he say to reassure those folks that, despite attending the church for more than 20 years and having a close spiritual relationship with this man, they don't reflect his personal views and in fact he finds them abhorrent? I'm waiting to see him pull a rabbit out of his hat, but I'll be darned if I can see a way for him to "win" with this issue.

FWIW, I am friends with priests with whom I disagree on some pretty fundamental points. But they have a lot of good qualities, and I am made a better person by my friendship with them. And they do provide me with some spiritual guidance.

I think that it is too hard on anyone to say that we should attribute to them the worst beliefs of their friends/mentors/partners.

Now, if Obama says "If elected, I am going to appoint Pastor Wright to an important position in government in which he will help guide the nation's policies on race and religion," then we have a totally different situation. Which is why I don't think that Obama/Wright is like Bush being a poor judge of talent. If Donald Rumsfeld was just Bush's friend who had a poor understanding of military history and middle-eastern cultures, it wouldn't have mattered so much. It only became, in my mind, grounds for serious criticism when he was made Secretary of Defense.

dola--

Cam was posting when I was writing, so I didn't see his post above mine. He does raise a good point, though. The relationship that Obama has with Wright is one to which every voter should pay attention. And, if warranted, one should decide how to view Obama based on that. I don't mean to suggest by my comment above that we should never judge politicians by their friends/mentors. Just that I think we do it way too much.

And I can see why Obama is coming out with a speech on this. Based on one of the main arguments that Clinton is making against him ("Obama hasn't been vetted"), he cannot afford to have any skeletons.

Also, if this really is a deal breaker (i.e. keeps him from being a viable general election candidate), then does it not make sense for the good of the Democratic party to figure that out now, while there is still a chance to nominate Clinton? If he lets this fester, he might be handing the election to McCain. He wants to win, sure. But he wants to win the presidency, not just the nomination. And, as a guy who would hold his nose and vote for Clinton over McCain, I would rather the Dems put up the best candidate possible than rush to judgment on this.

So we have to wait until he appoints someone like this before we point out the weird/hateful things he's said? Wright was already on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee... is it that odd to think he wouldn't have found a place for his pastor had this controversy not erupted?

I think what's disconcerting here is that if you try to apply this to yourself, and imagine yourself in a similar situation, it's hard to understand why you would continue to associate with someone like this. As a white person, if I went to a church with a Pastor who made comments about black people being the reason we have AIDS or something along those lines, I think I'd be quickly looking for a new church.

IMO, this goes beyond "disagreement over fundamental points." Flat-out claiming the government invented HIV to kill off blacks isn't just an issue where you say, "I understand your point of view and we'll just have to agree to disagree." No, that's the kind of thing where, if I heard someone say that, I'd slowly back out of the conversation and go out of my way to avoid that person at all costs.

Agreed. The comments about Rumsfeld are hindsight. Are we supposed to wait until after it happens to question Obama's decision to make Wright a part of his circle of advisors?

On the other hand, apparently Obama could name Wright the new Surgeon General and we'd solve the AIDS epidemic the day after inauguration. And since the government is providing the drugs to black people so it can put them in jail, if Wright does double duty as drug czar we can win the war on drugs in a heartbeat as well. :p

No. I think that this discussion is healthy for democracy. Wright is an aspect of Obama's character, and it is good that we are learning about it now rather than later.

I was simply responding to the point someone made above that criticism of Cheney, et al. is similar to criticism of Wright. It is not. Now, if you want to make the argument that Obama will appoint people like Wright to positions of power, then we are getting a lot closer to the things about which people have criticized Bush. And I can't really say that I have a read on that.

I take comfort in the fact that Obama picks up the phone and calls guys like Cass Sunstein before making big decisions. But I need to examine myself and make sure that I am not ignoring the fact that, after he hangs up with Professor Sunstein, he's not calling up the Reverand Nutjob to solidify his decision.

I think Obama's problem is, he's basically been spending the last 20 or so years in a crash course on black America. He's not sure how to approach this because it never occurred to him that it would come up in the way that it has. I think he's still a neophyte when it comes to understanding these issues, because he didn't grow up with them as a young boy living on the mainland in an inner city context. I mean, he's a smart guy..but I just don't think he understands the dialectic between white and black America in the manner that those of who have lived in it for better or worse since we showed up here have dealt with it.

I think it's vexing him and his team and it'll be interesting to see what his speech will do to the dialogue.

But this is a rumour that's been going around in inner cities among black folks for a long time. And not just lower-class poor folk either. People believe it more than folks who think the government had a hand in 9/11, because the fundamental distrust of the government hasn't gone away.

For a pastor to spread this silliness is nuts. But...he's playing to his base and it's not anything that hasn't been thought or said by a lot of the folks in the congregation. It's wrongheaded and stupid and doesn't get us anywhere, to be sure.

But...it's not something Wright made up on his own at all.

So we're going to cut him a break for not being the originator? Huh? The man is a leader in the black community. As such, he has a responsibility to do more than simply "play to his base" in order to get people to come to his church. And especially when that includes paranoid delusional propagandist bullshit I can read on conspiracy theory websites, then yeah, I hold him responsible for continuing to disseminate that kind of information.

I'm not sure what would be worse - if he believes it, or if he doesn't believe it but chooses to spread it to "play to the base." This isn't about entertainment where a rock band pretends to be satanist to sell albums because they know controversy sells. I think the leader of a church ought to be just a bit more responsible for his actions than that.

Something just struck me. You know what's been missing from ALL of Obama's explanations about his relationship with Wright? Something like this:

"I too have been bewildered and hurt by some of Rev. Wright's claims. But is it better to hide your head in the sand and ignore the fact that these rumors exist in many black communities, or is it better to engage someone like Rev. Wright and try to convince them they're wrong? For twenty years, I've sat in Rev. Wright's church, but our relationship has been a dialogue, not a sermon. You've heard what Rev. Wright told his flock, but you've not heard what this lamb had to say to his shepard."

Frankly, that might've been Obama's best option, but I don't think he can pull that card out at this late date without at least alluding to it earlier.

I know quite a few Catholic priests that have to toe the Vatican line during their homilies but outside of church privately express their misgivings on some of the policies of the Vatican.

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing, that he could basically play it up as "I'm giving him another perspective..." rather than "he's teaching me things."

But, I don't think he'll be able to pull that off convincingly. His team's lack of political savvy is going to have to be boned up. They might be a good organization and have a good ground game, but they're going to get eaten alive tactically if they don't get their operatives in order.

And again, I don't see the connection. What part of "the government invented HIV to kill off blacks" is part of an honest debate with which people can reasonably be on either side? This isn't about having private misgivings about a part of your faith, this is about claiming as fact things that are utterly insane.

In the Catholic context, this would be like a Priest taking the position that child molestation is OK. Not ignoring it, like the church did for years, but coming straight out and endorsing it. That's not an argument where we just "agree to disagree."

I guess the point I was trying to make is that what a priest/preacher says at the pulpit isn't necessarily what they believe off of the pulpit. Goes back to your point and Dark Cloud's of "preaching to the choir".

I agree. His campaign is one of uniting an America beyond political ties. The video clip of his pastor is not exactly a rallying cry for the majority of Americans.

Of course not, but when your campaign is based upon unity and hope, how can you so closely associate yourself with someone so divisive? Certainly, this is going to cause many to question whether your message is honest or simply good politics.

If he were campaigning on economic stimuli and health care reforms, it would be less on an issue. He's not and never has.

This is how I see it. I understand the concerns, though, but I think ultimately this will be no big deal.

Oh, I think he knew.

In January 2007, Obama asked Wright if he would deliver a public invocation at his announcement to run for president. But Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation. Instead, he prayed in private with Obama before the announcement.

CNN says no Florida re-vote.

Shockingly stupid, if true.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...17/776838.aspx

This is interesting:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...News_Hour.html

From a Newshour interview by Gwen Ifill talking to Barack Obama:


Okay, seriously... if that's the major focus of the speech then I'm just about willing to pronounce the Obama campaign over.

Obama's been saying "we're the one's we've been waiting for." But this seems to be "You are the one with the problem." I mean this is the same platitudinal bullshit that Obama's been saying all along. And this is his big address on race?

Wow. As a sneak preview, color me unimpressed.

dola

Another gem from the same interview:
That's a weird line. And again, it's not that Rev. Wright is "less than ideal" or "not perfect". The dude thinks the government invented AIDS and is responsible for distributing crack as a means to imprison the black community, and on and on.

I'm finding Obama's responses amazingly pedestrian (for lack of a better word). I thought he was supposed to be a rhetorical genius.

John McCain smiles.

Tribune editorial on Rezko and Obama after he spent time with them answering every question they had about it. Story ran yesterday.

The Florida revote means nothing come the general. There isn't one person who will switch there vote due to the primary delegates. I think it's likely a red state, but that has nothing to do with any revote issues.

As to Wright, humans have a tendency to buy into conspiracies. This certainly isn't something specific to Wright or black churches. Look at how many people think Saddam was behind 9/11 or how many think it was a Jewish/government plot. People of all ideologies are prone to believe bullshit conspiracies when the truth is too hard or random to accept. While Wright is offbase to think HIV was a government plot, unfortunately he's certainly not on the fringe to believe in crazy conspiracies.

Supergrover: I know it will hurt him politically, but I still don't see how Wright's words change Obama's positions. In the end the choice is clear, do you believe everything he's said for decades or do you believe it's all a conspiracy designed to put some sort of Black power radical in the White House?

I think you are stretching it there. People who believe in crazy conspiracies are definately on the fringe as it pertains to those beliefs.

This actually happened at the best possible time for Obama, because there's no votes for five more weeks. This will be a dead story by then

I also think trying to bring some legitimacy to conspiracy theories by equating the Sadam & 9/11 issue with the government/HIV thing is way off-base and a bit disturbing. One is an incorrect belief based on a mistaken set of facts; the other is truly a fringe, wacko belief. Misinformation does not equal a conspiracy.

Well, he has announced he will give a speach tomorrow (Tuesday) on the subject, going beyond the comments, but to discuss the issue of race in the campaign. Here is his quote:

Ksyrup: I completely disagree. Remember that the government did in fact let blacks suffer the ravages of syphilis long after we knew the cure. Saying that HIV is a government invention to a poor, black audience does have a perverse set of facts that backs that up. After all it wouldn't be incorrect to say, "The US government has studied sexually transmitted diseases by withholding treatment from black men and allowing them to die.

Certainly you'd agree that saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is just as nuts? And if you don't want to accept that what about people who believe that Kofi Annan is/was the Anti-Christ? Or that there are backward messages in heavy metal? Or that I-35 will be some super highway to multi-nationalism? I'd bet that over half the population believes in some sort of crazy conspiracy theory.

I didn't put much stock into Rev. Wright's conspiracy rants until he brought up that part about Neil O'Donnell being paid to throw Superbowl XXX away.

I now blame George Bush for the sickle cell.

WTF are you talking about? When did I say anything about conspiracies?

Look, Obama's entire campaign has been based upon the fact he's different. He's a uniting force of nature that will bring and end to disparate politics and instead foster change through cooperation and understanding. That's it.

Now, how can someone bring about unification when he calls someone family who is obviously a crackpot? Should Wright's opinions affect your views of Obama? Not if you believe in him because of policies. However, if you believe in him as a conduit of unity, then Wright's words better reverberate, because I guarantee you they will with many in this country.

He was linking Saddam and 9/11 not the government and 9/11.

Anyone who believes HIV and crack are government conspiracies doesn't deserve to be part of any intelligent discourse on race in this country.

Supergrover: But there's no evidence that Obama believes any of the most offensive things that Wright has said. I still want to know how Wright's statements change Obama's positions. In the end what's truly important is what Obama will or won't do. Wright's words in and of themselves don't mean anything to me.

Will it hurt Obama, of course. I said many posts ago that I wouldn't be surprised if Wright kills Obama's campaign sooner or later. My point is that most of the people going crazy about Wright are people that were opposed to Obama to begin with and see a way to destroy him. I don't believe that any of you seriously believe that Obama is secretly a black separatist.

On conspiracies in general, I've been giving this a lot of thought. I think people are so drawn to conspiracy theories because they are a way to retain a predetermined worldview in the face of contrary evidence. Without doing the research necessary to prove this, I would hypothesize that some, perhaps most, people are more willing to accept an irrational theory that supports their closely held beliefs than accept verifiable facts that go against their beliefs. I'd bet that while each individual conspiracy theory is on the fringe, the totality of fringe conspiracy believers in general is near or above a majoity of the population.

Wait a minute - "9/11 was a government conspiracy" and "9/11 was perpetrated by Sadam Hussein" are two totally different things. One is a true conspiracy theory, the other a mistaken belief. That's the dichotomy I was trying to draw with the Sadam/HIV thing. There is no Sadam "conspiracy theory."

And also, I can say from personal experience that there are, in fact, backwards messages in heavy metal. But they were either purposely planted there, or just something that people think they hear from a mish-mosh of sounds...they weren't placed there by Satan. And yes, I had an awful lot of free time during college. :)

Exactly, I was responding to the original comment using the Sadam example.

What a fucking whiner. She won the state, now she's quibbling.

Ksyrup: I'm not trying to attack you on a 9/11 conspiracy. All I'm trying to point out is that there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs. We humans seem to have a love for hard to explain conspiracies. That's my point.

I don't take it as an attack, I'm just pointing out the difference between a true conspiracy and a mistaken belief that you lumped in as being equivalent to a conspiracy.

The problem with making a statement like "there are a multitude of fringe conspiracies that people believe in and are no objectively crazier than Wright's beliefs" is that it legitimizes them to some extent AND excuses him from any responsibility in the position he's in. Personally, I'm fascinated by certain conspiracy theories. I remember when I first heard of that Titor guy years ago, I spent a solid week reading stuff on the net about it. And then when I finished, I came back to reality and put that back on the shelf where it belonged, in the fiction section.

I also have some issues with people who buy into that kind of stuff. Yes, I know people who legitimately believe 9/11 was started by Bush as a pretext for the Iraq War, and also believe Pearl Harbor was bombed by the US as a reason to get us into WWII. I do not give their opinions much credence. But they're just people posting on a messageboard. They are not on a pulpit preaching to people and mixing conspiracy theories with the Word of God.

Let's say a Cabinet member of Congressman or someone bought into the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Do you think it would be responsible of them to use their office as a means to argue their belief? And if they did that, would you not think less of them or question their judgment on other things? Again, this all comes back to Obama - which is the reason we're even discussing this - and me just not understanding how one could listen to something like this and not want to get as far away from it as possible. It's one thing to argue that the US government has not acted in the best interests of the black community. It's another to throw out such ridiculous nonsense as fact, in the context of being the leader of a church.

We have exactly what you describe in Congress right now. James Inhofe has said that 9/11 was punishment by God for America's sins. In the White House it's been widely reported that Cheney is a fan of Laurie Mylroie who wrote that the 1993 WTC bombing was Saddam's doing. Richard Perle even wrote a blurb for the cover saying the book was, "splendid and wholly convincing." I'm sure some of the same people pushing the Clinton/drug dealer stuff in the nineties are working in the White House now. I bet I could find more if I tried.

I'm not trying to excuse Wright's conspiracy theories. I'm just trying to make it clear that the belief in conspiracy theories in general is a mainstream position. Honestly it's more of an academic argument, but since I'm an academic it has appeal to me.

She actually didn't win the state, if winning means the person who got the most delegates.

She won the primary, but he won the caucus and that resulted in a positive net number of delegates for him. The media invented that she won, but he won more delegates out of Texas than she did. And she has no one to blame for the process, since Bill Clinton was part of the group that helped re-write the rules there back in the 90s.

I simply disagree. It's not mainstream. Curiosity in conpiracies is mainstream; belief in nearly all of them (I'll allow that there is probably some bit of truth to some conspiracy theory out there somewhere) is either flat-out ignorance or, as you say, something people latch onto as a way to explain the unexplainable. I've never heard of the WTC or Clinton/drug dealer things, and they certainly are not out there as mainstream positions. Frankly, given the political implications of the Clinton thing, my guess is that is/'was being pushed more for political gain than as a belief in a "conspiracy theory."

And the Inhofe thing you refer to is NOT a conspiracy theory, either - unless you're arguing that God is conspiring against us. That's a Falwellian comment that got some play when it happened, but I don't see any evidence that it took hold in the mainstream public as having any legitimacy. It's just a stupid comment from the kind of person that has made me, as a conservative, all but decide I'm either sitting this election out, or voting Libertarian.

If you don't like Inhofe what about Sen Coburn's assertion that there are so many lesbians in Oklahoma schools that girls can only go to the bathroom one at a time?

As to Inhofe's comment, that kind of assertion has been preached by numerous pastors around the country. I'd imagine tens of thousands of people or more have heard some variant of God caused 9/11. If you won't see that as a conspiracy theory, at least you should be able to see it's of no substantive difference to God damn America.

Mylroie is fairly influencial within a subset of Neocons, it just so happens that many of them are also the ones running the country. If Obama's relationship with Wright is out of bounds why isn't Cheney's agreement with Mylroie? The Clinton drug dealer stuff was in the Wall Street Journal. It's crazy, but certainly was out in the mainstream.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that any one conspiracy is a mainstream thought, just that belief in conspiracies in general is mainstream.

Just to aid in the discussion here:

con·spir·a·cy /k?n'sp?r?si/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, plural -cies. 1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Many people believing in something crazy (e.g. God caused 9/11) isn't a conspiracy.

Re: Coburn... I don't even know what that means, or that it logically makes sense. It sounds stupid on its face, though.

Re: Inhofe, the issue here is the influence of someone like that on the President, not the statement/idea in a vaccuum. So even accepting your suggestion that the Inhofe statement is equivalent to the God Damn America statement, the question is, shouldn't the influence of the person making the statement on a Presidential candidate at least be a consideration when judging the candidate? If Bush considered Inhoke a close confidant and spiritual guide, then I think it would be proper to question whether Bush agrees with that kind of statement. That's he just a Senator means the party as a whole should have to answer for it, to the extent he represents the party, but I don't see this as analogous to the Obama situation, given his close relationship to Wright.

Re: Mylroie - this goes back to the hindsight thing. Sure, that link should have been questioned. What are you going to do about it now? We have the information about Obama/Wright now, and therefore it may or may not play a part in our evaluation of the candidate, as we each see fit.

I think this discussion of Wright and Obama could get to something interesting if allowed. The fact is that in churches all across the country, of varying ethnic compositions, angry rhetoric is the norm. Political speech is heard every Sunday. Hateful attacks on some mysterious "them" is a part of weekly sermons all around the country. The fact is that Wright's type of angry denunciation isn't by any means unique. A discussion about what is said in churches of varying political and racial mixes could benefit the country.

There's also the issue of tone. It was kind of sad to watch David Broder Sunday fret over the way Wright spoke. He was almost more fearful of the style than the words and I imagine his reaction is pretty common among older, mainstream Christians. In reality, though, that style that evolded from the Pentecostal tradition is common in lots of churches, regardless of racial makeup. The passion and fire of these preachers is what draws folks in regardless of that particular Sunday's message.

If this controversy were able to expose more Americans to some of the different strains in American Christianity it would be good for all of us. I don't expect that to happen, but it would be nice.

That's what I've been trying to get at.

I wonder what the pastor of W's church has said in his sermons or, for that matter, what kind of things Rev. Huckabee said in his....

I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not that it's not true, but I personally have never been to a service where something even remotely close to this has happened. And I've been attending church services (fairly :) ) regularly my entire life. Maybe it's that I have always attended "mainstream" denominations - United Methodist and Presbyterian (with a couple of Catholic services when visiting my parents). But I have never heard "angry rhetoric" at a church service, never had political views expressed - in fact, I've heard many preachers go out of their way to say "however you choose to vote this week" or something along those lines. Even when something like abortion is raised, it's never in a political setting. Can't say I've ever heard a discussion of the gay lifestyle in church, other than how it affects who can be ordained.

In short, I don't relate to this at all, and perhaps that's why I'm coming down on this where I do, because I would hightail it out of any church that even discussed politics to any substantive extent, let alone went off on "angry rhetoric" bends on certain issues under the guise of teaching the Word of God.

Ksyrup: I'm close to agreeing with you. My question would be, what influence do Wright's words/thoughts have on Obama? As far as I can tell from what he's done and said over the past decade Wright's controversial thoughts have had no influence whatsoever. If evidence can be shown that Obama actually believes what Wright said I would quickly change my opinion of Obama. Until then, Wright's word's are just that, Wright's words.

Much the same way you say Bush's decisions aren't based on Inhofe's thoughts I believe Obama's decisions haven't been based on Wright's thoughts. I'd say the same about McCain and Hagee/Robertson/Falwell also. I'm much more concerned about what the actual candidate says and does as opposed to the supporters/mentors/endorsers.

But what substantive difference is there in a crazy conspiracy theory and a crazy theory?

The text of the speech is out there.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

hxxp://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

Choose the link that is least offensive to your sensibilities.

Ksyrup: I've also been with mainstream churches my whole life (Methodist, Disciples of Christ), but I have enough friends and relatives that are evangelicals and have seen enough video to know this goes on all across the country. I couldn't begin to tell you how many people are exposed to this weekly and it's important to note that even the churches that engage in the type of speech that we're talking about don't do it every Sunday. It's important for people to realize that this kind of sermon is by no means limited to one guy in Chicago.

This thread is unplayable.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that it goes to the candidate's judgment and leaves a lingering question of whether the person has left any lasting influence on him that would manifest itself. But mostly, it's just judgment - how can you not outright reject that in action, not just in words? And by that I mean, you don't attend his church, and you certainly don't have him as a part of the most significant moments of your life. That is very troubling to me.

I mean honestly, if I came on this board and made it known that while I personally don't believe that killing abortion doctors is right, but that one of my closest friends advocates killing doctors, you wouldn't store that information about me in the back of your mind and approach me a little differently than you otherwise would? I'm not talking about a relative you're stuck with and have to put up with on Thanksgiving - Obama was free to choose or reject this man as a spiritual advisor, and seems to have embraced him. That may not tell me that Obama is going to act on his advisor's outrageous statements, but that tells me something about Obama's judgment. And it's not good. That's the bottom line for me.

The following is the text of Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia, as prepared for delivery and provided by his campaign.

I'd say he hit the proverbial home run with the speech.

Mostly I was trying to point out that you and Ksyrup were arguing past each other because you were talking about different things by using "conspiracy theory" in different definitions.

To answer your question though, I would say there is a big difference. Preaching that God caused 9/11 for whatever reason is probably not going to cause too much action. People aren't going to go attack God for being mean to us. People of different religions probably aren't going to start fighting over a theory like that.

A conspiracy theory - like saying the (White) government created HIV to kill Black people could be potentially damaging. People believing in conspiracy theories tend to become very unhappy with those doing the conspiring, and they have an actual target to direct that unhappiness toward.

Let me get this straight. Did you see the movie JFK? If so, you must believe in conspiracies. That is exactly what you are saying here.

Just because some one reads a book does not mean that they subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Just because I meet some one once does not mean that I am a close advisor. If you attend a church for 20 years and this same person is very influential in the writing of your book, that person is a big influence over your life.

If a lifelong catholic runs for the White House, I can understand abortion advocates being concerned with abortion legislation being passed, regarless of the candidate's actual statements regarding his position. This is the same thing.

The problem that Obama has, and will have is that he cannot let the debate devolve into issues. He will be seen as a fringe liberal, and that will scare many voters away. As long as he keeps the debate about his cult of personality, he will attract the mindless mob.

You bring up a very good point though. There are many conspiracy theories out there that many people have not heard or have not given any credence to. But, you're going to tell me that a close spiritual advisor of a candidate for president, one who attended this church for 20 years, has no belief in any of this at all. Even though, he credits this same person as being a huge influence on his life. But, that's ok because these are mainstream beliefs?

Sorry, I can't buy that.

+1

The conservative slant of people who clearly don't understand the debate of what's going on with a good half of the population in this country make this thread really hard to read. And this coming from someone who sits right of center and won't vote for the Democratic nominee either. But the line between punditry and just saying "OMG, I don't get it. No one wants to vote for a fringe liberal" completely defies the reality of NOW.

You can cite 1988, you can cite 1888 or whatever you want. No one has any clue what's going to happen in November, but the fact of the matter is...this year is different because the challenge we face going forward are different. Maybe the past is instructive, but it's not a real crystal ball for what's to come.

Something will change, things will be different and stuff will go in a different direction. The generation of twittering, emailing and bluetooth induced Americans don't care about who is a liberal and who is a conservative only care about sound bites and are looking for someone they feel they can trust. Whoever the people feel they can trust, they will vote for. Most of us are far more informed than Joe Average Voter. We don't represent the folks being polled or asked what they think on any of the sides of this debate.

I only heard portions (stupid CBC kept cutting away), but Obama's speech was one of the best I've ever heard.