Let me explain this carefully, so you won't completely miss what I'm saying again.

1) I'm not saying reading a book means you believe in a conspiracy. I am saying reading a book and saying "I believe that" means you believe in a conspiracy.

2) I'm not at all saying any particular conspiracy theory is mainstream, but that belief in conspiracies in general likely is.

3) I'm not saying Wright should be excused because people believe in conspiracies, but that the discussion should at least pay attention to the fact that lots of people including prominent politicians of all ideologies believe in things equally as crazy as what Wright said.

4) You can believe whatever you want, but I believe it's at least reasonable to look at what the person has said and done and to put at minimum equal weight on that.

5) You have had numerous reasons to be opposed to Obama before any of this and I'd argue that your concern about Wright has less to do with a genuine fear of his influence and more to do with playing into biases you already had.

Great speech.

I guess this is where I say that I wish he was a community leader or preacher, and not a candidate whose policies and political philosophy I largely do not agree with.

He knows a preacher. You should check him out.

Do you have a link to some video of him I can check out?

Barack Obama stole my post!!!

:eek:

I call Oprah and see if she can hook me up.

Great Speech.

Well, not all of the most significant moments.

Remember, at the last minute, Obama decided not to have Wright at his announcement to run for the presidency last year, even though Obama said last week he wasn't aware of Wright's vitriolic sermons.

The reaction I'm seeing elsewhere, is not Home Run.. it's grand slam.

The best parallel I can think of is if John McCain had Inhofe as his "family preacher" for 20 years with Inhofe baptizing his kids and marrying him to his wife. If that were the case, I think you would see 10-times more outrage from the mainstream media than we have seen on the Wright issue.

In the end, I think Obama has handled it fairly well (esp yesterday's speech), but the nature of his campaign will open him up for similar criticisms moving forward. It's no different that if W (while running as a uniter of Dems and Reps in 2000) had a bunch of stories come out about how he was a very obstructionist governor. Once you set the tone/goals of your campaign, you open the door for those items to be criticized if your history doesn't support them.

Has there been a more direct speech confronting race in this country by a mainstream political leader in at least the past thirty years? Or more?

Would Obama have given this speech had his pastor of 20+ years not been caught on tape referring to the U-S of K-K-K-A?

There's a reason why Obama had to be direct. And frankly, when you strip out the high-falutin' rhetoric, this is what the speech comes down to re: Wright (which again, is WHY he's having to give the speech to begin with).

And again, Obama's defense is that this is only a portion of Wright the person, and the sum of the man is greater than the hate-filled vitriolic pastor who's preaching racial divisiveness and screwy conspiracy theories. That's Obama's line in the sand, and no amount of silver-tongued oratory can change that.

He sat in a pew for 20+ years and listened to this crap on at least a semi-regular basis, and does not believe that it's offensive enough to change churches. I think he will find that many Americans disagree.

I've never heard remarks like those of Rev Wright from my pastor or any priest I've listened to. And if I had I'd be heading for the hills.

It's like the Rev said something about hating vanilla ice cream or denouncing fast food if you listen to Obama.

And yet some of those same people will go to church or sit in front of their television and listen thoughtfully as a preacher tells them HIV is God's curse on homosexuals or the USA was created to destroy Islam or Catholicism is an apostate religion.

I'm sure Obama will lose a lot of votes over this, but do we really want to go down a road where we condemn people who go to church and hear messages we find offensive? Or will we just limit our outrage to one presidential candidate?

Let me put it this way. I don't believe I'd be voting for a candidate that attended Fred Phelps' church.

Do we want to go down a road where we condemn people for sitting idly by for 20+ years and not confronting hate speech UNTIL it threatens their presidential campaign? Sure. I have no problem going down that road, no matter what candidate we're speaking about.

I think a good place to start is outrage over someone potentially the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And yes I condem him for hearing this stuff and going back for 20 years considering he could be leading the entire country.

Let's get Rev Wright on the ticket while we are at it. He didn't really mean those things he was preaching about.

That's the crux of this thing. Rev. Wright isn't on the ticket. People are making this out to be that Obama = Wright when that is clearly not the case.

I'm not just talking about presidential candidates. What about the tens of thousands of folks that watch the 700 Club regularly? I'm fine with you not voting for Obama, although I'm sure your decision was made before this erupted. Not voting for him, though, isn't where these condemnations end. Almost all of you vocally opposed to Wright have been demanding that Obama should have left his church and the fact that he didn't impunes his character.

My question is whether that obvious character fault you see applies to the millions of people of all ideologies that go to churches or follow a television ministry where things equally as crazy and offensive are said. If not, why?

Clearly Obama hated the message of the Rev. I'm mean who wouldn't see right through that into the good of the man.

Please. People have gone insane.

Transparent. That is the word.

Since he didn't fall flat on his face with this speech, like it appears you were convinced was going to happen with your "color me unimpressed" posts from yesterday, I guess you have to keep plugging away.

How do you know that Obama didn't bring this up some of these instances to Wright in private in the past? You make is sound like Wright was preaching hate from the pulpit and in public 24/7, like a Phelps, when by all accounts that isn't the case. Yes he went way over the line in many instances, but it doesn't seem to be the core of what he was preaching.

I would think it would apply. Those people aren't running for office.

I would submit that if you knew about people's crazy affiliations like that then they would have a hard time getting voted into many leadership positions outside of their belief structure.


see, this is where people are cucko. it's almost like how dare you not see the brilliance of this man. no way you are enlightened if you let this rev stuff bother you.

You, obviously, as someone whose only exposure to the Reverend has been the clips shown on the news and YouTube. I have no more exposure to the man than you do, so I'd more likely believe those who know the man, rather than those who pass judgement on him based on 30 second clips.

Nice. :D

So if that's the case and he's filled with all this good, how do those thoughts and words ever come out of his mouth?

Please.

Gee, do I believe that you're judged in part by the company you keep, and that applies to people who aren't running for president? Yes. Yes I do. I don't think it's inexplicable or even unfair to hold those that are running for the highest office in the country to a higher standard than Joe Average, however. The president promotes and can guide social policy in a way that the average viewer of the 700 Club cannot, and it's ludicrous to ignore that.

rkmsuf: No, I've actually read things Cam has said and no full well he was opposed to Obama well before last week. And like I sadi, for most of the critics hear this goes farther than worrying about leadership. Look at how many folks are saying that Obama should have left the church and not doing so is a clear moral failure. All I'm asking is whether this same moral failing can be observed in in the millions of others who follow pastors that a lot of people object to.

Since when has anyone said he is made of sugar and gumdrops and farts rainbows? He's human, and humans have a long history of going way over the line with things they say. Good humans and bad humans alike.

You mean like our current president whom you voted for?

People are complicated. Wright can be an angry man and a loving man all at the same time. Rarely is anyone as good or bad as they may appear.

Obama pretty much said that Wright was totally in the wrong, and that if what Wright said was the only thing he knew about him, he would run for the hills.

I don't think Obama is simplifying what Wright says at all.

Wright is like a brother to Barack. In my personal opinion, I would frown upon Barack if he were to just totally denounce Wright and move on. No matter what Wright says, Barack can not simply walk away from him. That would scream of political correctness, and that would scream that Barack is just any other politician. Which he so strongly has been trying to prove he is not.

I don't agree with everything Barack said. Fuck, he spoke for over a half an hour. He spoke about racial problems in America for over a half an hour. I am a white college student. How the hell do I know how Barack feels. I commend him for not cutting off Wright and running from him.

Cam: It's not about higher standards. Like I said, you can vote for whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish. You go a lot farther than that, however. Your condemnation of him for not leaving his church, condemnation of the man, not the presidential candidate, is what I'm asking about. Does that same condemnation apply to the millions of folks that follow pastors that some find objectionable?

I want to be able to fart rainbows.

I can only speak for myself and I would feel the same way about others that subscribe to messages of hate through their church or following.

Clearly I don't get why a man would go to this church for so long, feel so close to this Rev while the messages we see from this preacher are horrible IMO.

What bothers me too is how supporters kind of brush it off as "isolated" or well Obama didn't believe those things. For me there is a disconnect there in spite of any spin or speeches going on.

I've been pretty neutral regarding hillary vs obama but this turns me off to him.

pick anyone you know or any church you been too and tell me you've heard these statements or anything of the like

and if you had are you repeatingly seeking out these people.

:rolleyes:

does than mean you'd care to make this about race or something?

I love how people have a holier then thou attitude to this whole thing. Looking from the outside in I can see why you feel that way but everything is not as easy as it looks.

so make a point then.

I have heard priests make statements like these, focused on homosexuality and pre-marital sex mainly. But it wasn't every week, maybe a few times a year. Can you say how often Rev. Wright went over the line in his sermons? If it was all the time, I'd think there would be more than the same 4 or 5 instances that seem to keep coming up.

Then clearly you don't believe Obama when he says this is an isolated incident. At least, in his experience. And it's that fact that means nobody here will be able to come to common ground with you.

My point is things are not as easy as it seems to those involved in any situation.

Go read Obama's speech from today. It's pretty clearly articulated.

rkmsuf if I may ask where do you lean politically. Left or Right?

For me, that doesn't make me feel better about the man at all.

Whatever, there are excuses to be made for everything.

make an arguement if I'm so unenlighened. Help me understand. seriously.

I just asked where do you lean. Would help me understand where your coming from alot better. As for you understanding I am not sure I can help with that someone mentioned reading his speech would help I will echo that statement.

Actually, the Obama campaign is fixing to come out swinging at Hillary's secretive ways, i.e. refusing to release tax returns, earmarks, library donations, etc.

First he has to come clean on his own dirty laundry, which is why he sat down with the Time and the Tribune the other day to talk frankly about Rezko. Today he did the Wright speech. He may have had to do this anyway, and I'm glad he did, but the reason I think for it is that he can't have anything of his own he's dodging before coming at Hillary.

What difference does it make. I'm on no team here.

Consider me neutral. Right smack dab in the middle.

This is what I'm talking about. It's almost impossible to fathom I've read the speech and in fact feel the way I've said I do. Amazing.

If only I'd thought to bring my cell phone to church in 1986 so I could record him!

I thought Obama's speech, as discourse on the history and state of race relations, was great. As far as the specifics relating to Wright, I accept Obama's explanation, but I still have reservations about his judgment because, from my own perspective, there is no way I would tolerate listening to those kinds of statements - in a church, no less - without walking out and never coming back, let alone embracing the person and sharing my most personal moments with him. That bothers the hell out of me.

And that's about where I end up on this issue. He didn't convince he of anything regarding Wright, but he impressed me with his willingness and ability to be direct on the big picture issue of race. If he goes all the way to the White House, I just hope the message becomes more than a political slogan left in the dust of the 2008 campaign. And I mean that not directed to him or Democrats, but the nation as a whole.

The person with average intelligence might be able to consider that perhaps these clips and snippets being thrust in our faces 24/7 for the past week may not actually represent the sum.

I don't really care as much any more who wins, I just want it to be over, but to say you know it all based on your very brief exposure to his 20 year career is beyond silly.

So you honestly believe he should have left the man he has known for twenty years? Even if he didn't agree with what Wright said Obama would be between a rock and a hard place.

If he leaves the church then he loses the black vote in Illinois meaning he would likely not get re-elected to the senate. He would also be turning on his friend of twenty years to appease what the church would call the white media.

If he stands by his friend and spiritual leader then reactions like yours and others will continue and he would lose the nomination and would likely never be a viable candidate for president again.

It's amazing what kind of sheep people have become. The only reason he suddenly condemns what Wright has to say is because it's come to public light and it's going to damage his campaign. Anyone who believes someone who would spew things that insane and it would only be an isolated event is a fool and probably thinks they're going to get a unbiased opinion from Jerry Falwell too. Cause the stuff he says on tv is isolated from his regular every day opinion.

:rolleyes:

Wright preached hate, Obama may not agree with it (and I don't believe he does, especially not to the same extent Wright does) but Obama shows himself to be just like any other crooked politician, staying apart of that church because it helped further his career, and his status in the black community, just like his speech means to do. It has nothing to do with integrity, personal beliefs or vision, and unfortunately for Obama that was the main things he had going for him. Atleast it's good to see he can still round up his sheep to get them to holler home run and grandslam! for a speech that amounts to nothing other than trying to save face and have no actual impact on anything that'll actually help america. It'll create some great soundbites though, and that is what america needs more of from a president.

True, it's entirely possible that stuff about 911 was when he picked up the wrong serman one sunday. Probably never mentioned it again.

I think he should have left him before running for office was ever a realistic thought in his mind.

Also, the thought process here of what is "right" in the context of how it plays for votes seems diametrically opposed to Obama's entire campaign theme. But I digress.

No, my point is he should have left that church 15 years ago.


that really is the point isn't it? not whether he bails now. only a fool would bail now.

Actually I was going to write that but decided against it. If leaves before being a presidential candidate do you think he ever gets elected to the senate? I don't think so and that's way I said he is between a rock and a hard place.

Not help America? What the hell did he say that could not possibly help America?

It's a fucking speech. Of course it's supposed to create soundbites. He's good at giving speeches. Plain and simple.

First, people can't stand Bush because he can not give a speech to save his life.

Now, Barack is catching flack because supposedly all he can do is give good speeches.

If people are so cynical to not believe anything a candidate says, then what do you vote based upon? Because everything we know about the cadidates is based upon what they say they will do.

I guess just go look at their voting records and go vote and hope for the best.

No, Obama didn't fall flat on his face. But that wasn't what I suggested would happen. What I said yesterday was this:
I think I'm consistent in believing that Obama's speech today ultimately did not solve his problem. He was amazingly blunt in discussing racial issues in society today, but only to obfuscate his own problems with his close association for decades with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And I confess to being a little confused by your statement that "he went way over the line in many instances, but it doesn't seem to be the core of what he was preaching."

If someone's view is that the U.S. government is out to imprison you, out to decimate your community through the release of the AIDS virus, that blacks like Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are somehow less black than the people sitting in your pews, that the country we live in is the U-S of K-K-K-A, that God should damn this country, that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, but that we also should love our neighbor and ourselves... I'm not sure that you can disassociate the two.

Rev. Wright's theology is one that he describes as "black liberation theology". Well, if liberation theology in general can be described as Christian Socialism, then black liberation theology could best be described as Christian Socialism with a specific emphasis on social equality for blacks. I don't believe this is a "black seperatist" or a "black supremacist" movement. But when the basis of your church is that every act or thought must be viewed through a racial prism, it's kind of hard for me to accept that Obama's going to be the guy to bridge the racial divide in this country.

A quick comparison.


compared to:


I guess one of my biggest problems isn't necessarily JUST with the comments we've seen from Rev. Wright. It is that Rev. Wright's comments don't seem out of line with liberation theology in general, and black liberation theology in particular. And I'm having a hard time seeing how black liberation theology is anything but a perversion of Martin Luther King's vision of a society in which we are judged by the content of our character, rather than the color of our skin.

I'm sure if you look through Rev. Wright's sermons, you'll see a lot of talk of hope, and love, and charity. But if he is, as he says he is, a proponent of black liberation theology, then it will always be about the racial division, not the common ground we all share. It seems to me the message of Rev. Wright is completely different than the message Barack Obama has been expressing, which makes me wonder how he could have attended this church for 20+ years.

For the record, yes, my mind is made up on who I will vote for. But my mind is NOT made up as to who Barack Obama is and what he would mean for this country.

I refuse to believe that one church, and one man, held the key to whether Obama would have made it in politics. I think you're painting his either/or choices way too simply.

Sounds like you weren't expecting much, based on these bits.

Actually sounds like I wasn't impressed by his interview with Gwen Ifill and thought "boy, if that's from his speech I'm not impressed."

Frankly, I didn't know what to expect, which is why I also expressed my curiousity as to WHAT Obama would say today. And ultimately, yes, I'm less than impressed with Obama the candidate's answers, though he sure does talk pretty.

I think this, and pretty much all of your post, is extremely well put and mostly matches my feelings about all of this.

Last week I planned to vote for Obama in the North Carolina primary. Today I still plan to vote for Obama in the North Carolina primary. It would probably take quite a bit for that to change. But I don't feel nearly as strongly now as I did a week ago.

Goddammit, Cam, you're like a big right-wing teddy bear: Can't agree with you, way too hard to argue with you, and impossible to dislike. My DFH card ought to be revoked :)

LOL. That's the best compliment ever. Seriously, thank you. :D

I haven't yet had a chance to listen to Obama's speech, but did he give a reason for the decision to cancel Rev. Wright's appearance at his announcement to run for president last year?

Please stop causing problems.

He couldn't make it to the announcement because he was out organizing caucuses and trying to get super-delegates switch to Obama against their will.

For closure, I think it's the one puzzling item that hasn't been addressed.

On the one hand, Obama says that Wright has been his spiritual mentor for the past 20 years. A few days ago, Obama said that he was shocked and appalled when he saw the video clips of Wright's hate speeches, and this was the first that he had heard about it. Yet, in February 2007 (13 months ago), when Obama announced his candidacy, a last minute decision was made by him and his staff to exclude Wright from appearing on stage with him. Instead, Wright and Obama prayed privately before the announcement.

So, something doesn't add up here, and Obama needs to address this if he wants to leave this issue behind.

You know, I was thinking about this thread today. While I have been involved in POL discussions for years here, I find this thread to be a good debate. I think the main reason is that the participants, for the most part, have been civil and respectful, unlike any of the threads in the past where we had Biggle and Ewiak in it. Here we have to put up with Toddzilla going off once in a while (not to mention ignoring noop). :p Even though I vote for gridlock and less (not more) crap coming out of Washington, I forward to reading what Cam, JPhillips, Vic and others have to say.

Wow, I think we've found the only few skeptics around.

I'm seeing the National Review, and a lot of the conservative (centre-right, not hard right) blogs, and even the folks behind the 700 club admit that Obama hit one out of the park on this one, with the caveat that it might have needed more soundbites to get a full run off of it with the press.

I did not see him give the speech but having read the text, I can tell you he nailed it. I have no doubt he gave the speech with passion as you can see it just in the words.

He's an excellent orator. It's always been his greatest strength.

....still not voting for him due to his politics, but damn, he can talk. :)

This probably won't help Obama much:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote20...4464194&page=1

This is where politicians always get nabbed - trying to cover up and feign ignorance. Obama just needed to come out and say that he had heard a few of these sermons, vehemently disagreed with them and move on. Acting like he never heard any of them in 20+ years (until he ran for pres last year) is a little ridiculous. It's just going to be a matter of time before some Clinton agent shows a video with Obama clapping while Wright gives one of these sermons.

Kinda like this, Arlie? (from today's speech)

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

It's not the church or Wright that will make or break Obama. It is the implied hypocrisy of a man presenting himself as a force for unity while refusing to walk away over 20 years from the rhetoric of anti-American hatred that would split the community in two. At worst Obama has some concealed sympathy for these views, at best he has turned a blind eye to them.

I think only those who already see no wrong in Obama are convinced this speech has put the matter to bed. Should he make it to the Presidential contest the Republicans will tear him to shreds with this.

That interview was done on March 14. On March 18, Obama says:

This is "out-Clintoning" the Clintons on double talk. Maybe this is all clear to you, but I don't see that he's doing himself any favors over the past week with his comments.

National Review Column on Obama's Speech: "An Elegant Farce"

Saying "you can get rough" does not equal "you might say those things I've heard you say that I denied having heard".

No doubt he probably did hear him say it a few times, but I don't see that particular quote as shooting himself in the foot. This church dude sounds like he'd be the type to say a lot of off-the-wall kind of crap.

You miss the point. Have you ever heard derogatory comments filled with hate from a friend, a family member, etc. Did you run for the hills when they did it? Why do people standby a friend who may have committed a crime, beat somebody up unprovoked, etc. There is more to someone than a couple of minutes on youtube -- 20 years worth for Obama and Wright. Apparently 20 years, and probably a lifetime, of helping poor disadvantaged people. More than I personally will ever do for such people. I can forgive a guy for that. I am more concerned with actions than words. You maybe part of the problem Obama speaks about, retreating to your corner. Finally, let me ask you this. Did you live as a black man in the 50s and 60s? I am guessing you did not, and have no idea what he went through and where some of his hate is coming from. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

But, awshucks, I am just a sheep, bedeviled by that silver tongued Obama.

Don't quite get you there. He said he didn't personally hear the things that were on youtube. Then he later says he did hear other controversial stuff. You may not believe him, but it is entirely consistent.

"out Clintoning the Clintons" is certainly overstating it but you do seem to be guilty of an equal level of spin on this.


There does seem to be a degree of gullibility here.

Obama clearly denied knowing about the Wright's hate rhetoric until this speech. Accusing him of inconsistency is not unreasonable :)

Some commentators seem to want to treat Wright's words as if they stand on their own with no significant meaning outside the words themselves. But they express an opinion, an attitude even a philosophy - a rabid anti-American philosophy. For a man with ambitions to become the President of the USA such a philosophy has to be seriously objectionable. For him there is no reasonable way that these ideas can be ignored. They surely are (should be) against everything this man stands for. But, until it came to affect his candidature, it seems that Obamo didn't object, didn't remove himself from the arena of their expression, didn't try to counter them in any way (had he done so it would surely have made far more sense to include as them justification in his speech).

Even from a pragmatic point of view, as a senator, Obama should have removed himself from the sphere of this rhetoric. Are there so few black churches or well-meaning pastors that Obama cannot find one to associate with? Of course not.

Add this episode to his wife's "the first time I've felt proud ...." and Obama is in trouble.

I just disagree. As I said before, he denied hearing those specific topics discussed by Wright. And he did not in his speech admit hearing about those topics, just other controversial topics. Again, you can disbelieve him, but he is consistent.

I am neither for or against Obama, would probably end up voting for him if he gets the Democratic nomination and I were an American, but that interpretation of his behaviour here is head in the sand, Vinatien for Prez. He choses his words so as not to directly contradict himself - as politicians will - but he contradicts himself nevertheless.

Cam and Ksyrup are closest to the feelings I have on the issue. It's tough for me to listen to the comments by Rev. Wright and then deal with Obama being a close, personal friend of the same individual for 20+ years.

Understanding the hate and accepting it are two different things. I mean, there is a difference between saying America has made mistakes in dealing with race issues and then stating that the AIDS virus was put out by the government as a way to kill black people or that it's the USofKKKA.

What's tough for me to believe is that these tapes by Rev. Wright were put up for sale. I find it hard to believe that this is some isolated instance. I also find it hard to believe a "spiritual advisor" with those types of hateful views doesn't push a political agenda in those advisory sessions.

I guess, what it comes down to, is a few simple questions for me. Would I have my children in the church listening to that man speak on a Sunday morning? I wouldn't. Would I go back into that church? No, I wouldn't. Would I allow the man who said those words to be a part of my team in a run for The White House? No. I wouldn't.

Obama does. That simple fact makes me have serious reservations about him as a political candidate.

Shifting off of Obama for a second. . . let me just say that Rev. Wright is the type of scumbage that causes people to hate religion. He's a black Jerry Falwell. His words to nothing to fix the racial divide in this country and inspire hate in the youths he preaches(d) to. He should be ashamed of himself.

Heard a pretty good one on local radio this morning, not a political commentator but just a regular guest commentator on a music format station. I thought he summed it up pretty well when he said he had to leave during the speech & run to the mirror. He wanted to see if he really looked as stupid as Obama apparently believes everyone is.

First, I'd separate family from friends/acquaintances. Not only is that not the case here, but I'd argue there's a bit more going on that clouds the issue when a family member is involved (at least a close family member, not necessarily every person you are related to). Second, yes, I've heard comments that go beyond just a fleeting attempt at a joke that was based on some sort of racial or other derogatory aspect, and I consciously chose to lessen or outright cease contact with that person.

I can think of one instance, in particular, that stands out. In college, there was a group of us (a few sets of dorm roommates) who used to hang out quite often. One of those was a good friend of mine, and his roommate. Over time, I noticed a distinct pattern of racial slurs from the roommate that seemed to be used as a matter of course, and I told my friend that his roommate was not welcome in my dormroom because I was uncomfortable with his continuing use of racial slurs as part of his everyday talk. And I told my friend that I would not hang out with him with that guy around. And then I had a very direct confrontation with that person over the issue, and we basically agreed to not hang around each other. The easy thing to do would have been to just endure it for the sake of "the group," but there was no way I could do that. And truthfully, my friendship with the other guy ended up fading away pretty quickly after that, too, which was OK with me because it bothered me that he didn't react the same way I did to what he heard.

Again, this is my perspective on the issue. Maybe you'd just continue to abide by someone like that and ignore it, but I don't see how anyone could or would do that. I understand the race issue clouds things for Obama here, but when things clearly go beyond expressing anger and resentment over the historical treatment of blacks, and head into outright lies/conspiracy theories attempting to feed that anger among the black community...it's time to disassociate yourself from those positions. Obama can feel strongly about certain racial issues and seek to honor those who sacrificed in the past in other, more productive ways. That he chose to bring this man closer to him, and not reject him (or at least attempt a personal dialogue with him about the harm that such statements cause)...how can that NOT be a legitimate concern for the public when you're talking about someone who is a candidate for US President?

So you're saying he did and did not contradict himself? :)

Mike Huckabee on Morning Joe this morning:

Huckabee's point is well-taken, but I think that only covers a portion of what Wright has said. It does not cover the more outrageous statements. Those go beyond cutting someone slack over how the race issue has personally affected them and the black community.

From the NYT editorial:


Chicago Public Radio did a bit on Trinity Church this morning. The gist of the report was that these excerpts from Wright's sermons greatly mischaracterizes what Trinity is all about. Additionally, those who attended Wright's sermons are pretty bemused, saying the majority of his sermons didn't have this kind of "speech".

GFUS.

So as long as he doesn't spew this stuff every week it's okay?
*(not with you, with them)

{grabs popcorn}
Kind of fun in a voyeuristic sort of way watching people (metaphorically) shoot Obama's toes off one at a time.

I will now retract my previous statement about Hillary having no chance to beat Obama decisively in Pennsylvania. Now there's at least a chance.

G-File User System?

Gauge Fishing Units?

Even more 'bemusing' is the fact that people would defend this behavior because it doesn't happen in 'every' sermon. It reminds me of people who defend a person who gets a DUI/DWI by saying, "He's a good kid. He just made a mistake."

That's not a mistake. That's a conscious decision against better judgement.

Starts with Go

Oh. I think you mean GFY. Or better yet, to avoid confusion - FU. :)

I still don't get it.

I wonder how many people will listen to the speech via youtube, etc. This seems like the first major political speech in which people have the opportunity to hear it firsthand. I don't know if people will take the opportunity or not. But it seems like it is only good for Democracy if they do. Whether you agree with it or not, you are actually engaging it--instead of just listening to someone's snarky or praise-filled description of it.

Still, I am skeptical that any significant number of people are willing to take a half-hour to listen to a political speech. Patience is not in America's DNA.

It is at 1.23 million hits on youtube in 24 hours so some people are obviously interested. Of course it may just be the people who already support him making up the majority of those hits.