Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you find Obama's relationship to Wright as concerning or more concerning compared to McCain's "relationship" with Falwell/Robertson?

I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Why Richardson's endorsement matters

Good article and I agree. We may all look back on this move as the one that pushed Obama into the nomination from a public relations standpoint. Unless the Clintons get Edwards, I don't see how they can recoup the momentum to get the nomination.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I find McCain's willingness to compromise his principles in pursuit of electoral success more concerning than Obama's relationship to his pastor, which he's explained fully now.

That figures. On the flip-side, I find McCain's "relationship" with Falwell to be miniscule and irrelevant compared to Obama's relationship to his pastor of 20 years and I believe that Obama will tell you everything and anything and is willing to let words shroud his true principles. So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

Unless they are future cabinet members or will be consulting on policy decisions, what does it really matter?

Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process.

Really, all this is getting old and has no bearing on anyone's "fitness" to be president.

The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals.

People can chase this strawman all they want, but this overreaction just hurts the party (part of the reason Hillary has stayed silent).

Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney.

I mean, of course the people who support Bush/McCain will jump all over it, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing this guy said is really that much different from some other guys like Falwell/Robertson.

People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

I agree.

[JPhillips]

Let's try something.

Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide.

Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals.

Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah.

Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars.

Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda.

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Let's try something.

Imagine there was a religious figure who has been accused of brainwashing his followers. Imagine this man is a convicted felon. Imagine his son, who he referred to as "Perfect Adam" was married to a teenager who claims she was beaten, raped, and held against her will on multiple occasions. Imagine that he has prearranged marriages for thousands of people worldwide.

Now imagine this man calls himself the True Father and believes he is the messiah. Imagine that he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and desires dictatorial powers for himself. Imagine that he says God hates freedom. Imagine he says he is gaining access to prominent politicians to further his goals.

Imagine this man gives tens of thousands of dollars to politicians and millions to past politicians and politically connected figures. Imagine he opens media outlets designed to further his chosen politicians and his faith. Imagine he becomes so politically influential that he meets with Presidents and former Presidents and has an event where American politicians crown his as the Messiah.

Imagine this man has billions of dollars that he uses to further his goals. Imagine that he has business dealings with a prominent member of the Axis of Evil and may have given them billions of dollars.

Shouldn't a political party's relationship with that guy be just as important as Obama's relationship with Wright? You'd think the same people who are frothing over Wright would at least have taken some time in the past to condemn the host of politicians and party faithful willing to take that guy's money and knowingly help him further his agenda.

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

So we should take Wright into consideration for this or not? Help me out, here.

[JPhillips]

I don't really care, but if Wright, who has comparatively little influence, is important shouldn't Moon, who donates millions, has his own conservatively aligned media empire, gives money to the North Koreans, and is connected to virtually every conservative politician in the U.S., be just as important?

[miked]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ultimately it matters a lot if he asks Reverend Wright who should be in cabinet positions. As one of Obama's dearest long-time friends and a very politically charged person, I don't doubt Rev Wright will be putting his two cents into the cabinet process.



The content of one's character should be investigated if they are running for President, even if they are liberals.



Hillary is not staying quiet for the Party's sake as much as she is hoping to be the winner of a lot of serious scrutiny of Obama Barack. Much like McCain won the day when the press scrutinized newcomers Huckabee and Romney.



People who support Obama should jump all over this thing instead of closing their eyes and ears. Obamamaniacs should stop getting down on their knees and crying and instead seriously investigate this newcomer. That's what this time period is for. The reason we have a process before we vote is to investigate the candidates, not get "tired" of the scrutiny and wish election day was already here.

Firstly, I'm not an Obamamanic, I even voted Hillary in this poll. I've stopped caring after all those debates. But I don't see anything that suggests Wright has a major influence on policy, in fact it would seem as though Obama started distancing himself before that even came out. People who support Hillary/McCain will just add this to something they can chase, and these little annoying spats are just hurting politics. I mean, CNN felt the need yesterday to make an article about how the CEO of the contractor who was caught snooping at files had donated to Obama's campaign. Buried in the article was the fact that the CEO of the other contractor was a Hillary supporter. But the headline was "CEO of state dept. breach an Obama donor!!!!!!" I saw the comments on this article and it was nothing but Hillary/McCain supporters talking about how this CEO obviously instructed his worker to go through the files to distract from the current "scandal" (despite the fact the first breach took place 2+ months ago).

My point is, people like to make mountains of out molehills, especially this early in the process. If you think Obama is somehow going to bring some white-hatred thing to the office, or consult Wright before making his decisions (we all know that won't happen now), then you are seriously partisan-delusional. Do I have to remind people who GWB selected to be his medical advisor/FDA guy? Who was he consulting on that?

[Young Drachma]

Pat Buchanan wonders where the gratitude is:

Link

By Patrick J. Buchanan

How would he pull it off? I wondered.

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

[Buccaneer]

So now it's time for everyone to turn partisan hacks? *sigh*

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But, of course, we can't talk about Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his ties to the Republican party and the Bush family in particular.

We're back to the idea of "moral relativism". One person had a donor who went to a few banquets and was looney. One person was supported by a preacher who said some odd things. These people aren't any different than Obama, right?

I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries.

IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president".

[Young Drachma]

His rhetoric (Buchanan) has really gotten ugly in recent years. I mean, he's just regurgitating talking points from the nationalist right at this point and so, so paying him any mind at this point is really silly. The main difference of course, is that he gets a forum on national television as an opinion commentator.

Of course, Jesse Jackson had a show on CNN for a while. So...I guess whatever works. But this stuff isn't so much vitriol as it does repeat the oft-cited and falsely noted myth that social service programs in this country were devised by altruism intended to help colored folks out of their bleak situations.

It would almost be comedic if there weren't millions of folks who truly believe this to be the case. But I guess will believe what they'll believe. I thought it was actually surprisingly caustic from him, so that's why I posted it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

We're back to the idea of "moral relativism". One person had a donor who went to a few banquets and was looney. One person was supported by a preacher who said some odd things. These people aren't any different than Obama, right?

I just don't see it. Obama's entire campaign has been on bringing different people, parties and races together based on hope. Then, we find out his closest advisor on a personal level says these things about race. It really does matter and is different. Still, if he can get past it and get the focus back on his message, he should be OK for the primaries.

IMO, we may be looking back in November thinking "If Obama would have just distanced himself from the rev a little more back in March, he may be president".

You folks are overstating the influence and the personal relationship of Rev. Wright and Obama. The media spins "spiritual adviser" to mean something beyond what the true intent was. Even if you claim he's playing politics on this one, to me, it's akin to a close family member that you don't want coming out and saying something crazy, because he's old and can be prone to say crazy thing.

I think Barack looked up to Rev. Wright in terms of his Christianity and given that last year, the debate was whether the Democrats could convert some of the "moral majority" to their side, I think he was trying to carve out a way to let folks know that he had a spiritual backbone.

Rev. Wright isn't going to torpedo this candidacy. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise. Other things might do it, but this isn't the thing. Not in a week here you all swore it'd kill his campaign and he ended up regaining the lead in the polls and getting a major superdelegate to come to his side of the aisle.

He should've been dead in the water and instead, he took the worst week of his campaign and effectively neutralized it by using those oft-cited 'words' and gave a blunt speech on a conversation that most folks would rather gloss over or completely ignore with a simply stroke of a magic wand.

I think the general election will be a very stark contrast in conversations. The problem for the Dems is all of this "John McCain is an American hero" talk that they keep spewing before they decide to attack him. That's going to stick with folks who don't know Obama well and who already know all they need to about Hillary.

But this entire race was unpredictable in January, so to act as if it's all played now in March is very premature.

[cartman]

Considering the overall US budget just passed the $1 trillion mark for the first time in 1987, it is pretty safe to say his estimate of $40 trillion spent on social programs is way off. In any event, he seems to be overlooking the fact that white Americans make up about 60% of those on welfare. Hardly a program set up to exclusively help the black community, as Buchanan seems to be intimating.

[JPhillips]

Arles: You're way off limiting Moon to a donor who went to a banquet. He's kept in the background, but from his early relationship with Reagan and company and the founding of the Washington Times he's been one of the most important sources for cash in the entire conservative movement. That cash has paid off by giving Moon the legitimacy he's so eagerly desired.

Bush I has received millions in speaking fees from Moon and has praised his vision and principles. Neil Bush has also spoken in praise of Moon and done other work for some of Moon's shadow companies. Bush II has appointed a few Moonies to prominent positions in the government. During Bush's first term millions in abstinence only education funds were given to a Moon front group.

The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event.

In effect everything you worry that Wright could do, Moon has done.

In the end I don't really believe that Moon is anything for these politicians but an ATM. I don't really worry about Bush declaring Moon the dictator of the US, just as I don't believe Obama is going to throw whitey down a well. The point is that unless you're willing to condemn Moon and his political allies as vigorously as you do Wright and Obama, you really are just taking an opportunity to damage a political opponent with no higher principles than personal destruction.

[Buccaneer]

The pinnacle was the crowning ceremony held in the Dirksen Senate office building a couple of years ago. A number of congressmen were in attendance, although not surprisingly no one is willing to take credit for booking the event.

Except that is was spearheaded by an Illinois Democrat?

The thing that makes what Wright said and his alledged influence is the fear of violence, as we have seen in the past and what I remembered growing up seeing the race riots personally. It's one thing to be influenced by money and its evils, but it is another thing to want to purposely do harm to another group. You know it won't take much to have race clashes in certain parts of the country. That is a fear contemplated if Hillary steals the nomination. That is why any kind of race-baiting, hatemongering should be categorically shutdown and not allow to fester.

[JPhillips]

Moon wants to convert or kill anyone who doesn't believe he's the Messiah. He's actively supporting the North Koreans. In the seventies thousands of young American were brainwashed by Moonies to the point where deprogramming them was relatively prominent.

I stand by my belief that if you aren't willing to apply the same scrutiny to people connected with Moon that you are to people connected Wright you're engaging in nothing more than an opportunistic political attack. If the concern is influence by people who are so radical as to be potentially dangerous how can you not see that connections to Moon are at least equally troublesome?

As to the Crowning ceremony, I don't think it's clear who setup the event as it may have been Curt Wheldon, but it's true that some Democrats were also in attendance. Over the past few years Moon has been pouring a lot of money into primarily African-American churches and a few politicians. In the grand scheme of things his influence in the black community is minimal, but his Tear Down the Cross initiative has been primarily aimed at black churches.

And for the record, I absolutely have problems with politicians of all stripes connected to a man as dangerous as Moon.

[Arles]

Honestly, I'd feel a lot better about Wright if it was shown he donated a ton of money to Obama. Then, atleast, we could write this whole thing off as fundraising. But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?

[JPhillips]

Arles: Thanks for proving my point.

[Arles]

Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.

[Young Drachma]

Obama's Talk Fuels Easter Sermons

A snippet:

Some ministers said their congregants were focused not on white racism, but on Mr. Wright’s remarks. The Rev. Dean Snyder, pastor of Foundry United Methodist church, which was the Clintons’ home church during President Bill Clinton’s tenure, said some of his congregants were aghast at Mr. Wright’s remarks.

During staff meetings this week at his church, Mr. Snyder said he noticed the rising awareness among some African-Americans of white Americans, he said, “who don’t understand the history of black people in this country and the role of the black church as a prophetic voice, and that in church you can say things that you couldn’t in larger society.”

The Rev. Kent Millard of St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Indianapolis said he felt Mr. Obama had explained the reality of the relationship between a pastor and his congregants.

“Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is member of our congregation, and I would hope he would never be held accountable for everything I have said in the last 15 years,” said Dr. Millard, who is white. “Why is there any assumption that a person in church is expected to agree with everything a pastor says?”

Some black ministers said that their sermons might address how the reputation of a man many of them revere was reduced to sound bites. They pointed out that sermons in black churches covered a long and circuitous path from crisis to resolution, and it was unfair to judge the entire message on one or two sentences.

“I may not use his exact language,” said the Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, pastor of Victory Church in Stone Mountain, Ga., “but I can tell you that the basic thrust of much of my preaching resonates with Dr. Wright. I don’t think I’m necessarily trying to preach people into anger, but I am trying to help people become conscious, become aware, to realize our power to make change in society.”

[Buccaneer]

that in church you can say things that you couldn’t in larger society

...depending on what side of the political spectrum you are on.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Has Wright donated a ton to Obama? If not, something Wright has been saying must resonate with Obama for him to stay close to him this long.

Any chance it might be the message in the other hundreds of hours of sermons Wright has given outside of the snippets that have been over focused on? No, that can't be it, can it? Obama must have had the patience of Job to sit through years of "boring" religious sermons to get to the "juicy" parts he just knew would be taken out of context and plastered all over the place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So we're both a couple of partisan hacks. Great!

Wait, you've just figured this out?

[Young Drachma]

Rev. Otis Moss took over recently as senior pastor and was in an Obama ad a while back, explaining what their church is all about. Well before there was all of this hullabaloo.




Here's the Easter Sunday sermon from today at Trinty UCC.
Pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJPV1VMRqo)
Pt. 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEcnR3woihU)
Pt. 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCfUxKoDGQ)
Pt. 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XonscQyCkHI)
Pt. 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsywwUk3TRU)

[CamEdwards]

I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.

This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him.

Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

That would be cool, if it wasn't for the gun thing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I caught a few minutes of Mark Levin's show on Friday night and just had to roll my eyes. Levin was off, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Wright matter, but his fill-in is a guy named Chris Plant who's also the 9-noon host on WMAL in D.C.

This guy made me want to throw things at my radio. First he starts off with the heavily edited soundbites of Wright, then takes a call from someone who is trying to reasonably disagree about Wright and his influence on Obama. Plant starts yelling at him, accuses him of trying to change the subject, and then hangs up on him.

Sometimes I hate talk radio. And frankly, if THAT'S the level of discourse about Wright, then it really will be a non-issue in a matter of weeks. Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

I think if you could expand on that a bit I'd love to hear it. I've generally been frustrated by the idea that faith is of utmost importance for our politicians, but the tenets of that faith are generally considered out of bounds for discussion. I'm bothered by the idea that the media is so accepting of an undefined faith when it's the specific beliefs within that faith that determine it's role on the individual. There are real differences between faiths, be they Black Liberation, Muslim, Mormon, Prosperity Gospel, etc. If faith is going to be an issue at all it should be as an examination of the tenets of that faith. IMO once a person says their faith is important it demands the question, what do you believe?

I would warn you though that me listening probably won't make up for all the other listeners that want a more black and white discussion.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, with Wright not giving that much money, why has Obama stood so close to him for these many years?

Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Did you miss the part where Obama spent about 40 minutes a week ago explaining it.

I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama. And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

In trying to determining who Obama is, we only have 3 sources of information:
1. His words
2. His actions in political life
3. Who he chooses to have close relationships with

If you don't buy completely into 1 and feel item 2 is not enough to get a full picture of what he stands for. I think it's fair for people to look at item 3 when trying to determine who Obama will be as a president.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Which is sad, because I think it could really be fascinating radio to have a serious debate about black liberation theology, politics and the pulpit, etc. And yes, if I were doing that show I would talk about Hagee and McCain. Hell, I might even reference the Moonies.

Now that's a show I might actually listen to. Even though you're a right-wing gun nut.

Originally Posted by Arles

I was trying to drive people to the logical conclusion: If Wright is not a big donor, then that means that something Wright says or stands for resonates with Obama.

But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life.

For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him.

On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care, and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing.

And, given Obama's statement of hope and unity are somewhat at odds with many of Wright's statements, suddenly this relationship does have some relevance.

Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success.

If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

And, you know, maybe you can't, anyway. But maybe it's worth trying. But Obama at least doesn't want to take the easy way out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Obama's message isn't just hope. It's also unity and the belief that Americans can come together, regardless of their partisan backgrounds, and develop solutions that achieve success.

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you want unity it's easy to get the illusion of it by simply disassociating yourself with anyone who disagrees with you. Obama, from the Illinois Senate to the U.S. Senate, has instead sought out the other side and sought compromise. And what he's said with Wright is that it would be easy to throw him under the bus, but that's not what getting to the middle ground is all about. It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing. They SHOULD be throwing some of these ideas 'under the bus' because they make little sense and don't represent the beliefs and needs of most U.S. citizens. There's a reason their views don't gain any traction in most government policy. It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But it's not necessarily his political views, and that's what I think Obama was getting at (in fact he said this very clearly). I think this happens a lot in real life.

For instance, the rabbi who married my wife & I is a really great guy. Really open and liberal about a lot of things (inter-faith marriage, for one), and really helped us with a lot of questions a Jew and non-Jew have when they ge married. I have a lot of respect for him.

On the other hand, he's also pretty militantly pro-Israel, in a sort of "bash the Palestinians" kind of way. It's a political viewpoint to which I (and my wife) are very opposed. But political views don't necessarily equal pastoral care, and that, to me, is the incredibly important distinction everyone who's bashing Obama is missing.

I think this is a real good point. And, IMO, it's closer to the truth than Obama being some kind of closet anti-american monster. All that said, I do think it's fair for Obama to have his feet to the fire for a few weeks while people make up their minds on it.

For a parallel, imagine a scenerio where it came out that McCain's closest economic advisor for the past 20 years was very anti-tax cut and in favor of bigger government spending and higher taxes to build jobs/economy. Now, it very well could be that McCain simply liked the guy as a person and didn't always agree with his tax policy, but I would fully expect much of the media to hammer him hard on inconsistencies between his stump speaches (keeping the Bush tax cut) and the views of his close advisor.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It would be easy to ditch Wright, and Buchanan, and Jackson, and Falwell, and Farrakhan, and Robertson, and then come up with some sort of "unity" that doesn't unite the whole country.

I would applaud the first candidate that did that. For "unity", I don't expect a person to get the Black Panthers and KKK to sing Kumbaya. It's OK to make people with fringe beliefs on either side less relevant without feeling like you are not "uniting the whole contry".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

And when he talks about his general policies, you KNOW there will be significant pushback from the other side on them. True he isn't for "universal" health care, but according to his campaign, he's going to dramatically increase spending on health. He will try to pull back from Iraq in a relatively substantial way. He will be backing programs that will increase spending... at least if he follows what he's been saying on the campaign. He will try to revisit NAFTA. When that happens, you aren't going to have the other side think everyone should sit down and compromise. Instead, they'll do what they normally do and fight to the last man. Then what happens to "unity"?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening. Until then, he's a 'hope' candidate with no firm comments on record as to how he will unite the country as president through government policies.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's a wonderful generalization. When he starts getting into particulars about what specific policies he's going to implement that will facilitate those solutions, then I'll start listening.

There are a lot of specifics here. Seriously.

The last thing I want from a president is to promise that his 'unity' will include the wackos on either extremist wing.

That's not what I'm saying, and if you read again what Obama said when he disavowed Wright's comments, that's not quite what he's saying. I don't want to speak for Obama, but I think what he's saying is that you need to at least try to find a piece of common ground with those with which you disagree, and bring them to the table based on that common ground in an effort of shaping a common vision for the future.

This really isn't such a far out concept. In my work as a project manager I do this all the time. One of the key problems in managing teams (especially teams over which you have no managerial control - which is true for most PMs) is when you have opposing people (or camps) who are diametrically opposed to each other and won't work together.

The way I bring these groups back into line is finding out the common demoniator upon which they agree, and use this as a way to bring them back to the table. Starting with this as the goal, we can then articulate a workable compromise that then allows the entire team to achieve whatever the objective of the project is.

That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success.

It's a representative government and few people hold those extremist beliefs.

If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

There are a lot of reasons to not like Obama. But it is not true that he has not gone on record with specific policies.

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons.

His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's the concept. Now yes, it's different if the "team" is a country. You can't refer to a higher power and simply get team members removed from the team, for instance. But I think the concept is good. It's about inclusion. Acceptance of a plan by stakeholders is a very important prerequisite for that plan's success. The greater the percentage of your stakeholders (and these include team members) who accept this plan, the (usually) greater the plan's chance of success.

I'm a manager in an IT group, so I'm certainly aware of those dynamics and you are correct in that regard. That works fine in a smaller setting. A group of 300M+ holds no comparison to that setting and a leader that thinks otherwise is profoundly in error if they treat the two scenarios as similar.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If by "few" you mean the millions who follow(ed) Falwell, Robertson, Farrakhan, ministers like Wright, Jackson, Hagee, etc....

If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

With that said, I don't see much even in those policies that speaks to 'unity'. If anything, it appears that the policies speak more to benefitting only certain classes of people. That's certainly fine if he'd like to implement those policies as president, but don't feed me this line of 'unity' if those policies are truly your intentions. He's going to have to find the funds to pay for all those programs, but he doesn't cite the negative impact of that part of the programs for obvious reasons.

His ideas on trade policies could quickly drive a wedge between the U.S. and other countries rather than 'unify'. His employment policies could also create resentment among workers rather than 'unify'.

Sure. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama. The man has plans, and those plans differ significantly from those of George W. Bush (re-elected, as people seem to forget, by a signficant popular vote margin in 2004). Lots and lots and lots of Americans will object to a lot of what Obama wants to do. All of the leftists who expect him to be the Regan of the left and win an electoral college/popular vote landslide are, in my very humble opinion, wrong.

[st.cronin]

At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Those are VERY general statements. I certainly wouldn't categorize those as being very specific.

To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud:

Originally Posted by Obama's website

Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.

Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.

Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.

Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.

Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.

Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modifying an individual's mortgage payments. Obama believes that the subprime mortgage industry, which has engaged in dangerous and sometimes unscrupulous business practices, should not be shielded by outdated federal law.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If we are to believe Mr. Obama and take his comments at face value, most of the congregation in attend doesn't actually hold to those beliefs that the minister is preaching, correct?

Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's.

Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there.

Such a concept.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

You and I disagree on the meaning of "general" and "specific" to such an extent that any further discussion of the issue would serve merely to waste our time.

That reads harsher than I intended it. Indeed, I didn't intend for it to be harsh at all. Just one of those "agree to disagree" points.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow.

I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's my feeling as well. Barring something truly catastrophic, there appears to be no way Clinton can overcome Obama's delegate lead. So if Obama hits the convention with the delegate lead, the superdelegates have a choice of reversing the "regular" delegate count and going with Clinton (which probably sinks her in the GE due to the discontent it would sow amongst a lot of Democrats), or just going along with the flow.

I could be wrong, but I don't really see a lot of other scenarios.

The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The problem is, even if they go with Obama, there will be questions about his legitimacy as a nominee, because of what happened in Florida/Michigan. So, either way, its a big problem.

"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

To be honest, I think they're more specific than what we see most years. For instance, here's Obama on Home Ownership & Mortgage Fraud:

Sure, that's a fine policy. But where does it differ from what any of the other candidates will do? My guess is that both candidates on either side would argue for similar mandates. My point being that it's not a bad idea, but it's likely very similar to reform that either candidate will likely have to pass. I would note that I checked the McCain site and I don't see any specific mention of any mortgage policies. I'll have to look a bit more and see if he's got something on record in that regard.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Which was exactly my point, and, I suspect, Obama's.

Despite what the demagogues of the world might say, the vast majority of Americans share common ground on a lot of basic, real world, day-to-day issues. Instead of exploiting the sensational differences for cheap partisan political gain, let's instead gather people on the common ground and see where the country can go from there.

Such a concept.

Gathering 300M people on common ground is a non-starter IMO. I'm all for uniting people, but it isn't going to happen from a realistic standpoint. I'd say that he should be honest and say that he's going to do his best to unite everyone, but political protocol would say that would be an open door for the opposition candidate to say, 'See, he's not going to help everyone!'. Politics are a beautiful thing.

[JPhillips]

Something will be done for FL and MI before the convention, likely either a 50/50 split or cutting the delegates in half. If the Supers break as I expect after the April and May primaries the FL and MI delegations may be seated as is because it won't matter.

I think the FL/MI issue won't matter much because if it gets to a floor fight the party likely won't recover by November regardless of what happened to those delegates.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"The Democratic Party, showing how to screw up elections since 2000."

Along this same line, I found this story to be pretty amusing this morning:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...143263249/1001

Philadelphia's Democratic leaders say they'll press Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama to back stricter gun laws, despite the risk of angering voters throughout the rest of Pennsylvania and possibly damaging the party's nominee in the general election.



Gun violence in Philadelphia — 331 homicides from gunfire in 2007 — thrust firearms laws to the top of the agenda for city voters, and they don't care about the potential political pitfalls for the presidential candidates, said Carol Campbell, a Democratic ward leader in the city.



"If you can't deal with it, then you've got a problem," said Mrs. Campbell, who supports Mr. Obama and heads an alliance of black ward leaders.



"That's what's on the minds of most Philadelphians," she said.



Democratic ward leader Ralph Wynder, who is supporting Mr. Obama, said the candidates should address the pressing issues, but conceded that backing Philadelphia's push for tougher gun laws would be "political suicide."



"You are probably going to be damaged goods in the state," Mr. Wynder said.



"There are just some questions you can't win with an answer. I guess that's why politicians double-talk so much," he said.

To put this into context, the city of Philly has been pushing to pass a crapload of gun control laws for the past couple of years, but the law in Pennsylvania is that the state legislature is the body that deals with firearm laws. The Philly Dems have tried going through the legislature, but there is little to no public support for the gun control laws. They can't even get them out of committee.

So now the Philly leaders will try to make it an issue, and will likely alienate a lot of Democrats outside of Philly who are gun owners. What makes it even MORE amusing is that through a procedural move, the PA House was set to vote on one gun control bill last week, but had to adjourn because the Philly delegation stayed in Philly to attend Obama's big speech on race, rather than go to Harrisburg to do their job.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

At the risk of being a bore, I haven't read one single thing in this thread or anywhere that makes me think the revwright affair will be a big deal in the GE. Conversely, I haven't read one single thing here or anywhere else that makes me think that what happens with the Florida and Michigan delegates won't be a HUGE issue in the GE - unless either Obama or Clinton concedes before the decision is made.

Maybe the Michigan/Florida issue won't be a huge in the GE, but unless Michigan voters get a say in the election (no evenly splitting the delegates crap) my Michigan vote is going to McCain or Nader.