It is the opinion of this blog that you'd have to be kind of a schmuck to let your vote be affected by the words of a preacher who happens to count one of the candidates among his flock. The fact that Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are separate entities with different points of view ought to be blindingly obvious to those with average intelligence.
So if the Washington Times is to be believed, 71% of Republicans, 54% of Republicans, and 52% of Democrats are schmucks.
If this isn't a Banditos Theorem proof, I don't know what is.
Update: Some reporter on CNN, as if discovering a new phenomenon: "So the pastor's political beliefs are different from his spiritual leadership?" No shit, really? That's some pretty good police work there, Lou.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
The excerpts I've read from Obama's response seemed to be pretty reasonable. My favorite moment was when he asked if there's anyone who hasn't disagreed with something their pastor said during a given sermon.
Of course, pile up enough of those disagreements and it would seem silly not to find a new church or, as I did, stop going to church altogether. So I have some sympathy for people who would question Obama's judgment for remaining at the church after repeated vitriol from his pastor, even though I ultimately disagree with them.
"The fact that Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are separate entities with different points of view ought to be blindingly obvious to those with average intelligence."
I wholeheartedly agree. BO's problem though is that judgment was his distinguishing factor from Hillary. HRC continued to push the tired argument of "experience" in the campaign and he wisely retorted in debate, (I paraphrase) "On day one, you blew it, HRC, you signed onto the war". Implying of course, that he had/has better judgment. His policy isn't that much different from HRC, his experience not much greater than Edwards (certainly voting "present" 130 times in Illinois and holding no sub-committee meetings doesn't create a resume). But I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on "judgment". Unfortunately, it seems to me (and a large number of people), he judged that sitting in the pew listen to hate for 23 years was the right thing to do. I disagree, he should have found a new church or told Wright to preach unity.
Okay, first off, Andy, it was never clear to me that Wright preached anti-Americanism every single Sunday. Second, there are many reasons one joins a church...a pastor's sermons are only one of them. There's also the sense of community, the chance to serve, and general spiritual growth. Honestly, I think the sermons at my current church aren't up to par with other churches I've been to....but the dedication to service and the sense of community are wonderful. Finally, I, for one, don't feel it's my place to tell the preacher what to preach (whether it's "unity" or anything else). That's between him and God. I'm sure Obama feels the same way.
All in all, I think it's a huge stretch to say that Wright's words reflect on Obama's judgment.....that somehow his action or inaction in response to Wright have anything to do with whether he'll make the right decisions as president. The only thing that's a bigger stretch is the idea that Obama somehow shares Wright's views.
Finally (and I can't believe I'm the first person to comment on this) that's some interesting statistics you got there Jeff. 71% of Republicans AND 54% of Republicans think Wright's comments affect their potential support for Obama? I knew the Republicans were a divided party these days, but I didn't realize it would show up so strangely in statistics! :P
Haha, I totally overlooked that. Nice catch Ben. The second Republicans is supposed to be independents.
Either way, take those statistics with a grain of salt, as they are from the conservative-leaning Times.
Again, while I mostly agree with you Ben, are you really telling me that if your pastor claimed the United States developed the HIV virus as a way to commit genocide against black people (as Wright purportedly believes) you wouldn't have strong reservations about returning to that church? I mean, there's doctrinal differences, and then there's insanity. I don't believe it has the slightest impact on Obama's ability to be President, but I admit I'm really curious as to why he didn't think to himself, "Hmmm, you know, I'll bet there are other churches out there."
I agree with Mike that Obama should have talked about unity with his pastor.
I'm not sure how Obama's church worked, but I know how the Baptist churches I used to belong to worked. The pastor had to answer directly to the members of the church (to be a member, one had to be saved, baptised, sign the church constitution, and be voted on by existing members. If you didn't do this, you could be an antendee, but not a member). All of my pastors had emphasized that they were only human, which makes them fallible, and that if we disagreed with them it was our God-given DUTY to discuss it with them. I remember my parents having numerous conversations with each pastor that they've ever had about their disagreement on the ban on alcohol and the literal interpretation of the Earth being created in 7 days. I even remember arguing with the pastor and some decons when I was in middle school on the alcohol policy, the Big Bang theory, tectonic plates, music, and movies. I haven't personally witnessed it, but I have also heard of past pastors being voted out by congregations that disagreed with their style of ministry.
-Leah
"I don't believe it has the slightest impact on Obama's ability to be President."
Bingo, Mike. You've hit the nail on the head. It doesn't have anything to do with Obama's ability to be President.
Even if you think he should have walked out or something, I fail to see how that affects whether he'll make the right call on whether to invade some nation, how to balance the budget, what to do about global warming, etc.
This is all about the classic Slimy Political Technique of trying to tie a candidate to the views of his most extreme supporters. It's a cheap shot and it distracts from the bigger question of "Who will be the best president?"
If there's anything good that comes out of this whole mess, it's Obama's speech on race, at least from what I hear. Now I can't pass judgment before I've actually read or heard it....but all the praise being heaped upon it makes me really want to.
Where to begin?
"At 9:35 AM, Blogger Ben said...
Okay, first off, Andy, it was never clear to me that Wright preached anti-Americanism every single Sunday."
So let me Godwin this one right off the bat then. If Hitler only hated the Jews every other Sunday, that's ok?
"Second, there are many reasons one joins a church...a pastor's sermons are only one of them. . . I think the sermons at my current church aren't up to par with other churches I've been to"
'Up-to-par' and preaching hate are not in the same ballpark. Quite frankly, judging from the reaction in the congregation, I'd say Wright is an effective preacher. It's just the message that's wrong.
"I, for one, don't feel it's my place to tell the preacher what to preach (whether it's "unity" or anything else). That's between him and God. I'm sure Obama feels the same way."
I feel that as well. So, one way you might show the pastor you disagree is to leave. To stay 23 years to imply agreement.
Blogger Ben said:" Even if you think he should have walked out or something, I fail to see how that affects whether he'll make the right call on whether to invade some nation, how to balance the budget, what to do about global warming, etc."
Huh? So if I judge he was wrong for not recognizing hate for 23 years, I can't imply he would make the wrong judgment at 3 am?
"This is all about the classic Slimy Political Technique of trying to tie a candidate to the views of his most extreme supporters."
Wrong again. This was not an "extreme supporter". This was his mentor, his pastor, his friend, his baptizer, etc etc. To quote TMBG:
'This is where the party ends
I can't stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend'
Obama implied agreement.
Lest we forget too, Obama gave tens of thousands of dollars to this church over the past few years. Money that pays whose salary? Which means also 1) he implicitly agreed with the message being taught or 2) he'll give money to just any cause, not bothering to see what they're actually preaching -- but wait, Andy, that means he wasn't as church-going as he claimed to be. . . and on and on and on. Post-modern politician my @ss.
Quoting TMBG... nice. But I'm still inclined to go with Ben on this one. Obama shouldn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I'd be concerned if he did. If he finds this church to be an appropriate spiritual fit despite a few areas of disagreement, then so what? So long as he distinguishes himself on those points of disagreement. I'm a Catholic, but I don't think church policy on women priests is right. I'm not going to leave my church because of it, and I'm not going to go make a stink about it to the Pope or bishop or priest. But I'm going to distinguish myself on the point. That's what Obama has done, and that's enough for me.
I still like Clinton better though.
Matthew B. Novak said:"I still like Clinton better though."
Of the two remaining Dem candidates, I do as well. And I completely agree with her, the reason the party is in the predicament that it finds itself, is because of the media's complete unwillingness to properly scrutinize BO early on in the campaign. They allowed 'Hope' and 'Change' to serve as answers to the questions of Rezko, Odinga, Wright, 100+ 'present' votes, and 6 I-changed-my-mind-votes. A 2002 speech makes not a platform. Had Obama been properly scrutinized, Clinton would have been the nominee against McCain and Libertarians like myself could have been free to vote for Badnarik or Paul or Nader or a sheepdog. But credit Wright/Obama for one thing, they galvanize the Republicans in a year I thought it impossible.
Obama and Clinton's platforms are mirror images of each other (or perhaps of John Edwards's), so there's not much to distinguish them that way. And you want to talk about galvanizing Republicans, Clinton's more likely to do that simply by being Hilary Clinton. It's completely unfair, but it's true.
Blogger Andy writes: "Huh? So if I judge he was wrong for not recognizing hate for 23 years, I can't imply he would make the wrong judgment at 3 am?"
Imply all you want. But you can't sthat that there's a connection between the two in a way that makes logical sense. I am stating unequivocally that the two have nothing to do with each other. Whether one can negotiate with foreign leaders and Congressman, determine whether an invasion of some sort is warranted and will be effective, weigh the credibility of intelligence, and so forth.....that's a completely separate issue from whether one chooses to leave the church where one found meaning, a sense of community, and chance to serve the larger good because the pastor says things you find grossly offensive.
Maybe he should have left the church (although after reading the sections of his race speech that dealt with his bond with the church and his complex relationship with Wright, I'm not so sure about that). But, yes, I find it ludicrous to say that this entirely personal decision has anything to do with whether he's qualified to be president. It reminds me of when people went on and on about whether Hilary should have left her husband for his infidelities. It's a personal decision which is nobody else's business and which has nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications for President.
As for the money he gave to his church, you act like he gave to the Nazi party. His pastor said extremely offensive shit, but this is a church and a pastor that also, in Obama's own words, "serve[d] the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS." In other words, it's not an organization in which people all sat around all day talking and thinking like those YouTube videos of Wright you constantly see displayed so prominently these days. The purpose of the church was not to organize anti-White hatred. It was to serve the community and to spread the Gospel. The flaws of its pastor did not change that. So to say that paying his tithe meant supporting the worst things Wright said is still a stretch.
Finally, Andy, you keep talking about Obama's actions implying agreement. Are you honestly saying that in Wright we see the TRUE Obama.....and that everything Obama's been saying throughout his entire campaign and political career about racial unity is a cover-up to his real agenda of Black Nationalist, Anti-White Hatred? Do you truly believe that? Because, frankly, that's the only reason I can see Wright's statements being in any way relevant to Obama's candidacy for President.
The thing is, I'm not even a die-hard Obama fan. (Although his recent speech on race made me a much bigger fan than I once was. But this is the only comment I've written after hearing that speech. My arguments up until this point were written before.) I voted for him because I thought he and Clinton espoused equally progressive policies but Clinton was more likely to galvanize Republicans. It's just that it pisses me off that the media and the talking heads are spending so much energy on a non-issue to the detriment of public discussion of the effect of ideas and policies on people's lives. (Of course, my short fuse causes me to also expend energy and time explaining why I think this is a non-issue. So I guess I'm playing right into that.)
"sthat" = "state" That there's one nonsensical typo. Both 71 % AND 54 % of Bens who typed that typo are slightly embarrassed by it.
Ben said: "you want to talk about galvanizing Republicans, Clinton's more likely to do that simply by being Hilary Clinton."
Last year, I would've agreed with you 100%. Not anymore though -- I think conservatives (myself included) would welcome Hillary compared to Obama.
"I find it ludicrous to say that this entirely personal decision has anything to do with whether he's qualified to be president."
You said it yourself, 'Obama and Clinton's platforms are mirror images of each other'. So to distinguish him from her, what am I as a voter left with? For a while, I was buying his post-modern BS. But it's obviously a facade. I would have been more convinced with The Speech if he had just admitted what is now so obvious -- he does not agree with Wright's opinions but instead joined that church because it helped him POLITICALLY. He needed the South Side AA vote to help him gain "street cred"; otherwise he was just another well-educated, lawyer running for office and we have enough of those. He needed that church POLITICALLY to distinguish himself from the other candidates in the state race. But admitting that would be admitting he's just like every other politician and that too doesn't fit with his post-modern claims. Catch-22.
I have to agree with Ben that Clinton galvanizes Republicans more. Almost all of my die-hard Republican friends have told me they are seriously hoping that Hillary wins the nomination because they feel they will have a much better chance of beating her. (Granted, that was mostly before the Wright thing, and recent polls may have changed that. So maybe this entire argument is moot.) Of course, it was only Ben who said "Republicans". Andy said "conservatives". It's extremely important to differentiate the two, especially in recent years. What's the term for taking someone's argument and then arguing something different by changing a few key words? I know there's a term.
But anyway. It may be that Obama joined the church for political reasons (something I never thought about, or indeed cared about, but your argument makes sense). I don't think politically expedient actions such as those are what the American people are sick of with regards to politicians. What we (and here I really speak for myself) are sick of is being treated like we are children who can't accept hard truths, and like all issues are as simple as right and wrong. We are also sick of the way one party portrays the other party as downright unpatriotic just for having a different viewpoint on what's right for America. These are precisely the "political" actions that Obama's speech rejected outright. He spoke as if the people listening, the American people, could understand the complexities of the situation of race, and that no one on either side is clearly right or wrong. That's what is refreshing about Obama.
I have extreme reservations with many of Obama's platforms and am far from sold on him as President. But I won't condemn him for Wright. To borrow a phrase, I can no more disown Obama for Wright's statements than I can disown my own friends and family who have occasionally used racial epithets, not to mention committed countless other (far worse) sins. If I choose not to vote for him, I'll find an actual reason.
One other point I want to make, and I think I'll have made any points worth making in my argument. (It's likely I've already made a few points that aren't worth making. Also, Mike says much of what I want to say much better than I've been saying it.)
Andy, I'm not sure what you mean by "post-modern." If you mean that he acts like he's flawless and doesn't play politics (and his supporters believe that of him) then of course that's not true. He's human, he's flawed, and he wouldn't have made this far without playing The Game. Politicians always have supporters who are blind to their flaws and they are always loath to point out their own flaws. (Jimmy Carter was humble enough to point out his flaws in the '70s and America reacted with a collective "WTF?") Hell, Abraham Lincoln, our country's greatest politician, was still a politician. He pandered with the best of them (especially to the despicable Know-Nothings), he sometimes "adjusted" his position to fit his audience (the Lincoln-Douglas debates, for all their fame, are a depressingly mundane exercise in political posturing).
But it's more complex than that. It's not like all politicians do is pander and bend and lie, classic American stereotypes to the contrary. They get into politics - and play the game - because they want to accomplish something. And HOW they play the game speaks volumes. Obama (like Lincoln, as I state over in my blog) strives, not always perfectly, to make the debate about ideas, about the important issues of our day, and not simply about demonizing personal attacks. That's what I like about him.
For the record, that's something I also like about McCain. If this election Obama vs. McCain, I find it possible (though far from certain) that this will be the cleanest election contest in quite a while.
But, as is usually the case for me, I've gotten distracted from the point I'm trying to make. The point is this: Because Obama is human and a politician, I find it plausible that he joined that church to have a political base. But I also don't think that's the ONLY reason. From his speech and from the ways he's talked about his faith in the past, I think he genuinely found a home there, a sense of community and spiritual growth. A place to learn about service and God. (That's certainly what I've found in the churches I've attended. It forms an essential part of the core of who I am. So I find it perfectly plausible that he could find the same.) The two reasons for joining a church are not mutually exclusive. People are more complex than that.
Note, when I say "of course that's not true" I mean "of course he's not flawless."
"What's the term for taking someone's argument and then arguing something different by changing a few key words? I know there's a term."
'Straw man' argument? That's all I could think of. More on BO when I get a chance, this rotten job keeps getting in the way.
Alright, where was I?
Mike said: "What we (and here I really speak for myself) are sick of is being treated like we are children who can't accept hard truths."
You say that, but it's only now that media has begun demanding hard truths from Obama -- consequently, note the fleeing of independents and white undecided males from BO (both groups I belong to); we didn't like the answers.
He says (in late 2006), Rezko raised b/w $50k-60k; now we find out it's a quarter million. February 27th he says 'we never talked to Canada about NAFTA'; by March, Yep, we talked to them. March 14th to Major Garrett, 'None of these statements were ones I heard'; a week later in The Speech he tries to gloss over The Lie with 'Yeah, I was there for some controversial stuff'. Couple that with his refusal to denounce Kerry/Edwards for voting for the war in 2004 (saying 'I don't know what I would have done') but derides Clinton for voting in 2008. I could go on forever it seems.
Why don't you just tell us the truth, Obama? We can handle it. Why is it only when you get smoked out that you admit to something?
Instead, we're left with a lying, well-educated lawyer running for office with little experience to show for it. (Which makes him different from Edwards how?) Give me Hillary any day of the week and twice on Tuesday.
'white undecided males'? -- apparently I can't type at 3pm. Obviously I meant 'white males'. I need more caffeine.
Um, Whitewater, anyone?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I hear Rezko is Syrian for McDougal, which is in turn Scottish for Keating. In each case, a current presidential candidate was friends with a shady character and, despite having nothing to do with their wrongdoing, gets dragged through the muck by an overzealous media and a cynical electorate.
Anyway, Andy, I think you've pointed out a couple of things (especially the war vote) that the media ought to be asking about Obama. But Wright? All this says is that Obama looks at more than political compatibility when choosing a church. Whoopdedoo. Whether or not Obama would have bent to political pressure and voted for the war? Important. Whether or not Obama argues politics with the cloth? Not important, seeing as how you can't boil down the entire Trinity UCC experience into "God damn America."
So which is it? 'Overzealous media' or '[a] media [that] ought to be asking'?
Do we have the media ask no questions for fear they be seen as 'overzealous'? Or rather, shouldn't they ask 'every question' and let the electorate decide whether to buy it. In this case, they asked a question about Wright and a majority of all voters (R,D or I) thought it significant.
So the most important question I guess for you is: since everyone is due their fair vote, shouldn't the majority of respondents be allowed to see this as an issue OR are we (the supposed 'intelligent ones') to decide by what guidelines/issues others are allowed to vote? If 52% of voters from Obama's own party want to hold this against him, they're allowed to.
Furthermore, IMHO the reason The Speech fails to work on people outside his base (say people other than AA or high-income whites) is because it drips with hypocrisy. You have a highly-educated, Harvard Review lawyer who's worth say millions (and his wife does ok too) telling the public the only way we can fix racial problem is with MORE government programs. This despite the fact that he himself is evidence to the contrary -- this man, one good Tuesday from being President, is trying to convince the public we need more socialized programs. This doesn't upset because I'm white; it upsets me because I'm poor. Which is why this message doesn't play well in Pennsylvania.
On top of that, it's insulting to African-Americans as well. He made it to the top, a stone's throw from the Presidency but tells the black community, you're not as good as me, the only way you can do it is with more help from your government. No, I'll tell you, African-American community, you CAN do it, you can do it with hard work, the dream is within you, not fed from the government. Obama's speech is flat-out wrong.
Sure, the media should ask "every question", but perhaps they should be more selective about which ones they ask repeatedly. If nothing else, that's certainly those frequent 2-minute "Daily Show" vignettes of all the major news outlets harping on the same tired point over and over and over again.
Further, Jeff isn't saying anyone should decide by what guidelines anyone else should vote. He's just saying we can call them, in our opinion, stupid for it. It's no different than the disdain I hold for people who vote solely on the abortion issue, for example.
Finally, I'm trying to remember where in Obama's speech he said "more government programs" was the solution to the problem. He briefly mentioned health care and improvement of education, but that was really about it. No offense, Andy, but while I agree with the points your last comment makes about self-reliance, the part that specifically aims to hit Obama sounds like typical conservative anti-government platitudes rather than addressing what Obama actually said. (I may be recalling the speech incorrectly, and I'm too lazy to read it again, so if you can point me to specific text, I apologize and withdraw my remark.)
Not a problem, here you go Mike.
"for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs"; "by investing in our schools and our communities"; "by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations"; "that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."
Basically all boilerplate Dem-side ideas of giving money to the issue to fix it. Unfortunately for Obama, is that **HE** is the counterexample -- no more money is needed, no more ladders, no more excuses. How do I put this anymore clearly, 'Obama' is the incarnate argument against what he's preaching. The path is there for achievement, you have to choose it. Instead, what Obama is actually preaching to black youths is (to borrow from Thomas Sowell) a message of hopelessness. "Even though I have achieved great things, even though I'm a Senator and the next step from President, you need more help." NO you don't.
So, like I said, "he briefly mentioned health care and improvement of education, but that was really about it." And I still don't see anything that would specifically indicate African-Americans need a helping hand (shit, in one, he specifically says "black and brown and white").
"And I still don't see anything that would specifically indicate African-Americans need a helping hand"
Really? I'll pull the start of the 'better health care' paragraph then -- "For the African-American community... [and] our particular grievances."
Later on in the 'investing in schools' section -- "that what ails the African-American community".
I can't tell, is he talking about white people?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor made.
Uh oh, add another schmuck to Democrat column. Them's fightin words.
To expand on your first example:
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past." Hmm, doesn't sound like "you're not as good as me, the only way you can do it is with more help from your government" to me. Sounds kinda like the opposite.
I'll concede the second to an extent, but since he concludes that paragraph with the racially generic "black/brown/white" sentence I cited previously, it ultimately doesn't change my point.
What's funny about this argument is I'm not that big of an Obama fan. I just find your hatred of him illogical. Anyway, I'm gonna call this dead horse sufficiently beaten and move on.
I have to call BS on Hillary there. That's clearly a craven attempt to score a cheap political victory. You don't leave a place of worship over a political disagreement with the clergy. Hell, I thought my rabbi was dead wrong about the Israel-Lebanon war a couple years ago... I didn't leave, though. That would have been foolish. Unless Christians have some sort of weird hang-up about disagreeing - often vehemently - with their clergy while remaining at their church, I still think this is a non-issue.
And you can't underestimate the effect of what the media chooses to cover on what people think of as important. Not everyone can dig through Obama's speeches and policy positions and find inconsistencies or bad ideas. That's what the media are for. If the media covered the holes in some of BO's policy proposals like they are covering the Wright crap, I'd bet a barrelful of money that people would find the former more important.
I intend to add nothing useful to this discussion in this comment.
First off, Jeff it's funny that you use the initials BO to abbreviate Barack Obama. Sounds like you know a bit too much about what his body smells like. Hmmmmm, sounds like a new meaningless scandal for the media to fixate on while ignoring actual policy discussion! (Sorry, even in the midst of a silly post, I can't help making a point! I'm hopeless.)
Second, I, Ben Stark, strenuously object to the initials BS being used in a negative sense.
Third, Andy, have I met you? How do you know Jeff? Are you the dude who was there at Jeff's birthday party that time I sang that song I made up for him, "Red Hair of Justice"?
Fourth, wow this is a long-running discussion! The last time something went this long on this blog (that I can remember) also involved issues of race.....and a certain professor who has it in for Jeff. Thankfully, it can be said that this discussion is more respectful and less angry. And nobody named Eva is involved. (Hope I didn't just jinx us all!)
You're all bitches.
Mike, first, I don't hate Obama. It's just funny to me that plenty of voters are more than willing to overlook his many flaws to vote for him. The Dem Party voters screwed up, pure and simple: they bought his garbage/rhetoric/nuance in the early states and now they're stuck with him (although the role of superdelegates was put in place to stop exactly this). Anytime I need to remember that I'm not alone on this, I go here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/
Obama/Maps/Mar26.html
This is what the Party has done, look at all the evidence to the contrary and said, by God, we'll nominate him even if it means we'll lose the WH. You show 'em, Democrats.
Ben, I work with Jeff. You should see that office, conservatives/libertarians all over the place :)
Jeff, I eagerly await your next blog posting. Drudge is hinting Rasmussen is releasing a new poll in two hours that suggests 22% of respondents (not sure the demographics) think Obama should drop out. If it's true, I'd love to hear your take.
I think that map just made my head hurt. Seriously, McCain winning PA and MI? NJ tied? ND and VA going Obama? NE, SC, TX, and MA being close? IA, MO, and OH not being close? Something smells fishy. Who's conducting these polls?
John McCain doesn't buy into the Wright crap. Neither does Huckabee.
Jeff, you just scroll over the state and it tells you who conducted the poll. Maybe your javascript isn't on?
I think alot of these polls make sense: NJ -- Reagan Democrats moving to McCain; VA -- high Dem population near DC plus large AA vote for Obama; SC -- large AA vote; OH, MO -- large population of working class whites (same reason they vote for Hillary).
As for the Wright flap -- why would McCain touch it? Take the high road, let 527 goons attack it. And Huckabee, imagine that one preacher that won't attack another? Wouldn't exactly be we-all-fall-short-of-the-glory-of-God if he did, would it?
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving -- [WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down. "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.]
Obama doesn't know when to stop digging, does he? Seems rather odd that he knew over 20 years ago when he joined the church that he could sit there and listen to "the flaws" because Wright was "about to retire." And funny, I can't remember Wright "[acknowledging] that what he had said had deeple offended people." So Obama speaks for Wright now, too? Anyone seen Michelle since the "Proud of America" gaffe either? I guess if you hurt Obama's chances, you "disappear".
I guess I have to call BS on Barack here too. I still don't think you leave a church based on a political disagreement. Obama's just trying to tell people what he thinks they want to hear... which, come to think of it, is a fairly apt description of his entire campaign thus far.
Anyway, this merits its own post.
Looks like I might have to keep a tally of Obama-related "disappearances".
Add Richardson to the list. Apparently when you say something that brings heat on Obama's candidacy, you go away for a little while.
Generally, when you support a candidate, and you say something that embarrasses that candidate, the candidate asks you to STFU for a little while and you oblige. It's good politics, and pretty much every candidate does it (heard from Ferraro lately?). Why are you amazed by this?
I'm not. If you say something embarrassing for the candidate, then you SHOULD STFU and go away for awhile (or good).
The humorous thing here is, what embarrassing thing did Richardson say about Obama? Did he denigrate Obama? Did he sell out Obama? Nope, he endorsed Obama. Is that the embarrassment? Because a candidate whose career was built by the Clintons, who was to help fundraisers for Clinton, would then later come out to support Obama? Gee, why would he support Obama? Cough, cough, deal, cough.
And just so my insinuations are clear, I'd put five bucks on Secretary of State, NOT VP, if you're playing at home.
Post a Comment