DVD Talk
2008 Presidential Election part XII [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Presidential Election part XII


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

VinVega
03-13-08, 12:52 PM
Continued from Part 11 (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8563228#post8563228)

Please continue.

Brent L
03-13-08, 01:04 PM
As I posted in the last thread, this will certainly do great things for Obama:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWvxTUy47Fk&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWvxTUy47Fk&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hAYe7MT5BxM&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hAYe7MT5BxM&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

If the Ferraro deal was bad news for Clinton, then this is about, oh, a thousand times worse for Obama. Sure, this guy isn't officially working for Obama's campaign while Ferraro was working for Clinton, but that does not matter a single bit here. Perhaps it technically does, but most people who see and hear all of this will not care if he is officially working for Obama or not.

Unless Obama totally distances himself from this "preacher", and I mean totally, then this will not go away for him. Also, like I said, eve if he does do that, this will still damage Obama in the eyes of many people and it doesn't matter if you think that they should feel that way or not.

JasonF
03-13-08, 01:11 PM
As I posted in the last thread:

As long as we're talking about people's pastors:


Quote:
McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam

Washington Dispatch: Televangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio, has called for eradicating the "false religion." Will the GOP presidential candidate renounce him?

By David Corn

March 12, 2008

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:


I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:


There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

McCain's relationship with Parsley is politically significant. In 2004, Parsley's church was credited with driving Christian fundamentalist voters to the polls for George W. Bush. With Ohio expected to again be a decisive state in the presidential contest, Parsley's World Harvest Church and an affiliated entity called Reformation Ohio, which registers voters, could be important players within this battleground state. Considering that the Ohio Republican Party has been decimated by various political scandals and that a popular Democrat, Ted Strickland, is now the state's governor, McCain and the Republicans will need all the help they can get in the Buckeye State this fall. It's a real question: Can McCain win the presidency without Parsley?

The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding Parsley and his anti-Islam writings. Parsley did not return a call seeking comment.

"The last thing I want to be is another screaming voice moving people to extremes and provoking them to folly in the name of patriotism," Parsley writes in Silent No More. Provoking people to holy war is another matter. About that, McCain so far is silent.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

Who will be the next contestant on "I've Got the Most Offensive Preacher?"

Tracer Bullet
03-13-08, 01:23 PM
Who will be the next contestant on "I've Got the Most Offensive Preacher?"

Come on, Clinton. Convert to Scientology!

Artman
03-13-08, 01:48 PM
The difference Jason is that Obama is by all acounts, a pretty close friend and member of his church. (anyone know how long he's been a member?) To continue going to and participating in a church for years means there has to be a level of acceptance and agreement with it's principles, it doesn't have to be 100% but certainly enough to invest your time and money in.

Big difference between that and receiving an endorsement.

Th0r S1mpson
03-13-08, 01:54 PM
That settles it. I'm not voting for Obama now. I'm also not going to punch myself in the nuts. It was a tough call, but this made the decision easier.

JasonF
03-13-08, 02:04 PM
The difference Jason is that Obama is by all acounts, a pretty close friend and member of his church. (anyone know how long he's been a member?) To continue going to and participating in a church for years means there has to be a level of acceptance and agreement with it's principles, it doesn't have to be 100% but certainly enough to invest your time and money in.

Big difference between that and receiving an endorsement.

Senator Obama's been a member of that church for about 15 years.

Do you agree with everything your pastor says? Every sermon he preaches?

Venusian
03-13-08, 02:13 PM
I don't agree with everything my pastor preaches. But that isn't going to stop the press from bashing Obama for this ... assuming the press turns on him

Brent L
03-13-08, 02:25 PM
JasonF, I'm sorry, but you're really reaching to make this not seem like that big of a deal. I'm not even saying it's a huge deal to me, although I admit that it will lessen my opinion of Obama if he doesn't totally, 100%, denounce this guy. I'm just saying that this is going to mean a lot to a lot of people.

I mean, some people don't want to vote for Obama simply because he's black, or because of his middle name, or because of his wife's statements, and so on. Now I know those are pretty weak reasons not to vote for the guy, but that's true for many people. If some people wont vote for him because of such simple things, just imagine what this will do for those who were on the fence about voting for him.

Obama has defended this guy more than once in the past. He obviosuly hasn't said that he agrees with him, but he has still stood up for him. Trying to just laugh it off by saying that the guy is like a silly uncle that says things that embarrasses you, and so on. Obama has donated thousands of dollars to the church.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this over the days, weeks, and months.

I don't agree with everything my pastor says either, I doubt anyone does unless they're a complete and total sheep, but this is different. How many of you would continue going to any sort of church that was led by someone that says such things? I sure know that I wouldn't, and I doubt any of you would either.

Artman
03-13-08, 02:25 PM
Senator Obama's been a member of that church for about 15 years.

Do you agree with everything your pastor says? Every sermon he preaches?

About 95%, about the only thing I disagree with his just his phrasing sometimes.

But this stuff is absolutely disgusting, and I'd be running out of that church the moment I heard that. This is Fred Phelps territory as far as I'm concerned.

Tracer Bullet
03-13-08, 02:47 PM
Senator Obama's been a member of that church for about 15 years.

Do you agree with everything your pastor says? Every sermon he preaches?

I'm sorry to break up the DVDTalk Obama Fan Club, but if the stuff this guy is saying is as bad as everyone is making it out to be, then I think it's fair to hold it against Obama.

I'll reserve judgement until I can watch the clips.

Groucho
03-13-08, 02:50 PM
As I posted in the last thread, this will certainly do great things for Obama:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
"Religion of love" -ohbfrank-

JasonF
03-13-08, 03:07 PM
I'm sorry to break up the DVDTalk Obama Fan Club, but if the stuff this guy is saying is as bad as everyone is making it out to be, then I think it's fair to hold it against Obama.

I'll reserve judgement until I can watch the clips.

I think it's perfectly fair to hold it against Senator Obama. I just disagree with the whole "OMGWTF!!!! When people hear this, they are going to tar and feather Obama!!!" thing some people seem to have going on.

Th0r S1mpson
03-13-08, 03:07 PM
I'm sorry to break up the DVDTalk Obama Fan Club, but if the stuff this guy is saying is as bad as everyone is making it out to be, then I think it's fair to hold it against Obama.

I'll reserve judgement until I can watch the clips.
Don't get your hopes up on controversial material if you haven't seen it yet. It's really nothing worse than you'd hear from Farrakhan or the like, I gather.

Pharoh
03-13-08, 03:22 PM
I don't agree with everything my pastor preaches. But that isn't going to stop the press from bashing Obama for this ... assuming the press turns on him



rotfl







And when I still attended services on a regular basis I did not agree with everything my pastor said or stood for. However, if he professed views that were abhorrent to me, and did so on multiple occasions, I most certainly would no longer be a member of his congregation.

classicman2
03-13-08, 03:31 PM
Venusian,

Do you seriously believe the media is going to bash Obama?

However, if he professed views that were abhorrent to me, and did so on multiple occasions, I most certainly would no longer be a member of his congregation.

:up:

btw: I still attend services on a regular basis. ;)

JasonF
03-13-08, 03:40 PM
Don't get your hopes up on controversial material if you haven't seen it yet. It's really nothing worse than you'd hear from Farrakhan or the like, I gather.

I disagree. The stuff Wright says is way worse than Farrakhan. Wright is just like Hitler (Black Hitler, of course, not Regular Hitler).

Sarcasm aside, Wright says some very provocative things about race in America and he does so in very provocative language. But it's nowhere near as hateful as some of the stuff I hear from religious leaders on the right.

Iron Chef
03-13-08, 03:57 PM
Obama team response is in italics and the rest of the article is at the link

Obama Campaign Skewers Clinton E-mail Statement

Wednesday morning, the Clinton campaign sent reporters and bloggers covering the campaign a statement that consisted of questions and comments under the title of "Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground."

The Obama campaign's communications department decided to annotate those questions and comments with some comments of their own... and boy, they held nothing back.

Below you'll find the annotated e-mail that has been making the rounds of the media. The Obama campaign's comments are in bold.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]


The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans -- all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/obama_campaign_skewers_clinton.html

http://members.airsoftcanada.com/digital_assasin/Forum%20Stuff/Misc/oh_snap.gif

Tracer Bullet
03-13-08, 04:01 PM
rotfl

I love that email.

Artman
03-13-08, 04:22 PM
"The chikenzz, have a come home to roooooost!" :wacko:

Th0r S1mpson
03-13-08, 04:28 PM
"The chikenzz, have a come home to roooooost!" :wacko:
Great. More free publicity for Popeye's.

JasonF
03-13-08, 04:31 PM
Good news! There will be more debates! Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have accepted an invitation to debate in Philadelphia on April 16, and the Obama campaign has accepted an invitation to debate in North Carolina on April 19.

Th0r S1mpson
03-13-08, 04:35 PM
Good news! There will be more debates! Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have accepted an invitation to debate in Philadelphia on April 16, and the Obama campaign has accepted an invitation to debate in North Carolina on April 19.
Only a month to stew over who will get the first question. :banana:

FunkDaddy J
03-13-08, 04:40 PM
Why are we so scared of the truth that our own questionable (to put it mildly) foreign policies in the Middle East had a lot to do with the 9/11 attacks? Do people still really believe we were attacked "just because we're free" or some such nonsense? Obviously, there were many factors, but our own actions had a lot to do with 9/11. That's not an absurd statement.

I mean, OK, this guy appears pretty flamboyant, but his premise isn't far off the mark, and frankly, the idea deserves recognition. It was probably the one thing I admired about Ron Paul. To me, an honest acknowledgment of the effects of our imperialistic tendencies is a good mindset for a president to be in.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A8MZ392RL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Ky-Fi
03-13-08, 04:47 PM
As I posted in the last thread:

As long as we're talking about people's pastors:




Can you back up your implication that Parsley is "McCain's pastor", analogous to Obama and his pastor?

chris_sc77
03-13-08, 04:47 PM
While I am disgusted with religion and the church I do think Wright does indeed make some sense of his outrageous claims about US history.

Ky-Fi
03-13-08, 04:51 PM
Why are we so scared of the truth that our own questionable (to put it mildly) foreign policies in the Middle East had a lot to do with the 9/11 attacks? Do people still really believe we were attacked "just because we're free" or some such nonsense? Obviously, there were many factors, but our own actions had a lot to do with 9/11. That's not an absurd statement.

I mean, OK, this guy appears pretty flamboyant, but his premise isn't far off the mark, and frankly, the idea deserves recognition. It was probably the one thing I admired about Ron Paul. To me, an honest acknowledgment of the effects of our imperialistic tendencies is a good mindset for a president to be in.



Exactly. Look at how Iran developed once they had thrown out the imperialist Americans and could organize their society exactly how they wanted to, free from western corruption.

Pharoh
03-13-08, 04:58 PM
Exactly. Look at how Iran developed once they had thrown out the imperialist Americans and could organize their society exactly how they wanted to, free from western corruption.



Or look at how after the imperialist Americans left Saudi Arabia islamists stopped carrying out their acts of murder and terror.

Jason
03-13-08, 05:01 PM
The difference Jason is that Obama is by all acounts, a pretty close friend and member of his church. (anyone know how long he's been a member?) To continue going to and participating in a church for years means there has to be a level of acceptance and agreement with it's principles, it doesn't have to be 100% but certainly enough to invest your time and money in.

Big difference between that and receiving an endorsement.

But how is "Obama is a member of a radical christian church" going to play to the "OMFG Obama is teh muslim!!1!" crowd?

JasonF
03-13-08, 05:03 PM
Can you back up your implication that Parsley is "McCain's pastor", analogous to Obama and his pastor?

That's a fair point. Parsley is a pastor that Senator McCain hails as a "spiritual guide," but is not Senator McCain's regular pastor.

FunkDaddy J
03-13-08, 05:05 PM
If you want to believe that our militaristic presence over there had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, that's fine--and in keeping with what most Americans believe in the Bush era.

Ky-Fi
03-13-08, 05:14 PM
If you want to believe that our militaristic presence over there had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, that's fine--and in keeping with what most Americans believe in the Bush era.

Oh no, I most certainly believe US foreign policy infuriates the Muslim world, and particularly its extremist element, and was a factor in the attacks. Obviously, the values, worldview and type of society the US wants to impose on the Muslim world is diametrically opposed to and is an existential threat to the vision of Al Queda, the Taliban, the Iranian theocracy, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi Wahabbis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

Jason
03-13-08, 05:16 PM
That's a fair point. Parsley is a pastor that Senator McCain hails as a "spiritual guide," but is not Senator McCain's regular pastor.

Spiritual guide? So McCain only sees Parsley when he's wacked out on peyote?

Th0r S1mpson
03-13-08, 05:19 PM
If you want to believe that our militaristic presence over there had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, that's fine--and in keeping with what most Americans believe in the Bush era.
I'm not sure there's a single person on the <i>planet</i> that believes that. But I can see how it helps prove a point about such people (that do not exist).

FunkDaddy J
03-13-08, 05:45 PM
Oh no, I most certainly believe US foreign policy infuriates the Muslim world, and particularly its extremist element, and was a factor in the attacks. Obviously, the values, worldview and type of society the US wants to impose on the Muslim world is diametrically opposed to and is an existential threat to the vision of Al Queda, the Taliban, the Iranian theocracy, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudi Wahabbis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

OK, that's all I was gettin' at. So it's not like this preacher fella is talking crazy. There's at least some sense in his brayings.

FunkDaddy J
03-13-08, 05:46 PM
I'm not sure there's a single person on the <i>planet</i> that believes that. But I can see how it helps prove a point about such people (that do not exist).

Don't kid yourself--there are MANY people in this country who believe we were attacked unprovoked. :)

MartinBlank
03-13-08, 05:53 PM
Don't kid yourself--there are MANY people in this country who believe we were attacked unprovoked. :)

:wave:

Indulge me...why were we attacked. I'm just an ignorant red-stater, enlighten me :shrug:

NCMojo
03-13-08, 06:15 PM
:wave:

Indulge me...why were we attacked. I'm just an ignorant red-stater, enlighten me :shrug:
Really? Wow. OK, well, the major issues are 1) the stationing of American troops in Arab lands; 2) the first Gulf War, and subsequent strikes against Iraq; 3) our constant interference in foreign affairs, most notably with the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq; and (most importantly) 4) our continued support of Israel.

From Osama bin Laden's declaration of war (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm) against the US:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
Important note -- none of this, of course, justifies the horrendous attacks of 9/11. But it does help explain the mindset behind the attacks.

Ky-Fi
03-13-08, 06:28 PM
"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches"

Ahh, that "plundering its riches" line always gets me :lol:

The trillions of petrodollars paid to the gulf states by the west has been one of the greatest wealth transfers in human history, but of course it's the US' fault that the Arab oil-aristocracy would rather use those funds on opulent extravagance and the export of wahabbi influence worldwide instead of improving the lives of its people. And how much is the US spending per day on the Iraq misadventure? Someone's getting their riches plundered, that's for sure.

(I'm directing this at Bin Laden's logic, not Mojo's, as I know he's just posting it, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't subscribe to it. ;) )

MartinBlank
03-13-08, 06:50 PM
1) the stationing of American troops in Arab lands

Weird...we have troops stationed all over the world, and nobody else is flying planes into buildings :shrug:


2) the first Gulf War, and subsequent strikes against Iraq

Um...I thought Iraq and al-Qaeda had NO ties, why mention that? That was Saddam and Kuwait, why would al-Qaeda care about that?


3) our constant interference in foreign affairs,most notably with the 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq; and (most importantly)

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. If it serves our self interest (see your "Point 2") then I see know problem with "interfering" in foreign affairs.


4) our continued support of Israel.

I know right?! When will those damn Jews learn their place in the world?! :rolleyes:


Important note -- none of this, of course, justifies the horrendous attacks of 9/11. But it does help explain the mindset behind the attacks.

What ever happened to "crazy"? I don't care WHY they did it....they did it. They killed civilians.

NCMojo
03-13-08, 07:08 PM
Weird...we have troops stationed all over the world, and nobody else is flying planes into buildings :shrug:

Um...I thought Iraq and al-Qaeda had NO ties, why mention that? That was Saddam and Kuwait, why would al-Qaeda care about that?

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. If it serves our self interest (see your "Point 2") then I see know problem with "interfering" in foreign affairs.

I know right?! When will those damn Jews learn their place in the world?! :rolleyes:

What ever happened to "crazy"? I don't care WHY they did it....they did it. They killed civilians.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that any of these ideas have any real merit... I'm saying that that's why some of these people did what they did, because they believed all of the above. Sticking your head in the sand and trying to just dismiss their actions as "crazy" is a dangerous folly, one that ensures you'll be just as surprised the next time they attack, and the next time, and the next time.

Th0r S1mpson
03-13-08, 08:34 PM
Don't kid yourself--there are MANY people in this country who believe we were attacked unprovoked. :)
Ah, now you're using a different word though... "unprovoked."

Do you believe that the attack was "justified?"

The guy who did the church shootings in Colorado said he was provoked. He was far from justified in shooting people, however, and some would say that the "provocation" of the 9/11 attacks did not justify them either. The people who were killed were not responsible for the provocation, no matter how much they feel all Americans should pay for what has happened over there. That's the issue. I don't think anybody... that's right anybody, would say that our presence over there had "nothing to do with it."

But here we are again, talking about Iraq in the wrong thread. Sorry.

MartinBlank
03-14-08, 02:18 AM
I apologize, in advance, on behalf of the entire Caucasian race...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/knBNX_evIOo&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/knBNX_evIOo&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:wtf:

argh923
03-14-08, 02:34 AM
I wonder if he realizes how ridiculous that looks. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
03-14-08, 06:35 AM
Oh, white people. I want to like you, then you go and do something like that.

JasonF
03-14-08, 07:09 AM
As a white person, I want to denounce and reject that video.

wishbone
03-14-08, 07:26 AM
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4549/25lylesi7.jpg
Lyle, is that you?! :hscratch:

Red Dog
03-14-08, 07:56 AM
I won't comment much on "Blowback." My position on that is no secret. Let's just say I wasn't a Ron Paul fan last year because of his looks.

As for this preacher, now here is where the "_______ doesn't like [insert race here] people" comment seems applicable.

wendersfan
03-14-08, 08:08 AM
I won't comment much on "Blowback." My position on that is no secret.I agree with you and your America-hating, terrorist-coddling opinions. :up:

Venusian
03-14-08, 08:16 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . .


uh...

whatever your opinion on blowback, i'm sure everyone agrees we started the aids virus

Th0r S1mpson
03-14-08, 08:37 AM
As a white person, I want to denounce and reject that video.
You guys are talking about the silly guy in the hat (bottom left), correct? Because that song is catchy!

"Hillary's in the house... Hillary in the white house!" SING IT! :banana:

wmansir
03-14-08, 08:52 AM
Using the Wayback Machine I noticed the Obama's church white washed (lame pun intended) their About Us page (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm) replacing the Black Value system (http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html), with videos from Barack's campaign featuring a white women talking about how mainstream the chruch is.

MartinBlank
03-14-08, 01:33 PM
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Friday, March 14, 2008
Advertisment

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 50% to 42% in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination (see recent daily results). This is the first time Obama has ever reached 50% in fifteen months of daily polling on the race. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 84% to 9%. Among White voters, Clinton leads 50% to 39%. Two-thirds of voters who now support Clinton are women. Among white women Clinton leads by twenty-five. In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads 51% to 38%.

The General Election is essentially tied no matter who the Democrats nominate. It’s McCain 45% Obama 44% and McCain 46% Clinton 44% (see recent daily results). In both match-ups, McCain enjoys more unified support from Republicans than his opponents do from Democrats. A Rasmussen Reports look at the race suggests that John McCain may be the luckiest man on the planet since Ringo Starr. Both McCain and Starr were in the right place at the right time and everything broke their way. The question now is will McCain’s luck last until November.

Democrats now lead in states with 247 Electoral Votes while the GOP leads in states with 229 Electoral Votes (see summary of recent state general election polling). Without “leaners”, the Democrats lead 214 to 189. Additional polling for many states including Florida, Ohio, Connecticut, and California will be released over the coming weekend.

Nationally, McCain is viewed favorably by 54% and unfavorably by 42%. Obama is now viewed favorably by 51% of likely voters nationwide, unfavorably by 46%. Clinton earns positive reviews from 47% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 51% (see recent daily results). Among independent voters, those not affiliated with either Republicans or Democrats, McCain is viewed favorably by 56%, Obama by 51% and Clinton by 47%.

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. The next Presidential Tracking Poll update is scheduled for Friday at 11:00 a.m. The results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members. See crosstabs for general election match-ups and favorable ratings.

Rasmussen Markets data now give Obama a % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at %. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features, the Rasmussen Markets harness competitive passions to provide a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market.

Each Monday, full week results are released based upon a seven-day rolling average. While the daily tracking result are useful for measuring quick reaction to events in the news, the full week results provide an effective means for evaluating longer-term trends.

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. The general election sample is currently based upon interviews with 1,600 Likely Voters. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Th0r S1mpson
03-14-08, 01:55 PM
McCain is more liked than Obama? :confused:

Goldberg74
03-14-08, 03:36 PM
I completely agree with Mr. Beck!

Glenn Beck: Too bad, Michigan and Florida

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What do these stories all have in common?

A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.

People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.

Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.

Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.

These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.

Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" and the kid responded, "You, alright? I learned it by watching you."

Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn't think that anyone notices his bad habits.

Our government is leading us by example, and I don't mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can't afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should've bought.

Unfortunately, we're also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.

The rest of the article... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/14/beckfloridamichigan/index.html)

MartinBlank
03-14-08, 03:38 PM
You people and your cries of "personal responsibility" -ohbfrank- That's what the government's for!!!

JasonF
03-14-08, 04:23 PM
What does Glen Beck have to do with the presidential race?

MartinBlank
03-14-08, 04:28 PM
^ You have to read the rest of the article.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- What do these stories all have in common?
Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck: Florida and Michigan leaders have only themselves to blame if their delegates aren't seated.

# A woman who says she lost more $1 million gambling in Atlantic City sues some casinos for $20 million, claiming they should've stopped her compulsive gambling.

# People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms.

# Congress authorizes a war and then tries everything it can think of to get out of it.

# Our country gets addicted to oil and then blames OPEC when it doesn't like the price.

These stories prove how personal responsibility has all but vanished in America, and our government is leading the way.
Don't Miss

* Glenn Beck on Headline News
* Glenn's new book: 'An Inconvenient Book'

Remember the kid from that interminable 1980s commercial whose father caught him using drugs? The father incredulously asked, "Who taught you how to do this stuff?" and the kid responded, "You, alright? I learned it by watching you."

Well, we are that kid and our government is that drug-using father who doesn't think that anyone notices his bad habits.

Our government is leading us by example, and I don't mean that in a good way. For years, it has spent us into oblivion, mortgaging our future for programs we can't afford, and Americans have happily followed suit, running up credit card bills and home equity loans for things they never should've bought.

Unfortunately, we're also learning something else from our government: how to avoid taking responsibility for our actions.

From Eliot Spitzer's alleged hooker craze to the revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger commutes to work in a large private jet even as he preaches the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions, there's never been a shortage of "do what I say, not what I do" hypocrites in politics.

But that same attitude has seemingly spread from individual politicians to an entire party.

Democrats aren't happy that delegates from Florida and Michigan won't be seated at the national convention because those states broke clear party rules. Well you know what? Too bad. We don't say that enough anymore. Too bad. You agreed to the rules; you broke them. Now you've got to deal with the consequences.

"But Glenn. ... Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination. We don't want this to be decided in some backroom by superdelegates."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. ... You don't understand. If we don't seat delegates from those states now, then we might lose their votes in the general election."

Too bad.

"But Glenn. .... The voters in these states are going to be disenfranchised if we don't let their voices be heard."

Too bad.

If you want to talk about disenfranchised voters, then let's talk about why just 17 percent of Americans have a positive view of Congress. Let's talk about why we still have wide open borders despite most Americans wanting them sealed. Let's talk about why we keep selling out our sovereignty and our security by borrowing billions of dollars from-less-than friendly countries, such as China.

Americans aren't disenfranchised because our leaders won't count votes in a couple of states. They're disenfranchised because our leaders aren't doing their jobs. They're disenfranchised because after working hard to support their families and to raise kids who understand the difference between right and wrong, their leaders do exactly the opposite.

In the cases of Florida and Michigan, I've patiently listened to all the moving arguments about why there should be a "do-over," but quite honestly, they're not arguments at all. They're excuses. If this race wasn't so close, or if these states offered a combined 36 delegates instead of 366, do you really think anyone would care? Of course not.

But no matter what you think should happen, you have to admit that Clinton's idea that we should simply count her "wins" in Florida and Michigan is completely ridiculous.

In fact, if you played a rimshot and a laugh track behind her every time she recited that line, people might actually agree to a two-drink minimum to see her speak. How could you possibly count the results from an election when your main opponent wasn't even on the ballot (at least in Michigan)? You can't -- unless you think the rules are simply there for your own amusement.

Last year, when the punishment against Florida was first approved, Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules panel, said she hoped that the harsh consequences would "send a message to everybody in Florida that we are going to follow the rules." And Brazile knows a little something about that ... she ran Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000.

Voters in Florida and Michigan should ask themselves one important question before they blindly follow their party: Why did no one seem to care about "alienating" them last year when the rules were intentionally broken? It's only now, when their vote really matters, that everyone is suddenly so concerned about "enfranchising" them.

Florida and Michigan have a golden opportunity to stand up and say enough is enough, to send a message that it's time to not only take responsibility for their actions but for those of our leaders as well.

JasonF
03-14-08, 04:35 PM
Glen Beck is full of crap.

When Florida and Michigana were disqualified -- due to their own decisions -- two things were true. First, everyone recognized that either state could hold a second primary or caucus on or after Super Tuesday and it would count. So the idea that there shouldn't be a do-over because of some need to make people take responsibility is bunk.

Second, everyone assumed that the Florida and Michigan delegations could be seated without it affecting the outcome. So Beck's "Why didn't anyone care about alienating them until now" is silly because the punishment is turning out to be harsher than anyone expected it would be.

NCMojo
03-14-08, 04:51 PM
"We need a cleaning in the White House... and we need a woman to do that cleaning!"

rotfl

Does this guy have any idea how offensive that comment -- and his rap about "we don't need no bling" -- really is? :lol:

Goldberg74
03-14-08, 08:10 PM
^ You have to read the rest of the article.
Thanks Martin.
When Florida and Michigan were disqualified -- due to their own decisions -- two things were true. First, everyone recognized that either state could hold a second primary or caucus on or after Super Tuesday and it would count. So the idea that there shouldn't be a do-over because of some need to make people take responsibility is bunk.Hind site is always 20/20. They wanted to come to the party early to get attention, and now they have it.

Michigan made the choice to withdraw. They accepted the penalty. Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson withdrew because of Michigan's choice and the penalty.

Now that Hillary needs the delegates to catch up to Barrack, they are all of a sudden more important than every other state?

For the first time in my life I like Howard Dean and the decision that he's made to enforce the penalties.

Second, everyone assumed that the Florida and Michigan delegations could be seated without it affecting the outcome. So Beck's "Why didn't anyone care about alienating them until now" is silly because the punishment is turning out to be harsher than anyone expected it would be.I don't find it silly, I find it to be painfully truthful.

If you look at the delegates... if they were seated:

Michigan - 128 total
Clinton - 73
Uncommitted - 55

Florida
Clinton - 105
Obama - 67

If all of the Uncommitted Michigan delegates went to Obama (since I assume that's who would have gotten them anyway if he were on the ballot), then the totals from Florida and Michigan would be:

Clinton - 178
Obama - 122

That would put their respective tallies at:

Clinton - 1658
Obama - 1733

Sure it would narrow the gap for Clinton... and I see this as being positive only for Clinton and I understand that that is why she (or rather her campaign) is pitching a fit.

But in the end, it was a decision of a state's party to violate the rules of the DNC and receive a punishment that they do not want to take responsibility for.

So it does boil down to personal responsibility.

Brent L
03-14-08, 08:13 PM
In just a few minutes Obama is going to be on Hannity & Colmes to talk about Jeremiah Wright.

JasonF
03-14-08, 08:34 PM
Goldberg -- I don't really diagree with anything you say. I just don't think that a do-over is an abdication of responsibility.

Ky-Fi
03-14-08, 08:45 PM
All I know is that the phrase "Ridin' Dirty" should definitely enter the vernacular, and I'm personally going to make an effort to incorporate that into my daily conversations henceforth.

MartinBlank
03-14-08, 08:58 PM
All I know is that the phrase "Ridin' Dirty" should definitely enter the vernacular, and I'm personally going to make an effort to incorporate that into my daily conversations henceforth.

Isn't that from a rap song? :lol:

NCMojo
03-14-08, 09:16 PM
From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html):
Controversial minister off Obama's campaign

(CNN) -- A Chicago minister who delivered a fiery sermon about Sen. Hillary Clinton having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race because she is white is no longer a part of the Obama campaign.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee, campaign sources told CNN.

In another sermon, Wright had said America had brought the September 11 attacks upon itself.

The announcement of Wright's departure from the Obama camp came after the Illinois senator on Friday denounced some of the ministers's sermons, calling them "inflammatory and appalling."

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama wrote on the liberal Web site Huffingtonpost.com about recently surfaced sermons from Wright -- his longtime pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ.

"I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit," Obama continued. "In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

The sermons in question became the subject of scrutiny earlier this week after being highlighted in an ABC News report.

At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is considerably easier than Obama's because of his skin color.

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a '******!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person."

Wright, who retired from his post earlier this year, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

Still, Obama defended his 20-year relationship with Wright, saying that the pastor has served him in a spiritual role -- not a political one.

A sermon from Wright shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorism attacks is also under scrutiny. In it he said America had brought on the attacks with its own practice of terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

In his statement Friday, Obama said he had not personally heard the controversial sermons.

"When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama wrote. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."

And in a 2003 sermon, Wright said of America's treatment of African-Americans: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school, and Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.

But Obama also has long maintained he is at odds with some of Wright's sermons, and has likened him to an "old uncle" who sometimes will say things Obama doesn't agree with. He has also specifically denounced Wright's 9/11 comments.
I think this is probably the best way for the Obama campaign to handle these remarks -- renounce and reject them, reaffirm his Christian faith, and stand by the person while simultaneously keeping your distance.

You have to admit, so far, Obama has been extremely polished as a candidate.

classicman2
03-14-08, 09:22 PM
Of course you think it's the best way for Obama to handle it.

Now if it was Hillary - well,.....................

You've become a true Obamiac.

:lol:

Goldberg74
03-14-08, 09:27 PM
Goldberg -- I don't really disagree with anything you say. I just don't think that a do-over is an abdication of responsibility.Understood.

NCMojo
03-14-08, 09:28 PM
Of course you think it's the best way for Obama to handle it.

Now if it was Hillary - well,.....................

You've become a true Obamiac.

:lol:
Ah, another insightful post, C-man. Excellent. -rolleyes-

What on earth would you consider a better response? What wonderful alternative strategy would you have applied?

Artman
03-14-08, 09:32 PM
The slickster response....sorry Obama not buying. (though no doubt a lot will) It was acceptable enough for you to sit in the services for 20yrs, to tithe and support the church, to have this man marry you and baptise your daughters. Soooo, what part of his rhetoric do you agree with!?

Here's what I want. I want Wright's quotes read to Obama and for him to give his opinion on them. Assuming he doesn't agree with them - why did he continue to be a part of the church?

Non-churched folks might not understand this...but being an active member of a church is a very important and personal thing for a person who takes their faith seriously (as I believe Obama does). Esp for 20 yrs and being as involved as Obama has been, not to mention his personal relationship with the pastor. (which not everyone has)

Ranger
03-14-08, 09:37 PM
Yeah, I won't buy Obama's spin - I'll go with dork and c-man, and root for Hillary. But I think a lot of ministers go on these little rants and get carried away, but the important thing is how often they occur and how serious the bias is.

Brent L
03-14-08, 10:27 PM
What on earth would you consider a better response? What wonderful alternative strategy would you have applied?

It doesn't matter what Obama does about this now. Like I said at the start of all of this, he's stuck and there's no true way totally out of it. The fact is that he's been a friend of this guy for 20+ years, and blah blah blah, you know all of the connections. He isn't just someone who is a casual member - he's an active member of the church, has donated thousands and thousands of dollars to the church, and has a very close and personal relationship with not only Wright, but other leaders of the group.

Obama is a fool if he expects people to believe that over all of these years he's never heard comments like these before. That's a flat out lie, I assure you, because if you've known someone like Wright for that many years, you'll know where he stands on issues such as these. People like that don't hide it, they let their opinions be known for all around them to hear.

Sure, Obama can denounce the statements, or even the man, but even that wont be enough for those who are disgusted by this. He's been friends with the guy, and has been going to that church, for far too long. They have a very close relationship, he's been far too vital of a part of Obama's life. It's obvious that he's only coming out and denouncing all of this simply because the media has finally, finally, picked up on it.

And this certainly isn't just going to go away, especially over the next month. There isn't going to be that much going on for the campaign over the next month, so this will be front and center almost every single day. Right this second there are tons of reporters looking over all of the footage of the different sermons and speeches at this church, just looking for more and more to come out. What will really be interesting is what they are able to find that was said while Obama was in the crowd. Imagine if they find video footage of this guy saying controversial statements with Obama sitting there in the crowd, smiling and cheering Wright on.

The best thing for Obama to do right now is to be 100% truthful when asked any questions about this mess, and hope that it doesn't blow up any more than it already has. Other than that, all he can do is sit back and see what the public decides to make of it all from here on out.

Tracer Bullet
03-14-08, 10:55 PM
Ah, another insightful post, C-man. Excellent. -rolleyes-

What on earth would you consider a better response? What wonderful alternative strategy would you have applied?

I am here today to regretfully drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. However, I will wholeheatedly support Hillary Clinton, and am giving her all my campaign funds. Also, I'm a Muslim.

maingon
03-14-08, 11:08 PM
From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html):

I think this is probably the best way for the Obama campaign to handle these remarks -- renounce and reject them, reaffirm his Christian faith, and stand by the person while simultaneously keeping your distance.

You have to admit, so far, Obama has been extremely polished as a candidate.

I think he handled theses remarks the best he can, Going on FOX news Helps too, better there then MSNBC or something. He was very good at anwsering the questions, I thought. I think Obama has carried himself very well during the campaign. I do believe him that he doesn't believe what the Pastor was saying.

btw

that video with the Hillary Supports was pretty Terrifyingly.

PacMan2006
03-14-08, 11:20 PM
The FOX interrogation of Obama was truly disrespectful. Not that it's news to anyone in America, but FOX's bias is just shameful.

classicman2
03-14-08, 11:56 PM
If you describe Fox's bias just shameful - how would you describe MSNBC's bias in favor of Obama?

JasonF
03-15-08, 12:00 AM
The slickster response....sorry Obama not buying. (though no doubt a lot will) It was acceptable enough for you to sit in the services for 20yrs, to tithe and support the church, to have this man marry you and baptise your daughters. Soooo, what part of his rhetoric do you agree with!?

Here's what I want. I want Wright's quotes read to Obama and for him to give his opinion on them. Assuming he doesn't agree with them - why did he continue to be a part of the church?

Non-churched folks might not understand this...but being an active member of a church is a very important and personal thing for a person who takes their faith seriously (as I believe Obama does). Esp for 20 yrs and being as involved as Obama has been, not to mention his personal relationship with the pastor. (which not everyone has)

What religious denomination are you, Artman? Do you agree with everything your pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever says?

dork
03-15-08, 12:32 AM
I'll go with dork and c-man
When you find yourself saying something like this, it's really time to reevaluate your life.

dork
03-15-08, 12:33 AM
I am here today to regretfully drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. However, I will wholeheatedly support Hillary Clinton, and am giving her all my campaign funds. Also, I'm a Muslim.
Link?

dork
03-15-08, 12:37 AM
Do you agree with everything your pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever says?
You keep repeating this excuse. I don't agree with everything various people say, but I try to remove myself from people who say things I find repugnant. :shrug:

MartinBlank
03-15-08, 01:55 AM
If you describe Fox's bias just shameful - how would you describe MSNBC's bias in favor of Obama?

MSNBC isn't biased, dur....they're correct! FOX is only biased cuz I disagree with them.

MartinBlank
03-15-08, 02:02 AM
If you describe Fox's bias just shameful - how would you describe MSNBC's bias in favor of Obama?

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="390" height="320" id="Redlasso-e8255f67-2387-4870-8af2-ddeec2dac1c6"><param name="movie" value="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="embedId=e8255f67-2387-4870-8af2-ddeec2dac1c6" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=e8255f67-2387-4870-8af2-ddeec2dac1c6" width="390" height="320" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" name="Redlasso-e8255f67-2387-4870-8af2-ddeec2dac1c6"></embed></object>

:rolleyes:

Venusian
03-15-08, 09:42 AM
What religious denomination are you, Artman? Do you agree with everything your pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever says?
i am nondenominational. I don't agree with everything my pastor says. I don't even agree with all my church's "belief statements" but i don't find them offensive either. I'm not going to find a pastor I agree with 100% unless I'm leading a church.

sracer
03-15-08, 10:58 AM
What religious denomination are you, Artman? Do you agree with everything your pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever says?

You keep repeating this excuse. I don't agree with everything various people say, but I try to remove myself from people who say things I find repugnant. :shrug:

I agree. Downplaying the importance of his pastor's comments in connection with Obama's involvement in the church is just spinning the situation a little too much to be intellectually honest.

This isn't about some doctrine of secondary importance like pretrib vs. posttrib rapture, but fundamental issues and beliefs. A pastor who knowingly bears false witness from the pulpit is not one that is being true to his calling (if he was called in the first place). And people who sit under the teaching of such a pastor are not there to seek God's word but have itching ears and do so because it is what they want to hear.

When he heard those statements when they were preached, if he didn't agree, why didn't he speak with his pastor to get clarification? He wasn't a faceless attendee in the audience. He could have spoken to him, but he didn't.

Barack Obama has been a part of that church for 20 years. So... either he simply attended that church for appearance (looks good in the eyes of his constituents and politically beneficial) or he actually agrees with what his pastor has said on those very fundamental issues.

Obama's refutation of his pastor's statements ring hollow and are disingenuous simply for the fact that he never mentioned his disagreement with those controversial statements until AFTER they surfaced and the heat turned up.

. . . . . . . .

But that is a prime example of politicians in their natural habitat. No surprise there. (at least to me) Where the hypocrisy comes in is with the media and anti-Obama crowd that will make an issue of this as if they actually care. (because if they were consistent in their scrutiny, the other candidates would come off looking equally bad)

In the end, people really don't care about integrity in their politicians. They may SAY that they do, but deep down they don't. Things like this surface from time to time because they make for good entertainment and drama.... and we love to be entertained by our news.

Dr Mabuse
03-15-08, 11:47 AM
man that 'preacher' is off the deep end... a corrupt liar...

and you can tell from the way the 'flock' was getting all hyped up and agreeing with him he's been spouting that idiotic hate, and lying through his teeth for a long time to that church... they were used to it, no surprised faces there... and they wholly approved of what that fool was spewing...

the "i've never seen statements like that' from Obama is so thin it's really pathetic... i mean i can't believe he even said that stupid crap with a straight face... he is so well spoken and a great communicator... and up until his painfully foolish responses when the truth about his mentor came out, was just a stellar candidate... he should have simply been truthful and frank... it is a mess and he should have faced it head on...

not tried the carefully chosen bullshit words to try and please this and that demographic and voter segment, while dancing in this way so as to not offend this segment... typical politician crap like that is not why he has been the sensation in this election... then suddenly he's turned shit talker when a mess comes...

best thing he could have done would have been to be frank and honest... if he turns off the bullshit and starts talking straight i think he can lessen the impact of this...

i was changing channels couple of days ago, and i saw some idiot spouting mindless drivel about the US is evil, and 'whitey'... lots of fools think that these days, but it caught my attention... i stopped and watched... then it came up that this was Obama's mentor and pastor... i was blown away... just when this was 'breaking' as a story i guess it was the first i had heard of it...

the very first thing that lept into my mind was "this is the first time i've been proud of my country"... the statement by Obama's wife...

it all made sense... if you are poorly informed, plain old ignorant and gullible.... and you've been listening to a lunatic like that preacher for years... you would think the US is a terrible thing wouldn't you...

JasonF
03-15-08, 12:12 PM
I disagree that it's as easy as finding another church. Is a man's religion so lightly entered into that it can be cast aside that easily? We live in a country where millions upon millions of Catholics disagree with the ideas their church puts forth on doctrines of birth control and abortion, to say nothing of the incidents of pedophilia the church routinely covered up for decades. We live in a country where preachers denounced hurricanes and terrorist attacks as punishment for liberals and homosexuals even as the ruins of the World Trade Center smoldered and families in the Superdome waited for the flood waters to recede. One's spiritual foundation is not so easily cast aside, and I think it's only the radical leftist nature of Pastor Wright's rhetoric that makes people believe it should be so.

Pastor Wright was the man who led Senator Obama to Christianity. It is not easy to ask a man to cast that aside.

I also note that we live in a world where half a dozen president took spiritual counsel from a man who made antisemitic statements and speculated that AIDS was God's judgment on homosexuals. That was deemed acceptable as well.

In any event, this whole controversy will go away as soon as one of Senator Obama's co-congregationalists steps up and explains why she (and Senator Obama) worshipped at that church: Oprah Winfrey. America may believe that the crypto-Muslim Senator with the funny name wants God to damn America, but they will never believe that about America's girlfriend.

NotThatGuy
03-15-08, 12:17 PM
The difference Jason is that Obama is by all acounts, a pretty close friend and member of his church. (anyone know how long he's been a member?) To continue going to and participating in a church for years means there has to be a level of acceptance and agreement with it's principles, it doesn't have to be 100% but certainly enough to invest your time and money in.

Big difference between that and receiving an endorsement.
He wrote about the influence of his preacher in his memoir. I can't remember if this is the guy....but if it is, he has Obama's ear.

JasonF
03-15-08, 12:38 PM
He wrote about the influence of his preacher in his memoir. I can't remember if this is the guy....but if it is, he has Obama's ear.

It is, and he's had Senator Obama's ear for close to 20 years now.

Can anyone point to one thing that Senator Obama has done that is consistent with the things you disagree with in Pastor Wright's sermons?

dork
03-15-08, 12:48 PM
We live in a country where preachers denounced hurricanes and terrorist attacks as punishment for liberals and homosexuals even as the ruins of the World Trade Center smoldered and families in the Superdome waited for the flood waters to recede. One's spiritual foundation is not so easily cast aside, and I think it's only the radical leftist nature of Pastor Wright's rhetoric that makes people believe it should be so.
I can easily turn that around. Were you making excuses for the above preachers? How did the left react when McCain went over to Liberty University to kiss Falwell's fat ass?

sracer
03-15-08, 01:24 PM
I disagree that it's as easy as finding another church. Is a man's religion so lightly entered into that it can be cast aside that easily?
You are incorrectly equating a particular church congregation with an entire religion. If Barack Obama was offended by what the pastor said, he could certainly find a solid Bible teaching church in his area without "casting aside" being a Christian.



We live in a country where millions upon millions of Catholics disagree with the ideas their church puts forth on doctrines of birth control and abortion, to say nothing of the incidents of pedophilia the church routinely covered up for decades.
And those Catholics (the ones that disagree with foundational beliefs of Catholicism) who stay in that church do so because of an emotional attachment or tradition, NOT because of what the Catholic church is.



We live in a country where preachers denounced hurricanes and terrorist attacks as punishment for liberals and homosexuals even as the ruins of the World Trade Center smoldered and families in the Superdome waited for the flood waters to recede.
And those preachers are wrong.

Artman
03-15-08, 02:36 PM
What religious denomination are you, Artman? Do you agree with everything your pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever says?

Non denom Christian. I agree with the majority of what our pastor(s) preach... Any disagreements I have are over style, emphasis, wording...tithing - not important, doctrinal issues by any means. If I had a serious issue I would approach my pastor about it and talk it over. If it persisted, I would have to look into other churches.

I'm pretty open minded, I consider myself a moderate with right leanings politically. I'm only continuing to post and express myself because I'm sincerely interested in this story, and what Obama truly feels about it. He looks like a great guy, I like his style and personality...but these aren't the qualifications for the most powerful position in the world. If it weren't for a few political issues I disagree with him on I'd vote for him in a second. And as someone who proclaims the same faith as me, to see what comes from his pastor and church in Jesus' name is just hurtful.

Th0r S1mpson
03-15-08, 02:59 PM
Let's say you agree with your preacher on 9 out of 10 issues, the remaining one being that blacks should be enslaved. Do you continue to attend this person's congregation for 15 years?
Enslaved by whom?

Artman
03-15-08, 03:00 PM
Let's say you agree with your preacher on 9 out of 10 issues, the remaining one being that blacks should be enslaved. Do you continue to attend this person's congregation for 15 years?

Is that directed at me? Are you kidding? Of course I'd leave.

Baron Of Hell
03-15-08, 03:08 PM
So what did the preacher say that have you guys up in arms. I just watched a video of one his sermons that had a few mistakes but the preacher probably believes them. Like there being more blacks in prison than in college. Well at least that wasn't true the last time I bother check.

Someone pointed out he said something about 911 but it wasn't in the video I watched.

Dr Mabuse
03-15-08, 04:10 PM
Martians.



You're running for president? :eek:

:lol:

and you want to be my latex salesman...

Th0r S1mpson
03-15-08, 04:41 PM
Martians.
In that case, no.

PacMan2006
03-15-08, 06:32 PM
If you describe Fox's bias just shameful - how would you describe MSNBC's bias in favor of Obama?

I guess. At least MSNBC is willing to have an open dialogue with those that have opposing viewpoints. FOX anchor's talk over you, interrupt you, and mute you if you disagree with their biased opinions.

The irony of this whole firestorm, though, is that no one can really argue Obama is a muslim now.

NCMojo
03-15-08, 06:47 PM
The irony of this whole firestorm, though, is that no one can really argue Obama is a muslim now.
One would think. But I had a lovely conversation with a guy at work about Obama being a covert Muslim -- something about "the Koran tells them its okay to lie" and "both of Obama's parents were Muslims". Just sad. Sad, sad, sad.

PacMan2006
03-15-08, 07:16 PM
^^Sad, yet absurdly funny. You'll always have to deal with uninformed people, though. I'd have to imagine someone like that probably wasn't strongly considering giving his vote to Obama, anyways.

NotThatGuy
03-15-08, 09:04 PM
I love how people are getting caught in this religious stuff, when the elephant in the room isn't the preacher, but Obama's lack of an actual plan to change things. He sounds great, and I think he really believes what he is saying......but I still think there is a disconnect between what he 'says' and what he actually needs to do. That disconnect is where people like the preacher can come in and influence his decisions, and *that* scares me.

NCMojo
03-15-08, 09:31 PM
I love how people are getting caught in this religious stuff, when the elephant in the room isn't the preacher, but Obama's lack of an actual plan to change things. He sounds great, and I think he really believes what he is saying......but I still think there is a disconnect between what he 'says' and what he actually needs to do. That disconnect is where people like the preacher can come in and influence his decisions, and *that* scares me.
Actually, pedagogue, I think the whole preacher issue is more substantitive. The claim that Obama is just an "empty suit" really doesn't have any validity -- he's got a lot of specific policy statements and papers up at his site, and a lot of specific plans for how he's going to fix things, far more than, say, John McCain.

I think voters have every right to question the character of the man based on his long-term association with Rev. Wright, just as I think they have every right to question the breadth of his experience, and every right to question the efficacy of those very plans I mentioned. But I'd question the fairness and accuracy of the "empty suit" argument.

:shrug:

JasonF
03-15-08, 09:42 PM
I can easily turn that around. Were you making excuses for the above preachers? How did the left react when McCain went over to Liberty University to kiss Falwell's fat ass?

When Senator McCain went to Liberty to kiss Falwell's ass (or when he kissed Hagee's or Parsley's respective asses), everyone agreed that his candidacy was over, that he would never win an election, and that he ought to do the gracious thing and drop out of public life immediately.

Except, of course, that's not what happened. There was some grumbling from the left and then everyone ignored it and moved on.

So, no. I wasn't making excuses for Senator McCain. But I also recognized that in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't thata big a deal.

JasonF
03-15-08, 09:48 PM
You are incorrectly equating a particular church congregation with an entire religion. If Barack Obama was offended by what the pastor said, he could certainly find a solid Bible teaching church in his area without "casting aside" being a Christian.

And those Catholics (the ones that disagree with foundational beliefs of Catholicism) who stay in that church do so because of an emotional attachment or tradition, NOT because of what the Catholic church is.

This seems to boil down to some sort of argument that there is a certain equivalence between some churches, but not others. Senator Obama's church is close enough to other churches that he could switch if he wanted to. The Catholic Church is different enough, though, that if a Catholic doesn't like what his priest says about any particular topic, it's OK for the Catholic to stay with the church anyway.

I don't buy that. Every church is different. Every church is unique. Even two Catholic parishes will have differences between them. And I am not going to put myself in the position of telling people when they have to walk away from their church and when they aren't.

sracer
03-15-08, 11:32 PM
This seems to boil down to some sort of argument that there is a certain equivalence between some churches, but not others. Senator Obama's church is close enough to other churches that he could switch if he wanted to.
That is a correct summary of my opinion.

The Catholic Church is different enough, though, that if a Catholic doesn't like what his priest says about any particular topic, it's OK for the Catholic to stay with the church anyway.
I didn't say that.
You brought up the subject of the Catholic Church in the first place, but that is NOT the church at issue here. So you may use it to try to redirect from the real issue... and that is of Reverend Wright and Barack Obama's connection to him.

For all of his talk about being different, Barack Obama has proven to be no different than any other politician. I don't hold him in higher or lower regard than the others. He's an opportunist that lacks personal integrity (like every other politician).

He claims that he had only heard a few of those statements in questions, but conveniently enough, not the most controversial ones. Then he attempts to dismiss the whole issue by saying that Reverend Wright has retired from his position so he isn't the pastor anymore.

It is obvious to me that he agrees with sentiments expressed by Reverend Wright. His wife's "I'm proud of America for the first time in my life" statement is consistent and compatible with the rhetoric spewed by Wright. I could respect Obama if he was honest and admitted that he agreed with his pastor but wants to do something positive about it rather than complaining.

To claim ignorance on the matter reveals a lack of awareness and discernment that everyone should find alarming in a potential president.

Venusian
03-15-08, 11:52 PM
Enslaved by whom?
:lol:

JasonF
03-16-08, 12:12 AM
That is a correct summary of my opinion.


I didn't say that.
You brought up the subject of the Catholic Church in the first place, but that is NOT the church at issue here. So you may use it to try to redirect from the real issue... and that is of Reverend Wright and Barack Obama's connection to him.

I'm not trying to redirect. I just think it's funny that you know enough about Senator Obama's church to be able to decide for him that a different church would fulfill his cultural and spiritual needs. Is there some website that explains which churches are close enough to each other and which ones are a deflection from the "real issue"? There's a really nice Lutheran church here in Chicago -- would that be close enough to the spiritual teachings of Trinity United for Senator Obama?

classicman2
03-16-08, 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wm lopez
I'm surprised nobody's put this up , but it seems FoxNews showed video of Obama's pastor of his church made some anti-American remarks.

Indeed it would be surprising if this wasn't already being discussed in another thread.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=795

I'm closing this thread unless someone can make a compelling argument that we need this poll.

___________________

wendersfan,

I feel a compelling need to have this poll added to this thread. :)

Venusian
03-16-08, 09:26 AM
I'm not trying to redirect. I just think it's funny that you know enough about Senator Obama's church to be able to decide for him that a different church would fulfill his cultural and spiritual needs. Is there some website that explains which churches are close enough to each other and which ones are a deflection from the "real issue"? There's a really nice Lutheran church here in Chicago -- would that be close enough to the spiritual teachings of Trinity United for Senator Obama?
His church belongs to a certain denomination. Other churches in that denomination are probably close to his in doctrine.

I think the issue is more that Obama was led to Christ under the teachings of Rev. Wright. I'm sure he has loyalty to him. They also seem to be pretty good friends.

sracer
03-16-08, 09:39 AM
I'm not trying to redirect. I just think it's funny that you know enough about Senator Obama's church to be able to decide for him that a different church would fulfill his cultural and spiritual needs. Is there some website that explains which churches are close enough to each other and which ones are a deflection from the "real issue"? There's a really nice Lutheran church here in Chicago -- would that be close enough to the spiritual teachings of Trinity United for Senator Obama?
For someone who is not trying to redirect, you're doing a great job. :D

But again, the issue is not whether or not Obama could find another church that is compatible with his beliefs... it is the fact that he didn't deem it necessary to even look. Up until this story grew in exposure, he never said anything directly (or that could be inferred), that he disagreed with anything his pastor said....until it came to the public's awareness.

Based on his actions there is only one conclusion to draw...

Barack Obama agreed with (or accepted) his pastor's statements but for the sake of political purposes must now reject those statements.

Again, if Barack Obama is honest when he said that he didn't know about those most controversial statements made by his longtime pastor, friend, and confidant then...
To claim ignorance on the matter reveals a lack of awareness and discernment that everyone should find alarming in a potential president.

Th0r S1mpson
03-16-08, 10:01 AM
This is what happens when we have a month between primaries. Obama had better find a way to change the subject, fast. He can't have people talking about this so long. It may not kill his nomination bid (let's face it, he has a good lead) but this will be much more ingrained than some other issues come election day.

Granted, I still think he's going to lose the nomination, but that's because I have the audacity of hope.

sracer
03-16-08, 10:12 AM
This is what happens when we have a month between primaries. Obama had better find a way to change the subject, fast. He can't have people talking about this so long. It may not kill his nomination bid (let's face it, he has a good lead) but this will be much more ingrained than some other issues come election day.

Granted, I still think he's going to lose the nomination, but that's because I have the audacity of hope.
I think that this issue is the beginning of the end of his nomination bid. The Eliot Spitzer controversy breaking at the same time as this Reverend Wright issue is an interesting coincidence.

Spitzer's hypocritical sleazy character was exposed for even the most blind to see. And now, Barack Obama who has been running on a platform of change and being different is being exposed as hypocritically being the same as the others. There's more to come for sure. Whether or not his sleaziness is revealed will depend upon how far he goes.

. . . . . .

I'm not for any political party or candidate. I believe that the American political system attracts and rewards people who lack integrity. That's not to say that some aren't more likable or more interesting than others.

NCMojo
03-16-08, 11:32 AM
But again, the issue is not whether or not Obama could find another church that is compatible with his beliefs... it is the fact that he didn't deem it necessary to even look. Up until this story grew in exposure, he never said anything directly (or that could be inferred), that he disagreed with anything his pastor said....until it came to the public's awareness.
Except for his very direct public statements made well before this controversy flared up that he turned to his pastor for spititual guidance, and not political guidance, and that his pastor is "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with".
Based on his actions there is only one conclusion to draw...

Barack Obama agreed with (or accepted) his pastor's statements but for the sake of political purposes must now reject those statements.
Actually, this issue has been on the backburner for some time. Even the Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama) article from February of 2007 talks about incindiary comments made by the Rev. Wright. I think Obama's hesitance to renounce his pastor earlier was related to his feelings of personal loyalty: "What you don’t want to do is distance yourself or kick somebody away, because you are now running for President and you are worried about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their life and their career."
Again, if Barack Obama is honest when he said that he didn't know about those most controversial statements made by his longtime pastor, friend, and confidant then...

To claim ignorance on the matter reveals a lack of awareness and discernment that everyone should find alarming in a potential president.
Meh, I think he knew about these comments, and he certainly didn't agree with these comments, but he hoped that the whole thing wouldn't blow up in his face. Kind of a naive assumption, I agree, and I absolutely feel that it is a fair issue to consider when choosing a candidate. Some people may find this a dealbreaker, although I suspect not many; some people may see this as a non-issue, considering that Obama had already distanced himself to a large degree from his pastor before his run, and has now gone to great lengths to "vehemently disagree" and "strongly condemn" and "categorically denounce " the pastor's statements.

My own opinion? This whole thing came out too early, and at the wrong time. In the dead air between now and the Pennsylvania primary, this issue will ripen and then rot on the vine. Within two weeks, this whole thing will be old news, and people will be bored of it, and it will have zero impact on the primaries, let alone the general election.

Groucho
03-16-08, 12:21 PM
This is what happens when we have a month between primaries. Obama had better find a way to change the subject, fast. He can't have people talking about this so long.I disagree. Pundits and voters have short term memory. This will all be forgotten by the time the Pennsylvania primaries roll around. Whoever was behind the release of this information should have waited until the week before if they wanted it to have the best effect.

JasonF
03-16-08, 12:32 PM
His church belongs to a certain denomination. Other churches in that denomination are probably close to his in doctrine.

I think the issue is more that Obama was led to Christ under the teachings of Rev. Wright. I'm sure he has loyalty to him. They also seem to be pretty good friends.

Do people really chose churches on doctrine alone? I was raised Conservative Jewish, so maybe we're different, but in chosing a synagogue, doctrine was just one component. We also looked to who was in the community, what kinds of activities and services there were, the nature of the services (were they one hour long or three? Predominantly Hebrew or predominantly English? Lots of singing or lots of silent contemplation?), and yes, who was the rabbi.

My point being, if the rabbi started preaching that America hadn't done right by the Jews, or some such, maybe I'd try to find a new congregation and maybe I wouldn't. But I wouldn't just say "Gee, one Conservative synagogue is the same as the next, so let me just drive a couple of miles further on down the road."

Changing the subject ever so slightly, I came across the text of Reverend Wright's sermon "The Audacity of Hope," the one that gave Senator Obama the title for his book:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html

I hope everyone who is acting like Reverend Wright is the first pastor to ever deliver a jeremiad, or to express dissatisfaction with the state of America, takes the time to read it.

Th0r S1mpson
03-16-08, 12:37 PM
I disagree. Pundits and voters have short term memory. This will all be forgotten by the time the Pennsylvania primaries roll around. Whoever was behind the release of this information should have waited until the week before if they wanted it to have the best effect.
Like I said, it probably won't make a difference in Pennsylvania. I think it will be one more thing that voters remember come November, and I don't mean those that are certain to vote democrat.

PacMan2006
03-16-08, 12:44 PM
This is what happens when we have a month between primaries. Obama had better find a way to change the subject, fast. He can't have people talking about this so long. It may not kill his nomination bid (let's face it, he has a good lead) but this will be much more ingrained than some other issues come election day.

I disagree as well. I think Obama definitely benefits from this coming out with a month + till PA. He has time to go out, talk to people one on one, have his volunteers vigorously campaign, and have some surrogates do damage control.

But we know how this all works. In a week or two, someone from someone else's camp will say something incendiary, and the focus will shift from Obama and Wright onto ____________.

dork
03-16-08, 12:57 PM
I disagree. Pundits and voters have short term memory. This will all be forgotten by the time the Pennsylvania primaries roll around.
Don't worry, should Obama get the nomination I'm sure there will be a commercial in late October to helpfully remind undecided voters.

X
03-16-08, 01:16 PM
Serious dork responding to serious Groucho. :(

wm lopez
03-16-08, 03:35 PM
To me with Obama attending a church with it's leader with anti-American beliefs for 20 years and what Obama's wife said about America. It's a no brainer his no a shoe in anymore. A lot if not most of the Obama supporters changed their mind here on Chicago talk radio. It would have been nice to know what a poll here at DVDTALK would have resulted in.

Brent L
03-16-08, 05:21 PM
I'd say this is worth mentioning:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1467

Released: March 15, 2008

Zogby Poll: McCain Bests Both Obama, Clinton in 3-Way General Election Tests

Independent candidate Ralph Nader wins 5%, taking more support from Democrats

UTICA, New York – Riding high after locking up his party’s presidential nomination, Republican John McCain of Arizona has moved ahead of both of his potential Democratic Party rivals in a national general election test, the latest Zogby telephone survey shows.

Perhaps profiting from the continuing political battle across the aisle, McCain would defeat Hillary Clinton of New York by six points and Barack Obama of Illinois by 5 points, the survey shows. Clinton and Obama are locked in a tight battle to win the Democratic Party nomination, a fight that has grown nasty at times recently and threatens to continue on all summer long until the party’s national convention in Denver this August.

The telephone survey of 1,001 likely voters nationwide was conducted by live operators calling from Zogby’s call center in Upstate New York on March 13-14, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points.

Prospective General Election Match-up


3-13/14

McCain
45%

Clinton
39%

Nader
6%

Not sure/Someone else
11%

The introduction of long-time activist Ralph Nader into the mix is having an effect on the race, as he wins enough support to make a difference, the poll shows. Nader entered the race recently, charging that there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their presidential candidates. Using the same argument eight years ago, his presence on the ballot in Florida may well have tipped the presidential election away from Democrat Al Gore and in favor of George W. Bush. His run four years ago yielded less dramatic results, but the political atmosphere has changed since 2004, and may be more favorable for him again, the Zogby survey shows.

In the McCain-Clinton-Nader match-up, McCain leads mainly because of a significant advantage among independents. Among those voters, he wins support from 45%, compared to 28% for Clinton and 15% for Nader. McCain wins 79% support from Republicans, while Clinton wins 75% support from Democrats.

Clinton leads only among those voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters over age 30. Nader also does well among the young, winning 12% support among those under age 30. Among men, McCain leads 51% to 33% for Clinton. Among women, Clinton leads, 45% to 40% for McCain. Nader wins 8% among men and 3% among women.

Nader also does particularly well as a third-party candidate among progressives, winning 15% support from the group that would very likely otherwise go to Clinton were he not in the race. At the other end of the ideological scale, he wins 12% among libertarians. He also wins 6% support among both conservatives and liberals.

Prospective General Election Match-up


3-13/14

McCain
44%

Obama
39%

Nader
5%

Not sure/Someone else
11%

In the McCain-Obama-Nader match-up, the independent candidate is having the same effect. Nader wins 15% support among political independents nationwide.

Ideologically, Nader wins 18% support among progressives, and 12% among libertarians. He does less well among mainline conservatives and liberals compared to the match-up including Clinton.

An interesting factor in this race: the inroads McCain has made into Obama’s base and vice versa. McCain wins 19% support from Democrats, while Obama captures just 67% of voters in his own party. Obama wins 15% support among Republicans, compared to 73% for McCain.

As is the case in the McCain-Clinton-Nader contest, Obama wins among voters under age 30, while McCain leads among all voters age 30 and older. Nader wins 15% support among those under age 30, but has little support among older voters.

Among men, McCain leads Obama 48% to 34%, while Obama holds a slim 43% to 41% edge over McCain among women. Nader wins 6% among men and 4% among women.

Pollster John Zogby: “Nader’s presence in the race can potentially turn a lulu of a race into an absolute tizzy. The messages to Democrats are clear – number one, Nader may win enough support to get into the general election debates. Number two, what could be at risk is support among several key constituencies that the Democratic Party candidate will need to win in November, notably younger voters, independents, and progressives.”

Jason
03-16-08, 05:42 PM
Who in their right mind would vote for ralph nader at this point?

danstheday
03-16-08, 06:19 PM
I wish there was a law saying that NO polls were allowed to takin or reported on. Seriously it's the one thing that makes me switch the channel or the radio station, when I read about this poll or that poll I just roll my eyes. Seriously is anyone else tired of polls too. If there is one thing everyone should learn and understand about this years elections is that polls mean NOTHING.

NCMojo
03-16-08, 06:41 PM
Don't worry, should Obama get the nomination I'm sure there will be a commercial in late October to helpfully remind undecided voters.
And by then voters will be scratching their head, saying, "what, that old story?"

Baron Of Hell
03-16-08, 10:02 PM
So why is it assumed that all the Nadar people would vote democrat if he wasn't running. I would think most of the Nadar supports would just stay home if he wasn't running. A vote for nadar is basically saying you rather not take part in this election.

JasonF
03-16-08, 10:26 PM
Who's "Nadar?"

wishbone
03-16-08, 11:20 PM
Who's "Nadar?"http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7479/radar2uj7.jpg
An older cousin perhaps -- back in The Shire?

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 07:17 AM
Who's "Nadar?"
"Nadar" is an instinct some people have, sensing that there is a 3rd party in the room.

classicman2
03-17-08, 07:43 AM
So why is it assumed that all the Nadar people would vote democrat if he wasn't running. I would think most of the Nadar supports would just stay home if he wasn't running. A vote for nadar is basically saying you rather not take part in this election.

2000 is a pretty good indication, wouldn't you say?

wendersfan
03-17-08, 07:58 AM
2000 is a pretty good indication, wouldn't you say?2004 is a lot better.

Venusian
03-17-08, 08:05 AM
Do people really chose churches on doctrine alone? I was raised Conservative Jewish, so maybe we're different, but in chosing a synagogue, doctrine was just one component. We also looked to who was in the community, what kinds of activities and services there were, the nature of the services (were they one hour long or three? Predominantly Hebrew or predominantly English? Lots of singing or lots of silent contemplation?), and yes, who was the rabbi.

My point being, if the rabbi started preaching that America hadn't done right by the Jews, or some such, maybe I'd try to find a new congregation and maybe I wouldn't. But I wouldn't just say "Gee, one Conservative synagogue is the same as the next, so let me just drive a couple of miles further on down the road."

Changing the subject ever so slightly, I came across the text of Reverend Wright's sermon "The Audacity of Hope," the one that gave Senator Obama the title for his book:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html

I hope everyone who is acting like Reverend Wright is the first pastor to ever deliver a jeremiad, or to express dissatisfaction with the state of America, takes the time to read it.
you're right, there is more to finding a church than just doctrine. I suspect obama stayed there more for the personal ties.

That's a good sermon. I wonder what his "normal" sermons are like.

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 08:49 AM
That's a good sermon. I wonder what his "normal" sermons are like.
When he takes his medication, the white people don't walk out.

NCMojo
03-17-08, 08:55 AM
OK, changing topics to the Democratic superdelegates. From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23670473/):
Pelosi's stance on delegates boosts Obama
House Speaker says superdelegates should not buck voting trend

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.
Similarly, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) ran an article that essentially said that the Democratic superdelegates were "perplexed about how to resolve the conflict" but that "Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters."

Now, rather than getting into a divisive debate about the role of the superdelegates and the relevancy of the so-called "will of the people" argument, let's all agree to focus on an issue that has reached near unanimous consensus: the Democrats are a bunch of wusses. Of course each superdelegate is free to vote for whatever candidate they believe would stand the best chance of winning the November election... or at least for the candidate that promises them the best Ambassadorship or cabinet position in their administration... but, really, what Democrat is going to stand on principle and/or enlightened self-interest when there's waffling work to be done? At their core, what the vast majority of the superdelegates want is for someone to take the decision out of their hands, and the clarion call that Pelosi is sounding seems pretty clearly an announcement that the DLC is going to toe the popular vote line come convention time.

I could be wrong... and we'll see which way the wind is blowing in August... but I'd say that the superdelegates will go with the candidate in the lead (which will be Obama, no matter how you slice it) rather than take a real chance and buck the "will of the people".

classicman2
03-17-08, 09:14 AM
Pelosi said, before yesterday, that the candidate who won the most states should be the nominee, didn't she?

Pelosi also said that the 'dream ticket' was just that - a dream. It wasn't going to happen.

The reality is that all the delegates are free to vote for whoever (or is whom?) they want.

mosquitobite
03-17-08, 09:15 AM
I could be wrong... and we'll see which way the wind is blowing in August... but I'd say that the superdelegates will go with the candidate in the lead (which will be Obama, no matter how you slice it) rather than take a real chance and buck the "will of the people".

I agree with the sentiment in your post. But the quandry for the superdelegates is pretty overwhelming: which is best for the future of the party and which is best for the future of the country? I guess it depends on if you believe Obama can win in November or not. If you believe he can't (like Classicman for example) then obviously, Hillary would be better for the party. But if you trump the will of the general electorate from the primaries... you destroy the party to do so. :shrug:

I personally believe Hillary has such a high negative factor, that she negates any benefit to the party, but that's just from the outside looking in.

I also wonder if there's some truth to Obama not being fully vetted yet. There's a lot to uncover about him, that just might kill his chances between now and November. His possibly shady purchase of his Chicago estate... his pastor's sermons...those were found in the primary season. What will be uncovered next? What will the Republicans find and pick apart come general election time?

classicman2
03-17-08, 09:24 AM
If he's the nominee, you can bet that he will be fully & completely vetted by the Republican machine.

JasonF
03-17-08, 09:33 AM
I also wonder if there's some truth to Obama not being fully vetted yet. There's a lot to uncover about him, that just might kill his chances between now and November. His possibly shady purchase of his Chicago estate... his pastor's sermons...those were found in the primary season. What will be uncovered next? What will the Republicans find and pick apart come general election time?

If the Democrats want to search, Diogenes-like, for the candidate who is fully vetted to the point where the Republicans can't attack him for anything (other, of course, than his policy positions), they will be searching for a long time. If they can attack the patriotism of a man who gave three of his limbs in defense of this country, there is nobody they can't attack.

So yes, the Republicans will smear Senator Obama if he is the nominee. And they'll smear Senator Clinton if she is the nominee. And if Jesus Christ descends from the heavens in a fiery chariot to accept the Democratic nomination for the presidency, they'll smear him too.

grundle
03-17-08, 10:20 AM
I just read this, and I thought it was very interesting.

I don't think this violates the DVDTalk political guidelines, because the things that the article says are true. These statements are verifiable facts, not generalizations or stereotypes.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_lawyers_party.html

March 17, 2008

The Lawyers' Party

By Bruce Walker

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Benson, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.

The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class action suit. We are citizens of a republic which promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.

wendersfan
03-17-08, 10:25 AM
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work.:lol:

This over-generalization isn't offensive or insulting, it's just stupid. What a lawyer does is a lot more "real" to me than being a Hollywood actor or the owner of a Major League baseball team.

Numanoid
03-17-08, 10:27 AM
I just read this, and I thought it was very interesting.

I don't think this violates the DVDTalk political guidelines, because the things that the article says are true. These statements are verifiable facts, not generalizations or stereotypes.

<snip>

Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.
Yeah, that's a verifiable fact, not a generalization or stereotype. -rolleyes-

Red Dog
03-17-08, 10:28 AM
Since you failed to provide a comment, I'll feel free to do so. Mr. Walker is an idiot. And bashing lawyers - so very original.

All I can say is that if the non-Lawyers Party is supposed to be party of change, reform, and real hope, they sure have failed miserably.

Tracer Bullet
03-17-08, 10:29 AM
Yes, all Republicans are businessmen, which is why this administration is running the government so competently.

We have a problem with lawyers in this country, but it has nothing to do with political parties. What a stupid argument.

Red Dog
03-17-08, 10:30 AM
:lol:

This over-generalization isn't offensive or insulting, it's just stupid. What a lawyer does is a lot more "real" to me than being a Hollywood actor or the owner of a Major League baseball team.


Those were hard-working businessmen, dammit.

wendersfan
03-17-08, 10:30 AM
Oh, and this:Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders.Insulting.

NCMojo
03-17-08, 10:31 AM
Pelosi said, before yesterday, that the candidate who won the most states should be the nominee, didn't she?

Pelosi also said that the 'dream ticket' was just that - a dream. It wasn't going to happen.

The reality is that all the delegates are free to vote for whoever (or is whom?) they want.
Here's what I found for Pelosi regarding superdelegates:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an effort to calm fears that superdelegates would not “go rogue” and vote against the will of their states, tried to defend the system of the party.

"These superdelegates are all part of their state delegation, so that state will speak. [The superdelegates] "work out their preference, working with the people of their state," Pelosi said.

“So, again, I don't think that members of Congress, governors and senators are not attuned to what's happening in their states and in their districts,” Pelosi added.
So before she said they'd go with their states... now she's saying they should go with the popular vote. Maybe. Hard to tell with Nancy Pelosi waffling like that.

What has Howard Dean said about the superdelegates? Does anybody know?

NCMojo
03-17-08, 10:34 AM
Ah, the Lawyers Party. Nice. :clap:

wendersfan
03-17-08, 10:34 AM
What has Howard Dean said about the superdelegates? Does anybody know?More importantly, does anybody care? ;)

Isn't the point of having superdelegates defeated by having them "vote the will of their states"?

DJLinus
03-17-08, 10:38 AM
Still looking for a place to enter your NCCA brackets? Play with John McCain! :lol:

http://www.johnmccain.com/brackets/Initial.htm

Considering that this year I didn't start up a brackets challenge for my friends like normally do, I just may play there. I guess if I won I could wear the McCain hat while mowing the lawn or something.

Groucho
03-17-08, 10:55 AM
So, if the Dems end up picking Obama over Clinton because he's such a great speaker are they essentially saying "prose before hos"?

JasonF
03-17-08, 11:09 AM
Everyone's been giving grundle grief over the op-ed he posted, so I won't pile on except to say this: Any op-ed that talks about Democratic Vice Presidential nominee "Lloyd Benson" is automatically suspect.

I could also point out that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a lawyer, as is Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, as is "leader of the Republican Revolution" Trent Lott.

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 11:14 AM
Wow. I've never seen people jump so quickly to defend lawyers. Of course... which party do those jumpers support? ;)

No, seriously. That's a big wink. I don't mean it. ;)

So, if the Dems end up picking Obama over Clinton because he's such a great speaker are they essentially saying "prose before hos"?
Okay, fess up. Where did you steal that line from? :lol:

dork
03-17-08, 11:16 AM
Everyone's been giving grundle grief over the op-ed he posted, so I won't pile on except to say this: Any op-ed that talks about Democratic Vice Presidential nominee "Lloyd Benson" is automatically suspect.
Don't you mean Democrat Vice Presidential nominee?

dork
03-17-08, 11:17 AM
Okay, fess up. Where did you steal that line from? :lol:
Mark Russell?

JasonF
03-17-08, 11:18 AM
Don't you mean Democrat Vice Presidential nominee?

:lol: If I waited for the right to learn the difference between an adjective and a noun, I'd never read anything from that side of the aisle.

Groucho
03-17-08, 11:20 AM
Okay, fess up. Where did you steal that line from? :lol:Saw it on a t-shirt with a picture of Shakespeare on itBut I thought it was appropriately applied to this election as well.

Pharoh
03-17-08, 11:25 AM
Sorry I am a little late to the party, but I had a couple of questions regarding Rev. Wright. What is worse, in general and for Mr. Obama, his anti-American beliefs and stances, or his history of racially divisive rhetoric? And it does still seem strange to me, despite the excellent defenses posted here, that a uniter such as Mr. Obama would continue to have such a man on his staff.

Of course, he was just a spiritual advisor, not a poltical one. I guess that is why I don't understand what position he was forced to resign from then?


Now I have a feeling on what will be worse for the Senator electorally, as the just released Rasmussen poll indicates, but I personally have much more trouble with the other aspect of the pastor's rants. Well, with that and the resulting lack of judgement.

Red Dog
03-17-08, 11:34 AM
Everyone's been giving grundle grief over the op-ed he posted, so I won't pile on except to say this: Any op-ed that talks about Democratic Vice Presidential nominee "Lloyd Benson" is automatically suspect.



rotfl

Hey, be glad he didn't confuse him with fellow politician Benson DuBois.

Red Dog
03-17-08, 11:39 AM
Still looking for a place to enter your NCCA brackets? Play with John McCain! :lol:

http://www.johnmccain.com/brackets/Initial.htm

Considering that this year I didn't start up a brackets challenge for my friends like normally do, I just may play there. I guess if I won I could wear the McCain hat while mowing the lawn or something.


Just you wait. He's already pushed for congressional oversight into boxing. I'm sure he'll do the same with NCAA brackets.

classicman2
03-17-08, 11:51 AM
And if Jesus Christ descends from the heavens in a fiery chariot to accept the Democratic nomination for the presidency, they'll smear him too.

I thought you believed he'd already descended. His name is Barack Obama. :lol:

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 12:00 PM
That NCAA bracket it brilliant. Obama is reeling right now at McCain beating him to the punch. "I shoot hoops every primary and get it mentioned in the press every time. Those voters were miiiiiiiine!!!!" McCain also enjoyed shooting hoops in his younger years but was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, shifting his focus. "When I was tortured in Vietnam, I remained strong, determined to come out of it alright. I was a top seed, but the Vietnamese wanted to release me early. No, I said. I'm going to the finish. And I won the bracket." McCain hopes to relive those glory years by defeating every American voter in college picks this March. "I have been physically beaten, had things shoved under my fingernails... most bracket participants are pussies by comparison." McCain has picked Arizona to do well in the tournament.

X
03-17-08, 12:00 PM
:lol: If I waited for the right to learn the difference between an adjective and a noun, I'd never read anything from that side of the aisle.The way things have been going lately the Democrat party isn't looking all that democratic right now.

NCMojo
03-17-08, 12:12 PM
More importantly, does anybody care? ;)
Well, I care. :sad:

OK, to be honest, I don't care. But Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. His opinion on the matter is sure a heckuva lot more valid and important than "Madame Speaker".
Isn't the point of having superdelegates defeated by having them "vote the will of their states"?
Wait, there was a point to the superdelegates??? :hscratch:

The problem with the superdelegate system (aside from that whole "against the principle of democracy" thing) is that it relies on the courage and personal convictions of key members of the Democratic Party standing strong against the tide of public opinion and saying, 'NO! WE WILL TAKE A PRINCIPLED STAND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR!!!"

Does that sound like any member of the Democratic Party???

wendersfan
03-17-08, 12:55 PM
The problem with the superdelegate system (aside from that whole "against the principle of democracy" thing)
This seemed as good a place as any to post this: When old-time Democrats in Washington reminisce about the days of brokered conventions — floor fights and frantic early-morning calls, deals cut under the haze of cigar smoke — they talk about them the way a paleontologist might describe the hurtling stride of a velociraptor: an awesome spectacle, to be sure, but not one you would really want to see up close.

wishbone
03-17-08, 12:58 PM
rotfl

Hey, be glad he didn't confuse him with fellow politician Benson DuBois."I hear you!"

classicman2
03-17-08, 02:30 PM
You can win 56% of the popular vote in a state (Democratic primary) and still not win a majority of the delegates.

Some folks might consider that to be not very democratic.

Goldberg74
03-17-08, 05:08 PM
CNN Front Page... Developing Story: The Florida Democratic Party says it will not stage another presidential primary.

Edit to add: It's not there now. :hscratch:

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 05:19 PM
If either of these candidates was a clear choice for the party, the superdelegates would be irrelevant. But I think the purpose of the superdelegate is being explored here in good fashion. They are essentially there to guide the party to the best candidate in the event that the contest is unwinnable via pledged delegates. In my opinion, the primaries have not shown that there is a clear choice of candidate. This isn't the general election and there is no law saying the popular vote or most states determines the candidate. In fact, the statement thus far in the primaries is that there are TWO candidates that the democrats are strongly in favor of. One is ahead, but it is not by a decisive enough margin to declare victory. It's actually a superdelegate dream scenario. They actually matter.

One could argue that the proportion of superdelegates to pledged delegates is out of whack. But it's up to the party to determine how close it needs to be before the superdelegates play an actual role. When they set the system up, they determined that this was close enough. Now they appear to be waffling on that.

As Mojo noted, this only works when the superdelegates act on that responsibility and it is seeming unlikely at the moment based on some public comments.

This still has a while to play out, but Pelosi's comments clearly support Obama. If the superdelegates determine for the most part that they should simply side with the majority, however small, then the party would do well to disband them entirely.

It seems like they are inclined to take the easy way out. But this race has determined that there are two strongly favored candidates and they should seize the opportunity to vote fo the candidate that they feel will serve the party best.

Either way, I think that candidate is Obama. And I still have a feeling Hillary is going to swing this. There is plenty of time for the supers to swing, and I doubt it will because they are doing what is best for the party. Hillary was overestimated early on. It's still too early to underestimate her.

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 05:19 PM
CNN Front Page... Developing Story: The Florida Democratic Party says it will not stage another presidential primary.

Edit to add: It's not there now. :hscratch:
I saw it too. Somewhere, Hillary just pretended to cry again, with fists of rage.

Goldberg74
03-17-08, 05:44 PM
It's there again... but as a story this time:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html

No new primary for Florida Democrats

Story Highlights
Florida Democratic chairwoman says there will be no revote in Florida primary
Chairwoman: "No plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida"
E-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After weeks of negotiations, the Florida Democratic Party said Monday that it will not hold a second primary in the state.

State party leaders have been seeking a way to have Florida's delegation seated at the Democratic National Convention.

In an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon, state party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said, "We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida."

Thurman said the decision now falls to the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, which is scheduled to meet again next month.

"Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't."

... and on the CNN Political Ticker page:

No new primary for Florida's Democrats
Posted: 05:44 PM ET

(CNN) — The Florida Democratic Party said Monday it would not hold a new vote that would allow the state’s delegation to be seated at the Democratic National Convention, regardless of whether the costs for the new primary were covered by the national party or not.

In an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats, state party Chair Karen Thurman said “We researched every potential alternative process – from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections – but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida.”

The national party stripped Florida of its delegates last year, along with Michigan, when both states scheduled their primaries in January, in violation of DNC instructions. None of the major candidates campaigned there ahead of those votes.

Florida’s Democrats had been weighing several options for a re-vote, including a possible mail-in primary, ahead of the DNC’s June 10 deadline.

“I’m glad that the party has reached the same conclusion that was reach by the congressional delegation a week ago,” said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid who had been staunchly opposed to a re-vote, telling CNN that “Now it’s time for all the people involved in ensuring Florida’s delegation is seated to come together and make sure that happens.”

Wasserman Schultz, who said the party’s decision had been reached over the weekend, expressed a willingness to consider a proposal that would allow the full delegation to weigh in at the convention, but for each delegate to get just half a vote.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, told CNN’s Gloria Borger that the Illinois senator would like to see Florida’s delegates counted in a way that would not alter the overall outcome heading into the party’s convention, but “does give Florida the opportunity to vote.” He rejected the one-half person formula that seemed to gain traction last week as prospects for a second primary grew more remote.

–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 06:06 PM
So if they are seated it will be either as-voted or essentially as a bunch of superdelegates? rotfl

NCMojo
03-17-08, 06:34 PM
On what grounds is Hillary arguing that the Florida delegates should be seated? She said she would follow the DNC rules in a 2007 statement:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/2331118649_dbb81d72eb.jpg?v=0

And the DNC pledge (http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/THREE_pledge_versions.pdf) that she signed pretty specifically says that "the DNC rules and bylaws committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and superdelegates" if they violate the nomination calendar, and that she will "pledge not to campaign and/or participate" in these races. So how can she break that pledge with a straight face???

Venusian
03-17-08, 06:38 PM
the voters are more important!

classicman2
03-17-08, 07:32 PM
If Obama had won instead of Clinton one wonders if NCMojo would be singing a different tune about Florida?

NCMojo
03-17-08, 07:52 PM
If Obama had won instead of Clinton one wonders if NCMojo would be singing a different tune about Florida?
And one wonders if Obama were a white man if you'd still be so opposed to him.

http://www.alycefaye.com/images/Cleese_webpic.jpg

"Wanda! Wanda... umm... I wanda... I wonder..."

JasonF
03-17-08, 08:16 PM
If Obama had won instead of Clinton one wonders if NCMojo would be singing a different tune about Florida?

No, because Senator Obama has won dozens of other states, has a substantial lead in the delegate count, and has considerably more popular votes (even considering the fact that popular vote totals penalize caucus states) -- he can afford to play by the rules he agreed to. Senator Clinton is the only one who needs to try to get the Florida delegates seated.

Hope that helps!

NCMojo
03-17-08, 09:23 PM
Ah, but you forget -- I've been Obamatized! I am incapable of logic or reason.

Th0r S1mpson
03-17-08, 09:38 PM
Another brilliant move by Obama... taking this issue head on. People can't use it against him as effectively if he openly addresses it. But no, not just a statement. It's time for a real speech. America, are you listening?

Speech tomorrow involving race issues, explaining his former pastor, etc etc.

I do admire Obama for always reacting swiftly and being unafraid to take these things head-on when people come at him. But this is such a good opp. A speech about issues that nobody will disagree with, how far we've come, how we need to get past these yadda yadda yaddas. You will not hear an explanation of the pastor's 9/11 remarks but you will hear about understanding and healing. You will not hear anything enlightening but you will feel enlightened! Black history? White people? Together? Stopping the incendiary remarks? Man, I feel good already.

Right on the heels of Hillary's Iraq speech? Ah, the beauty. The beauty! :up::up:

Venusian
03-17-08, 09:44 PM
Looks like Michigan wants to redo their election on June 3. This might go down to the wire.

Lara Means
03-18-08, 01:48 AM
What time is the speech?

wm lopez
03-18-08, 05:00 AM
What time is the speech?
I don't know, but I'll just keep my channel on Fox News since they broke the story that has Obama making this speech. That SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE skit looks more and more true.

classicman2
03-18-08, 06:18 AM
Ah, but you forget -- I've been Obamatized! I am incapable of logic or reason.

You're making progress. You're willing to admit it.

classicman2
03-18-08, 06:24 AM
SCRANTON, Pa. - Democrat Barack Obama on Monday promised Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans help with their grievances — save one. "I know it drives you nuts. But I'm not going to lower the drinking age," the presidential candidate said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mtv

Pharoh
03-18-08, 07:30 AM
Another brilliant move by Obama... taking this issue head on. People can't use it against him as effectively if he openly addresses it. But no, not just a statement. It's time for a real speech. America, are you listening?

Speech tomorrow involving race issues, explaining his former pastor, etc etc.

I do admire Obama for always reacting swiftly and being unafraid to take these things head-on when people come at him. But this is such a good opp. A speech about issues that nobody will disagree with, how far we've come, how we need to get past these yadda yadda yaddas. You will not hear an explanation of the pastor's 9/11 remarks but you will hear about understanding and healing. You will not hear anything enlightening but you will feel enlightened! Black history? White people? Together? Stopping the incendiary remarks? Man, I feel good already.

Right on the heels of Hillary's Iraq speech? Ah, the beauty. The beauty! :up::up:



I suppose that is one way to look at it. The other being that he never would have but is now forced to due to the incredible amount of damage this has done to him and his candidacy. Granted, he does have enough time to make up for this serious lack of judgement, but I don't believe it is going to go away simply by addressing it head on. His statements up to now on the subject haven't been deemed believable by many, I am not sure what he could say differently. Obviously he will try something.

NCMojo
03-18-08, 08:06 AM
SCRANTON, Pa. - Democrat Barack Obama on Monday promised Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans help with their grievances — save one. "I know it drives you nuts. But I'm not going to lower the drinking age," the presidential candidate said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mtv
See, there's an area right there where Ob<img src=http://www.familyhelper.net/heart/heartgifs/heart4848.gif width=12 height=12>ma and I don't see eye-to-eye. It's preposterous that at 18 years old you can vote, buy a gun, join the military and run for political office, but you can't order a drink. It's ludicrous.

VinVega
03-18-08, 08:46 AM
See, there's an area right there where Ob<img src=http://www.familyhelper.net/heart/heartgifs/heart4848.gif width=12 height=12>ma and I don't see eye-to-eye. It's preposterous that at 18 years old you can vote, buy a gun, join the military and run for political office, but you can't order a drink. It's ludicrous.
:lol: I love the heart in there.

And yes the drinking age should be 18.

Th0r S1mpson
03-18-08, 09:17 AM
Please don't misinterpret my above remarks as anything negative towards Obama. I was merely commenting on how well this plays into his strategy thus far. And I agree, he has been largely forced into it timing-wise, but I think it will be a good thing and that he's been working on this speech his entire life, minus the remarks from his pastor.

Call that the springboard. A very real issue that he can take head-on, and the power behind it is that he is able to address inflammatory remarks not of a white person, but of someone very close to him that is African American. This isn't just general fluff (as I regrettably implied above). This is very personal for him and that fact will resonate.

This will be one for the books. Obama is an African-American who has the ear of white and black voters alike in a manner that we have not seen before. The issues he will address are very real, and he is the right person to address them.

Related to the campaign, this is both strategic and necessary. But the timing is appropriate for the impact as well.

Better now when he is fighting, than later, should he assume the top position in the land. Better now against Hillary than later against McCain.

My best wishes for Obama in his choice of words today. I hope he knocks it out of the park, and my confidence is that he will.

Brent L
03-18-08, 09:45 AM
Here is his entire speech:

http://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

People are going to continue to ask just why he continuted to attend a racisit church, and that isn't going to go away no matter what, with 20 years worth of history behind it all.

slop101
03-18-08, 09:45 AM
I'm not near a TV or radio - what did Obama say in his speech this morning - I guess he just gave it? Transcript?

Brent L
03-18-08, 09:47 AM
That's just the transcript, he's about to actually give it.

I can no more disown him (Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Th0r S1mpson
03-18-08, 09:49 AM
He nailed it. :up:

He addressed the issue of why he stayed, and it was enough to satisfy most. Talking heads will still bring it up, that's what they do... but no way a candidate could ever mention it going forward.

I finished reading the entire thing. Obama, if you're reading this, I love you, man. Really great stuff! :up::up:

chris_sc77
03-18-08, 09:49 AM
Here is his entire speech:

http://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

People are going to continue to ask just why he continuted to attend a racisit church, and that isn't going to go away no matter what, with 20 years worth of history behind it all.
What exactly is "racisit" about the church he attends?

dork
03-18-08, 09:50 AM
I'm not near a TV or radio - what did Obama say in his speech this morning - I guess he just gave it? Transcript?
He spent the entire forty-five minute speech contrasting how white people dance with the way African-Americans dance. I see what he was aiming for, but it raised many more questions than it answered. Very disappointing.

DJLinus
03-18-08, 10:04 AM
He spent the entire forty-five minute speech contrasting how white people dance with the way African-Americans dance. I see what he was aiming for, but it raised many more questions than it answered. Very disappointing.

:lol: He didn't even touch on the "white people have names like Lenny/black people have names like Carl" issue.

Groucho
03-18-08, 10:06 AM
I just read the speech, quickly, off of Drudge. I can't help but think that this speech will become of great historical importance -- or it'll become just a footnote in the downfall of Obama's political career.

classicman2
03-18-08, 10:07 AM
I suppose that is one way to look at it. The other being that he never would have but is now forced to due to the incredible amount of damage this has done to him and his candidacy. Granted, he does have enough time to make up for this serious lack of judgement, but I don't believe it is going to go away simply by addressing it head on. His statements up to now on the subject haven't been deemed believable by many, I am not sure what he could say differently. Obviously he will try something.

He's lost a signficant number of white voters over this issue.

I saw the latest PA poll this morning. Clinton leads Obama among white voters nearly 2-1.

classicman2
03-18-08, 10:14 AM
What exactly is "racisit" about the church he attends?

I don't know about racisit, but if you don't believe that this church (and not just the pastor) has exhibited a little racism - his parishoners cheered loudly at his racist remarks.

This is the same church that Obama attended regularly over the years. Of course Obama never heard him make such remarks. :rolleyes:

NCMojo
03-18-08, 10:15 AM
He's lost a signficant number of white voters over this issue.

I saw the latest PA poll this morning. Clinton leads Obama among white voters nearly 2-1.
Want a prediction? I'll bet you money that the very next poll that comes out for Pennsylvania will show Obama bouncing back by 6-8 points. Maybe more.

It's not about a white backlash -- it's about the aura of inevitability, of wanting to support a winner. If Obama stumbles -- and this whole Rev. Wright thing was a stumble -- then it's perceived that Hillary is on the upswing, and so everybody jumps on the bandwagon. When the pendulum goes into its backswing, which we're starting to see now, then everybody will leap right back onto the Obama freight train.

Even in the face of controversy... the fact that Obama is relevent means that he'll get more face time, more interviews on the news channels, etc. Which corresponds to visibility, which corresponds to popularity, etc. Mark it down, check it out -- by Friday, Obama will have chopped 6-8 points off the lead in Pennsylvania.

Groucho
03-18-08, 10:23 AM
This is the same church that Obama attended regularly over the years. Of course Obama never heard him make such remarks. :rolleyes:Read speech. Then react.

Venusian
03-18-08, 10:39 AM
Good speech.

wendersfan
03-18-08, 10:43 AM
Good speech.<i>Great</i> speech.

Venusian
03-18-08, 10:46 AM
I just read it, didn't hear it. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of Obama charissma ;)

Shannon Nutt
03-18-08, 10:59 AM
Mark it down, check it out -- by Friday, Obama will have chopped 6-8 points off the lead in Pennsylvania.

The Clintons have virtually moved into my home state...they're somewhere every single day, often several places. Obama, on the other hand, is only making a handful of appearances.

I'm an Obama supporter, but the general consenus around here is that he's not "fighting" to get our votes.

I predict Hillary will win this state by at least 10 pts. If not more.

Th0r S1mpson
03-18-08, 11:14 AM
The Clintons have virtually moved into my home state...they're somewhere every single day, often several places. Obama, on the other hand, is only making a handful of appearances.

I'm an Obama supporter, but the general consenus around here is that he's not "fighting" to get our votes.
Clinton setting up camp there when she did was very strategic. It's not necessary for Obama to campaign there for over a month.

Tracer Bullet
03-18-08, 11:17 AM
<i>Great</i> speech.

Empty suit powers, activate!

Th0r S1mpson
03-18-08, 11:32 AM
There's no question who the best candidate here is (assuming you use a certain definition of "best candidate"). That person is Barack Obama. I would vote for him for a whole lot of things.

Since he's the candidate of change, I'm still holding out hope that he'll change his stance on the war, healthcare, and taxes. Then I just might consider voting for him for president, too. ;)

It's not that he's an empty suit. It's just that he has a very well-tailored suit that he puts on a lot and beneath it are policies that I disagree with. Give me a McCain and an Obama with the same views and I'll take Obama. But then he wouldn't be Obama, either. I can't blame him for holding the views that he does, but I most certainly disagree that they are the best course for our country.

But in his speech today, he was as brillaint as usual. I sincerely love the guy.

JasonF
03-18-08, 12:10 PM
Thor, you are awesome. I disagree with you on issues like war, healthcare, and taxes, but I appreciate that you are deciding not to vote for Senator Obama for substantive policy reasons.

FunkDaddy J
03-18-08, 12:27 PM
Fantastic speech. Nice to see Obama come roaring back.

JasonF
03-18-08, 12:34 PM
pWe7wTVbLUU

Here's the speech (be warned -- it's almost 40 minutes long).

grundle
03-18-08, 01:06 PM
:lol:

This over-generalization isn't offensive or insulting, it's just stupid. What a lawyer does is a lot more "real" to me than being a Hollywood actor or the owner of a Major League baseball team.


Most lawyers work hard and honeslty. It's the politicians that I am concerned with.

This is why I started that other thread with my poll about the desert island.

grundle
03-18-08, 01:09 PM
Yeah, that's a verifiable fact, not a generalization or stereotype. -rolleyes-


You're right. Bush and Cheney are certainly not good examples. But it is a fact that many Democrat politicians are hateful of successful businessmen. That's why I started that thread about the desert island.

grundle
03-18-08, 01:12 PM
Ah, the Lawyers Party. Nice. :clap:

Thanks.

That's why I posted it.

grundle
03-18-08, 01:13 PM
Everyone's been giving grundle grief over the op-ed he posted, so I won't pile on except to say this: Any op-ed that talks about Democratic Vice Presidential nominee "Lloyd Benson" is automatically suspect.

I could also point out that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a lawyer, as is Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, as is "leader of the Republican Revolution" Trent Lott.

Those are all good points. Thanks for posting them.

Numanoid
03-18-08, 01:14 PM
But it is a fact that many Democrat politicians are hateful of successful businessmen. That's why I started that thread about the desert island.Yeah, that certainly is a "fact". -rolleyes-

And please stop pimping your silly desert island thread.

NCMojo
03-18-08, 01:18 PM
Thanks.

That's why I posted it.
Because you enjoy your posts being held up to riddicule, or because you have completely lost the ability to detect sarcasm?

grundle
03-18-08, 01:22 PM
Because you enjoy your posts being held up to riddicule, or because you have completely lost the ability to detect sarcasm?

What is this "sarcasm" that you speak of?

GreenMonkey
03-18-08, 01:29 PM
I just read it, didn't hear it. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of Obama charissma ;)

Me too. Fantastic speech.

JasonF
03-18-08, 01:39 PM
Hey, isn't there some other dude besides Clinton and Obama running for President?

A McCain Gaffe in Jordan
By Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear
AMMAN, Jordan -- Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

McCain was in Jordan leading a week-long Congressional delegation and has stressed that the trip was not political, despite the decision to hold a fundraiser in London later this week.

But advisers said a side-benefit from the trip would be the image of McCain standing next to world leaders and showing his expertise on issues of war and terrorism.

The U.S. has long asserted that elements of the Iranian security forces have been training and supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite militias. Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country whose government has applauded the emergence of a Shiite-led government in Iraq but has denied supporting Shiite militias inside Iraq.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a predominantly Sunni militant group which is blamed for deadly mass killings of Shiites, along with attacks on U.S. forces. Some extremist Sunni consider Shiites to be heretics and therefore legitimate targets of attack.

The schism between Islam's Sunni and Shiite sects grew out of a dispute over the leadership of the faithful following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

Not quite a "Poland is not under communist rule" moment, but embarassing nonetheless.

wendersfan
03-18-08, 01:41 PM
Does this mean I should write in Lieberman? :)

crazyronin
03-18-08, 04:55 PM
Well at least Obama answered the question, "Who would you throw under the bus to get what you want?"

Answer: His grandmother

Ky-Fi
03-18-08, 05:07 PM
I thought Obama's speech was quite good. Although, when he was condemning his pastor's remarks, it was a bit strange. It almost felt like an intra-party speech---like if Hillary had to denounce Obama for having this pastor, this is the way she would have said it---it was a clear, strong denunciation of the reverend's views, but without wanting to be hard on the reverend himself or the community he represented. It was still a bit of a disconnect for me---I was thinking "Yes Obama, your denunciation of those positions sounds sincere, and your reasons for denouncing them are clear and logical----but if your objections are that sincere and principled then why the heck did you keep going back there for 20 years?! " I think Obama did about the best he could have with the situation, but there is still the reality of his willing association, over most of his adult life, with someone espousing those views.

I did like his bit on acknowledging the grievances that people of ALL races might feel towards other races for various reasons (some legitimate), and how just bottling this up and not talking about it is not going to help----that rang true to me. I do think that his having a multi-racial background gives him a broad perspective on the subject, and to his credit, I don't believe that HE has played the race card very much at all in this campaign.

I do feel that our society has a bit of a double standard on racism, though. When it comes from the left, the response is "That's regrettable and can't be condoned, but we need to understand the perspective it comes from." And when a similar degree of racism comes from the right, it's "WORSE THAN HITLER!!"

Pharoh
03-18-08, 05:48 PM
Read speech. Then react.



Forgive me, I have not yet had the chance to read the transcript. I plan to this evening. So in the meantime, did he admit to hearing the inflammatory, divisive, and anti-American rhetoric before or not? If he did, did he state why he answered differently previously?

Pharoh
03-18-08, 05:50 PM
I thought Obama's speech was quite good. Although, when he was condemning his pastor's remarks, it was a bit strange. It almost felt like an intra-party speech---like if Hillary had to denounce Obama for having this pastor, this is the way she would have said it---it was a clear, strong denunciation of the reverend's views, but without wanting to be hard on the reverend himself or the community he represented. It was still a bit of a disconnect for me---I was thinking "Yes Obama, your denunciation of those positions sounds sincere, and your reasons for denouncing them are clear and logical----but if your objections are that sincere and principled then why the heck did you keep going back there for 20 years?! " I think Obama did about the best he could have with the situation, but there is still the reality of his willing association, over most of his adult life, with someone espousing those views.

I did like his bit on acknowledging the grievances that people of ALL races might feel towards other races for various reasons (some legitimate), and how just bottling this up and not talking about it is not going to help----that rang true to me. I do think that his having a multi-racial background gives him a broad perspective on the subject, and to his credit, I don't believe that HE has played the race card very much at all in this campaign.

I do feel that our society has a bit of a double standard on racism, though. When it comes from the left, the response is "That's regrettable and can't be condoned, but we need to understand the perspective it comes from." And when a similar degree of racism comes from the right, it's "WORSE THAN HITLER!!"



So do you feel he answered the main and core question presented by this issue?

Baron Of Hell
03-18-08, 05:56 PM
So are there any thoughts on the winter soldier testimony for Iraq? I wondering if this will move people over to democrat side. Or do people think these guys are just making things up. Hmmm are people aware of this in general. I haven't heard much about it. I've be listening to podcast of their testimony.

The thing that gets me is there is no good testimony. It is not that I think they are lying but there isn't any balance from soldier with positive experiences.

Ky-Fi
03-18-08, 05:57 PM
So do you feel he answered the main and core question presented by this issue?


Well, I guess if you're defining the main question as "why would you belong to a church with a pastor that espoused those positions for 20 years?", then I would have to say he didn't really explain it to my satisfaction---but given the facts of the situation, I don't think there IS an explanation that I would buy.

But, I think he gave a quite eloquent and thoughtful unsatisfying explanation. :lol:

JasonF
03-18-08, 06:01 PM
Forgive me, I have not yet had the chance to read the transcript. I plan to this evening. So in the meantime, did he admit to hearing the inflammatory, divisive, and anti-American rhetoric before or not? If he did, did he state why he answered differently previously?

His statement last week:
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

His statement today:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. 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.

These are not inconsistent. Senator Obama has heard Reverend Wright make remarks that could be considered controversial, but was not in church for the particular sermon that set off this firestorm.

adamblast
03-18-08, 06:01 PM
I do feel that our society has a bit of a double standard on racism, though. When it comes from the left, the response is "That's regrettable and can't be condoned, but we need to understand the perspective it comes from." And when a similar degree of racism comes from the right, it's "WORSE THAN HITLER!!"Funny how self-serving all our perceived double standards are. (I include myself.)

I was just remarking to someone what a stupid tempest-in-a-teapot this all is, and wondering why the conservatives never have to answer for their associations with Christian extremists like Robertson et.al. who have repeatedly blamed 9/11 & Katrina on American "sinfulness."

JasonF
03-18-08, 06:03 PM
Well, I guess if you're defining the main question as "why would you belong to a church with a pastor that espoused those positions for 20 years?", then I would have to say he didn't really explain it to my satisfaction---but given the facts of the situation, I don't think there IS an explanation that I would buy.

But, I think he gave a quite eloquent and thoughtful unsatisfying explanation. :lol:

I think his answer boils down to "For the same reasons I love my (white) grandmother who has some racial prejudices." It's up to each of us, of course, to decide whether that answer satisfies.

Pharoh
03-18-08, 06:07 PM
His statement last week:


His statement today:


These are not inconsistent. Senator Obama has heard Reverend Wright make remarks that could be considered controversial, but was not in church for the particular sermon that set off this firestorm.



I didn't claim they were inconsistent, especially since I stated I have not yet read the transcript.

However, at least to me, there is not one singular incident that this firestorm is about. Far from it.

Pharoh
03-18-08, 06:10 PM
I think his answer boils down to "For the same reasons I love my (white) grandmother who has some racial prejudices." It's up to each of us, of course, to decide whether that answer satisfies.


What difference does it make, or more aptly given the words of Mr. Obama, should it make that his grandmother is white?

And I too have close relatives, whom I love, that I disapprove stongly of either their words or actions. I try to avoid them, and most certainly don't allow my children to engage with them.

:shrug:

Pharoh
03-18-08, 06:11 PM
Well, I guess if you're defining the main question as "why would you belong to a church with a pastor that espoused those positions for 20 years?", then I would have to say he didn't really explain it to my satisfaction---but given the facts of the situation, I don't think there IS an explanation that I would buy.

But, I think he gave a quite eloquent and thoughtful unsatisfying explanation. :lol:


Yes.

And thanks for the summary of your impressions.

Ky-Fi
03-18-08, 06:12 PM
Funny how self-serving all our perceived double standards are. (I include myself.)

I was just remarking to someone what a stupid tempest-in-a-teapot this all is, and wondering why the conservatives never have to answer for their associations with Christian extremists like Robertson et.al. who have repeatedly blamed 9/11 & Katrina on American "sinfulness."

I'm not sure Pat Robertson has ever made any comments on race analogous to what Obama's pastor said---and also, Robertson was not the personal pastor of any major political candidate---and I think when Robertson ran for president, he was hit pretty hard for his positions and beliefs.

But I'll concede your point to some degree----I believe Billy Graham was recorded saying some quite extreme anti-semitic remarks to Nixon, and he never really lost his "spiritual advisor to the presidents" position.

JasonF
03-18-08, 06:15 PM
I didn't claim they were inconsistent, especially since I stated I have not yet read the transcript.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth -- merely trying to anticipate something Senator Obama's critics might say.

However, at least to me, there is not one singular incident that this firestorm is about. Far from it.

How many of Reverend Wright's sermons are you familiar with?

JasonF
03-18-08, 06:17 PM
What difference does it make, or more aptly given the words of Mr. Obama, should it make that his grandmother is white?

Read -- or better yet, listen to -- the speech.

And I too have close relatives, whom I love, that I disapprove stongly of either their words or actions. I try to avoid them, and most certainly don't allow my children to engage with them.

:shrug:

Senator Obama's entire political philosophy is about not pushing away those with whom we disagree, but trying to find commonalities and use those commonalities to build consensus. It's not surprising that he behaves the same way toward the grandmother who raised him or the pastor who brought him to his Lord and Savior.

classicman2
03-18-08, 06:24 PM
Was he lying last week, or was he lying today, or is the man an habitual liar?


trivia: What great movie is that line (paraphrased) from?

hint: Charles Laughton

JasonF
03-18-08, 06:29 PM
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth -- merely trying to anticipate something Senator Obama's critics might say.

Was he lying last week, or was he lying today, or is the man an habitual liar?

sigh

classicman2
03-18-08, 07:08 PM
Obama's political philosophy is like most politicians - saying what he thinks the people want to hear.

Let's not be totally naive.

NCMojo
03-18-08, 07:22 PM
C-man, I know you're a professional cynic and all that, but come on -- isn't it possible for a candidate to speak truthfully and from the heart?

I don't think Obama was being disingenuous whatsoever.

sracer
03-18-08, 07:24 PM
How many of Reverend Wright's sermons are you familiar with?
Give it time. When a larger body of Reverend Wright's sermon transcripts is made available, it will be painfully clear that Obama knew what Rev. Wright is all about. Connect THAT with Mrs. Obama's "I'm proud of America for the first time in my life" and there is a consistency that cannot be ignored.


C-man, I know you're a professional cynic and all that, but come on -- isn't it possible for a candidate to speak truthfully and from the heart?
ONLY if that truth lines up with political advantage.

I don't think Obama was being disingenuous whatsoever.
You have the right to be naive.

JasonF
03-18-08, 08:13 PM
C-man, I know you're a professional cynic and all that, but come on -- isn't it possible for a candidate to speak truthfully and from the heart?

I don't think Obama was being disingenuous whatsoever.

It's worth noting that Senator Obaa wrote today's speech himself -- no speechwriters. This is apparently the first time a presidential candidate or president wrote his own speech without assistance since Nixon's "Silent Majority" speech in 1969.

Venusian
03-18-08, 08:39 PM
from what i read, i gathered his answer was that if all Wright said was the stuff you saw on tv or youtube, he would have quit the church...but that wasn't all he said. those are basically all the bad things, none of the good. that may be true...it may not. I don't know

General Zod
03-18-08, 08:49 PM
I wasn't impressed with what Obama said. I don't care how close I am with someone or what they've done for me in the past - if they start shouting the kind of garbage that Wright has been shouting recently I would get as far away from them as possible. Especially seeing as Wright is trying to take advantage of his relationship with Obama to preach his crap to a wider audience. I think the high road for Obama would have simply been to say "The guy is a nutcase. He wasn't always - but he is now. I don't want to have anything to do with him." Instead we got this "I can't divorce him" stuff which really seemed like doubletalk to me.

I also don't believe Wright hasn't had influence on Obama during their "special relationship" with some of this controversial stuff. I think Obama is telling people he doesn't believe the things he is saying now because it is what people want to hear - I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in-between.

The more I listen to Obama the more he seems like a used car salesman trying to sell me that fantastic looking car that he knows will probably break down shortly after I pull it off the lot.

Venusian
03-18-08, 08:58 PM
but he hasn't gone crazy lately. this is the same stuff he's been preaching for awhile.

NCMojo
03-18-08, 09:04 PM
It's worth noting that Senator Obaa wrote today's speech himself -- no speechwriters. This is apparently the first time a presidential candidate or president wrote his own speech without assistance since Nixon's "Silent Majority" speech in 1969.
What? Really? Wow.

I honestly believe that that speech will stand the test of time. I think it's a stronger speech than his 2004 DNC speech, stronger than his "Yes, We Can" speech. Especially if he wins the nomination and the Presidency, I think we'll look back on that speech as one of his defining moments.

All right, I'll open up -- I think our nation is standing on the edge of a precipise. So many things can go wrong, so many things can tear us apart... if McCain or Clinton wins the nomination, I think we're going get more of the same old, same old, and we're going to plunge into that abyss. I think we'll have more partisan politics, more anger and hatred, more cynicism and mockery. With Obama, I think at least we have a chance to do something different -- a chance to be inspired, to try new things. An Obama presidency wouldn't be another four years of Clinton, or four more years of Bush. It would be a completely fresh start.

What scares me is the almost eerie comparison to 1968, with Obama in the RFK role as the charismatic choice of the people, Clinton in the Humphrey role as the party insider, and... well, I won't say that McCain is Nixon, although he might be his policy equal in some ways. I am afraid that there will be another Sirhan Sirhan. I am really starting to be afraid that somebody is going to try and take Obama out, some nutjob who listens to Fox News and the right-wing attack machine and buys into the crap about Obama being a secret Muslim who hates America. With all the hate and all the fear and all the fake macho patriotic bullshit... well, I mean, of course someone is going to take a shot at him, right? And I think that might just push this country right over the edge.

Go ahead, flame away. But ever since I read that speech, I've had that nightmarish vision in my head.

-eek-

Venusian
03-18-08, 09:07 PM
Fox News says that Obama is a secret Muslim?

Brent L
03-18-08, 09:10 PM
I find it ironic that here we have Obama spouting off that even though Wright said these horrible things that he can't just turn his back on him because of all the "good" that he's done. The irony comes in because of the fact that Obama was one of the guys really shouting that Don Imus should be fired for his simple "nappy-headed hos" comment, while Obama was totally ignoring all of the good that Imus did throughout his life. A quote from Obama:

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus, but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

NCMojo
03-18-08, 09:11 PM
Fox News says that Obama is a secret Muslim?
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/

Brent L
03-18-08, 09:33 PM
NCMojo, I don't think Obama has a chance at winning the presidency anymore, but let's say that he did somehow pull off a win. If that happened, I would fully support Obama as my President - not in terms of policy, but as the leader of my country. I wouldn't be one of those people that says "he's not my President" like so many do to Bush. Anyway, that said, I have a huge fear that if Obama wins, someone will try to hurt him. I thought it would happen before all of this stuff about his church, but now that all of this is coming out I really, really fear that it'll happen.

And other than the obvious harm to Obama that I'm worried about, I'm really worried that if some scumbag actually does try something, that it'll cause a huge uproar in the US. I'm talking a possible racial civil war or something. The extremists on both sides just flat out going at it in one way or another. It could be very, very bad for at least a short while.

General Zod
03-18-08, 09:33 PM
I find it ironic that here we have Obama spouting off that even though Wright said these horrible things that he can't just turn his back on him because of all the "good" that he's done. The irony comes in because of the fact that Obama was one of the guys really shouting that Don Imus should be fired for his simple "nappy-headed hos" comment, while Obama was totally ignoring all of the good that Imus did throughout his life. A quote from Obama:
Interesting perspective Brent. I wonder if the media will cover that. Since it is Obama .. I predict the answer will be NO.

Mojo - I agree with you. People don't like change and it drives them to do stupid things. I think it's a bit stupid to say it will be a right wing wacko or something because it can be anyone who fears the change or wants to make a different change. That could include a die hard Clinton supporter or an Al-Qaeda member who feels that taking him out would demoralize us. There will likely be a lot of people gunning for him and if he wins I certainly hope we do everything we can to protect him.

VinVega
03-18-08, 09:35 PM
I listened to the speech. I didn't hang on every word, but all in all I think he (Obama) did a great job, but then again I have a weakness for great oration.

I don't think it will change anyone's mind about him though (as evidenced by most of the reactions here). I think most people make their minds up very quickly about a candidate.

Brent L
03-18-08, 09:45 PM
Interesting perspective Brent. I wonder if the media will cover that. Since it is Obama .. I predict the answer will be NO.

I have a feeling that we'll start seeing that mentioned pretty soon, but we'll see. Click the link and read his other quotes at the time.

Irony is great.

JasonF
03-18-08, 09:54 PM
I don't think it will change anyone's mind about him though (as evidenced by most of the reactions here). I think most people make their minds up very quickly about a candidate.

Don't take this place as your model. Nobody around here has ever changed their mind about anything.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0