Barack Obama, declaring “that’s enough,” denounced Tuesday as “appalling” and “ridiculous” comments made in the last few days by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

He disputed characterizations of Wright as his mentor saying: “He was never my spiritual adviser, he was never my spiritual mentor — he was my pastor.”

He said he is still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago but noted the controversy “obviously has put strains on that relationship.”

Obama said Wright’s assertions that the U.S. government was somehow responsible for afflicting the black community with HIV were “ridiculous.”

"I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about," Obama said.

If bridging the gap between different kinds of people and promoting mutual understanding is in his DNA, then his comments about "typical white people" and bitter small-town Americans must be indicative of some kind of genetic defect. I recommend blood tests and full genome sequencing.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," he said.

I'm more saddened by the specatcle than outraged by the comments, but reasonable minds can differ.

"Close" is in the (mostly biased) eye of the beholder. A close or insufficiently distant relationship with some other (probably "fiery and controversial") black man would have been posited by those of a certain persuasion, whether or not Wright existed.

You've got to love this "logic." It doesn't matter that Wright actually is (was) close to Obama, because if he weren't then SugarBear just "knows" someone would falsely claim that some other guy who wasn't close to Obama was.

So the fact that SugarBear thinks someone would falsely accuse Obama of wrongdoing is an excuse for the actual wrongdoing.

That has always seemed like a double standard to me, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified. One difference is exemplied by this: 90%. That's the percentage of the black vote that Obama is getting. When there's that extreme level of racial solidarity, it's not quite as unreasonable to wonder about "thinking mostly alike."

Numbers way above the numbers he was polling when the campaign started. He earned a hell of a lot of those votes.

Is this going to be the catchall presidential campaign thread all the way to the fall election? If so, we should pass Katrina/Red Cross around Memorial Day.

So the fact that SugarBear thinks someone would falsely accuse Obama of wrongdoing is an excuse for the actual wrongdoing.

What wrongdoing?

So the fact that SugarBear thinks someone would falsely accuse Obama of wrongdoing is an excuse for the actual wrongdoing.

What wrongdoing?

I used "wrongdoing" as short for the behavior in question, which is being closely associated with someone like Wright for a long time. (I was going to use the word "sin" to distinguish it from crime, but I was afraid it would sound too much like a theological claim, and I meant it in the lay sense. So I settled on "wrongdoing," which covers any sort of bad behavior.

That has always seemed like a double standard to me, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified. One difference is exemplied by this: 90%. That's the percentage of the black vote that Obama is getting. When there's that extreme level of racial solidarity, it's not quite as unreasonable to wonder about "thinking mostly alike."

This is willfully stupid. Do all Obama voters think mostly alike, or just the black ones?

Nearly 80% of Jews have voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections. Do they think mostly alike?

Is this where I denigrate Obama for being gutless?

I used "wrongdoing" as short for the behavior in question, which is being closely associated with someone like Wright for a long time. (I was going to use the word "sin" to distinguish it from crime, but I was afraid it would sound too much like a theological claim, and I meant it in the lay sense. So I settled on "wrongdoing," which covers any sort of bad behavior.

So Obama's "wrongdoing," which involved friendship but no demonstrable ideological influence, is to be regarded more benignly than ordinary "pandering," a la McCain and the Rev. Hagee, which involved vote begging from a notorious bigot.

Just to go on the record once again, to me McCain's begging is the sort of ordinary BS that goes on all the time on all sides, and doesn't mean that he's actually buying into Hagee's views, but on the face of it there's still a clearer ideological link between those two because of the nature of the "beg" than there is between Obama and his pastor. Perhaps Obama's made similar begging trips to Farrakhan, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Andy, no matter how hard you try, you can't make a 20 year relationship magically disappear.

This is willfully stupid. Do all Obama voters think mostly alike, or just the black ones?

Nearly 80% of Jews have voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections. Do they think mostly alike?

Not in that case, but when they do feel under siege, you can bet that they sure as hell do. Is that surprising? Do you really think many blacks are likely to blow off these attacks on Obama's character as "mere politics"?

Andy, no matter how hard you try, you can't make a 20 year relationship magically disappear.

Hmmm, let's see you try that line of reasoning out on Barry and Greg.....

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

Andy, no matter how hard you try, you can't make a 20 year relationship magically disappear.

And no matter how hard you try, you still haven't shown the slightest bit of ideological influence going on. You even admit this yourself, for crissakes.

Andy, why are you making it a black and white issue. Why does it have to be either Obama shares all of Wright's views or Obama and Wright are diametrically opposed? I think Ray, among others, is saying it's of questionable judgement and possible influence to willingly sit in front of the this man's sermins for 20 yrs and select him as a personal and political adviser.

You're eerily acting as you accuse Bonds apologist's of doing. Since there's no PROOF bonds knowningly did steroids, we have to zero out any finger pointing at him in this arena.

Andy, why are you making it a black and white issue. Why does it have to be either Obama shares all of Wright's views or Obama and Wright are diametrically opposed?

Tell you what, Frida. You show me one (o-n-e) instance where any (a-n-y) of Wright's "controversial" views have ever (e-v-e-r) been echoed by Obama. I'll then begin to take any of this BS on a serious philosophical level, as opposed to acknowledging it as a wedge issue that's hurt Obama in the polls.

I'm going out for a few hours of fresh pool room air, but with two hours of googling at your disposal you should be able to come up with something.

Not in that case, but when they do feel under siege, you can bet that they sure as hell do. Is that surprising? Do you really think many blacks are likely to blow off these attacks on Obama's character as "mere politics"?

Huh? The question was whether Wright's views are attached to Obama more than [insert crazy conservative preacher who supports McCain's]'s views are attached to McCain because blacks are thought to be less independent minded than whites.

When I asked whether there was sufficient anger in Obama's voice and on his face, I was being completely sarcastic. Then I browsed some websites and saw this on The New Republic site. I assume it's serious:

Having caught the second half of the presser and read quotes from the rest, it seems to me that Obama did a skillful job today in denouncing Jeremiah Wright. The one thing I wonder about is whether Obama showed enough passion. With the caveat that I did not see his initial opening statement, there was a certain coolness to his remarks. I know it's not so hip to cite David Gergen, but I thought the man had it right on CNN last night when he said Obama needed to show real, visceral anger at Wright--and I didn't see much evidence of that (although Obama did say twice that he was "angry").

A classic of the genre.

Sigh.

Nearly 80% of Jews have voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections. Do they think mostly alike?

Are you kidding? Ever heard the expression, "Two Jews, Three Opinions"?

Then there's the one about the Jew stranded on a desert island. When he's rescued, they see that he has built two synagogues. Confused, they ask him why he would build two synagogues when he's the only one on the island. He says, "The one on the left is the one I daven in. The one on the right is the one I wouldn't be caught dead in."

Andy, you seem to willfully ignore the position as posed to you, by constantly retorting with 'The Google" challenge, which further proves that this issue is black or white to you. Enjoy the bubble that you've built for you and your candidate of hope.

I think Ray, among others, is saying it's of questionable judgement and possible influence to willingly sit in front of the this man's sermins for 20 yrs and select him as a personal and political adviser.

We can guesstimate that over a 20-year period Wright preached roughly 1000 sermons at Sunday services. Let's assume that Obama was in the pews for most of them. Do you have any idea how many of them strayed into political subjects? You can say "20 years" as often as you want, to imply that his message was always the same, but you don't have a clue how frequently he went off on controversial rants like the ones that have been publicized.

How many of the sermons available through the church web site strayed into political subjects? Anyone know?

The Pope labelled the war in Iraq "immoral." Which means he effectively called the U.S. immoral. More or less anti-American than Wright citing Ed Peck's analysis on T.V. of the source of radical Muslim hatred of the U.S., in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

So Obama's "wrongdoing," which involved friendship but no demonstrable ideological influence, is to be regarded more benignly than ordinary "pandering," a la McCain and the Rev. Hagee, which involved vote begging from a notorious bigot.

Well, when McCain says that he never heard Hagee say anything like that, he might actually be telling the truth. Unlike Obama.

And no matter how hard you try, you still haven't shown the slightest bit of ideological influence going on. You even admit this yourself, for crissakes.

Right, but what nobody admits -- other than yourself, of course -- is that the issue is "ideological influence." It's like arguing with an eight year old.

Normal person: "Obama is bad for associating with Wright."
Andy: "But you can't show that Wright has affected Obama's views."
Normal person: "True. But that's not my complaint. My complaint is that he associated with Wright."
Andy: "But you can't show that Wright has affected Obama's views."

Are you kidding? Ever heard the expression, "Two Jews, Three Opinions"?

Exactly my point, and one I knew fellow Tribe member would understand. Voting for the same candidate says very little about "thinking alike."

The Pope labelled the war in Iraq "immoral." Which means he effectively called the U.S. immoral. More or less anti-American than Wright citing Ed Peck's analysis on T.V. of the source of radical Muslim hatred of the U.S., in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

And he doesn't even wear a flag pin on his dress. I call on all three candidates to reject and denounce this hateful and divisive figure.

And he doesn't even wear a flag pin on his dress. I call on all three candidates to reject and denounce this hateful and divisive figure.

Sinead'ed.

Does anyone think it is possible that the actions of the last two days have been a planned cooperation by Wright and Obama's campaign? Wright gets in the spotlight again, says something controversial, which gives Obama a chance to 'reject and denounce him' to hopefully remove this issue as a distraction moving forward. This way, it looks more legitimate than if he had 'thrown him under the bus' in the Philadelphia speech for comments from the past, because now he is responding to something that just happened.

Are you kidding? Ever heard the expression, "Two Jews, Three Opinions"?

Don't the numbers above suggest "5 Jewish people, 2 opinions"?

And besides, isn't it a little troublesome to suggest, "Treat Jewish people as individuals because they think different, but not African Americans since they all think the same?"

Does anyone think it is possible that the actions of the last two days have been a planned cooperation by Wright and Obama's campaign?

I've heard this idea thrown out there today, and while I suppose it's possible, I tend to doubt it. It would have been a lot easier and more sensible for Wright to just go away and keep quiet for a few months.

The next few days will be telling, and I have a feeling we haven't seen the end of this saga.

Vowed not to get involved, but y'all overlooked the part where David says it's OK to think all black people think alike. "It's not that far-fetched" the douchenozzle continued "to think that along with their similar skin color could come similar political beliefs and food preferences." "After all, they are such a small part of the population, such an assertion is not without merit." How anyone takes anything you write seriously after all these years is beyond me. If anything, sociological research on race has shown that the relationship African-Americans have to their race is ambiguous and highly complex, rather than simple and unidimensional.

Crazy white people say batsht crazy and hateful things every day (especially on Fox- I must've heard the phrase "bomb them back to the stone age" at least 1000 times since 9/11), especially the ones possessed by that disease known as fundamentalism. GW Bush was let completely off the hook for his affiliation with them; Huckabee and Romney said crazier things than Wright did, and they were running for president. But they were crazy WHITE Christians so it's OK. We all have a fundie cousin or relative that says horrible things about the God smiting the gays every year at Christmas, how the liberals want to turn our kids to fags, and we've all learned to smile and nod. But linking the government to the spread of AIDS? Unforgivable! None of our crazy white relatives have ever said any such thing at Christmas dinner, even if it does contain more of a kernel of truth than anything about God sending locusts to a gay pride parade.

The rage and racism is only allowed to flow in one direction. It goes the other way and people get all "they're not supposed to think that! That's crazy! I though he was one of the nice ones, but he's a scary, scary, angry black man. Gosh, let's all join hands and pretend to be offended and astonished."

I concur.

“If Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well — based on his remarks yesterday I may not know him as well as I thought either,” Obama said.

I think this highlights the natural problem that throwing Wright overboard always presented for Obama: it calls his judgment into question in a new way. He welcomed this guy into his life for 20 years, spoke highly of him, had his family listen to him preach regularly -- and in all that time Obama completely misjudged him?

How anyone takes anything you write seriously after all these years is beyond me. If anything, sociological research on race has shown that the relationship African-Americans have to their race is ambiguous and highly complex, rather than simple and unidimensional.

You don't really even need sociological research, though you're plainly right about it. Anyone with an open and curious mind looking to learn can see it plain as day in the Obama/Wright saga itself.

I think this highlights the natural problem that throwing Wright overboard always presented for Obama: it calls his judgment into question in a new way. He welcomed this guy into his life for 20 years, spoke highly of him, had his family listen to him preach regularly -- and in all that time Obama completely misjudged him?

No, "completely misjudged" are your words and exaggerate what Obama said.

Pretty strong, google boy, but pretty hard to argue with. The idea of a party whose electoral successes over the past generation is joined at the loins with the Falwells and the Robertsons and the creationists---the idea of that party and its surrogates giving lectures about "repudiating" religious nutballs would be laughable if it weren't so successful.

Although to be fair about it, if the black religious nuts were as big a part of the Democratic Party as the white religious nuts are of the Republicans, we probably would see the Democrats doing the Harlem Shuffle around them. And if the white religious nuts were as marginalized within the larger society as the followers of Jeremiah Wright, I'm sure that the Republicans would be denouncing them, too. In both of these cases I wish there were some real principles involved, but we all know it's merely a matter of the numbers.

And I also loved that suggestion that blacks but not Jews are monolithic. This hardly needs any comment beyond the mere notation.

--------------

And no matter how hard you try, you still haven't shown the slightest bit of ideological influence going on. You even admit this yourself, for crissakes.

Right, but what nobody admits -- other than yourself, of course -- is that the issue is "ideological influence."

Of course without that ideological influence all you're left with is an association with no ideological influence. Which is even scarier, I guess.

Andy Posted: April 29, 2008 at 03:35 PM (#2762770)

Andy, why are you making it a black and white issue. Why does it have to be either Obama shares all of Wright's views or Obama and Wright are diametrically opposed?

Tell you what, Frida. You show me one (o-n-e) instance where any (a-n-y) of Wright's "controversial" views have ever (e-v-e-r) been echoed by Obama. I'll then begin to take any of this BS on a serious philosophical level, as opposed to acknowledging it as a wedge issue that's hurt Obama in the polls.

I'm going out for a few hours of fresh pool room air, but with two hours of googling at your disposal you should be able to come up with something.

Apparently not. And it's now pushing three hours.

But then we have Frida's word that Obama must have said something that parroted Wright---or is it that he didn't, but that it's irrelevant?

Insert "20 years" cliche at this point, and don't worry about proving that it's rubbed off on Obama, either. You can't lose in this little shell game.

I think this highlights the natural problem that throwing Wright overboard always presented for Obama: it calls his judgment into question in a new way. He welcomed this guy into his life for 20 years, spoke highly of him, had his family listen to him preach regularly -- and in all that time Obama completely misjudged him?

Even more laughable than this, let's not forget that it was just a few short weeks ago (in what was supposedly one of the great speeches on race of all time) where he said he could no more disown Wright than he could disown black America or his white grandmother.

What exactly happened to make Saint Barack change his mind? I don't think Wright said anything about race or America over the weekend that was a single bit different from anything he had said before. The only thing I can tell that was different was that he called Obama a typical politician.

Here are some snippets from Obama's race speech that I found particularly interesting in light of today's developments:

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.

I guess Obama now admits that Wright is not like many of these other pastors.

Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way. But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man.

Well, what changed? Doesn't Obama still know all of these other great things about Wright? Doesn't Wright still do good things for the community? Doesn't Wright still have a 30 year record which is in sharp contrast to the "YouTube clips" of his sermons?

Why is Obama now "peddling a caricature" of Wright?

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.

Is Obama now "disowning" the black community?

And if I were Obama's grandmother, I'd make sure I have someone else looking after me...

We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue

And now, Obama is too.

What changed? Wright said the same things over the weekend that he said in the "YouTube" clips of his sermons. The only difference was that he told people that Obama had to say what Obama said since he is a "politician." I guess Obama misjudged Wright.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.

What changed? The statements over the weekend were just snippets of what Wright said. Shouldn't we look at _all_ of the comments Wright made over the weekend, instead of just these "soundbites"?

But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

What changed?

GW Bush was let completely off the hook for his affiliation with them; Huckabee and Romney said crazier things than Wright did, and they were running for president. But they were crazy WHITE Christians so it's OK.

It's definitely not okay. One of McCain's most appealing qualities is his distance from the religious wingnuts that have dominated the Republican party in the last 2 terms. I think it's a big factor in why McCain didn't just win the primary, but drubbed his competition.

We all have a fundie cousin or relative that says horrible things about the God smiting the gays every year at Christmas, how the liberals want to turn our kids to fags, and we've all learned to smile and nod.

I have no experience with this sort of behavior, but nobody in my family is particularly religious. I remember very heated discussions with my ex-wife's family in the political arena. At the very least, they didn't say things like that in front of me without being challenged on it.

But linking the government to the spread of AIDS? Unforgivable! None of our crazy white relatives have ever said any such thing at Christmas dinner, even if it does contain more of a kernel of truth than anything about God sending locusts to a gay pride parade.

There's a massive gap between "linking the government to the spread of AIDS" and "claiming the government purposefully created AIDS to kill black people." I seem to remember quite a few people who celebrated the death of the divisive and grotesque figure that was Jerry Falwell, and it doesn't get whiter or more Christian than him.

I also hold people like Wright, religious and intelligent men who cast a wide net of influence, to a higher standard than some idiot cousin who the rest of the family laughs at for being backwards.

GOOGLE BOY: "y'all overlooked the part where David says it's OK to think all black people think alike. "It's not that far-fetched" the douchenozzle continued "to think that along with their similar skin color could come similar political beliefs and food preferences." "After all, they are such a small part of the population, such an assertion is not without merit."

Whom are you quoting, Google Boy? I looked through the last 600 posts and what you quoted is not in there. Did you just make up that quote to defame someone you childishly refer to as "the douchenozzle"? I don't get it.

I guess what remains to be seen is whether Wright will have any further comment -- now that he's been cut loose -- of what Obama knew of his views.

I think this highlights the natural problem that throwing Wright overboard always presented for Obama: it calls his judgment into question in a new way. He welcomed this guy into his life for 20 years, spoke highly of him, had his family listen to him preach regularly -- and in all that time Obama completely misjudged him?

I'm an Obama supporter who thinks the Rev. Wright thing has been way overblown, but I think this has always been the problem that Rev. Wright presented for Obama. It's similar, in a way, to Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko. Obama's not a crazy fanatic like Wright (and I also don't think Wright's as crazy or fanatical as some people think) and he's not an alleged criminal like Rezko, but his associations with these sorts of characters raise questions about his judgment of people, which also ties into the criticism of him as being too inexperienced to be President.

Now, having said that, I see this as lowering my opinion of Obama from "the perfect candidate, likely to be the greatest President in 100 years" (okay, I never really believed that) to "imperfect, but still significantly better than his two opponents". But I think it's fair to accept that this does raise a valid issue.

What changed?

When Wright said it.

When Wright said it.

Actually, isn't the real answer where Wright said it, sort of a "what's said in church stays in church" feeling about rantings against "the Man".

Who are you quoting, Google Boy? I looked through the last 600 posts and what you quoted is not in there. Did you just make up that quote to defame someone you childishly refer to as "the douchenozzle"? I don't get it.

Paraphrasing, Rich. And when someone takes such a childishly ignorant view, I'm OK addressing them as such...to save you from any further searching, here's the original post:

Sugar Bear, tongue in cheek:
After all, white people each have their own views. Black people, well you just know they think mostly alike regardless of what they may say.

David Nieporent, inspired, no tongue in cheek, responds with this gem of rational thought:
That has always seemed like a double standard to me, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified. One difference is exemplied by this: 90%. That's the percentage of the black vote that Obama is getting. When there's that extreme level of racial solidarity, it's not quite as unreasonable to wonder about "thinking mostly alike."

I expect 100 or so posts from elitist racist ####### tomorrow trying to explain that this is more reverse racism, or that I'm wildly throwing around an unfounded accusation of racism. But I hope it's clear that suggesting a whole group of people, even if they're "only" 13% of the US population, think "mostly alike" is the very definition of a racist attitude.

Now, having said that, I see this as lowering my opinion of Obama from "the perfect candidate, likely to be the greatest President in 100 years" (okay, I never really believed that)

This also raises another point: Obama was getting points precisely because he stuck by Wright. That showed what "character" Obama had.

What to think of that now?

It's definitely not okay. One of McCain's most appealing qualities is his distance from the religious wingnuts that have dominated the Republican party in the last 2 terms. I think it's a big factor in why McCain didn't just win the primary, but drubbed his competition.

I thought it was because this time, unlike in 2000, McCain decided to embrace the fundies. Thus the solicitation of endorsements from, and appearances with, Parsley and Hagee, thus journeying to Falwell U. to give the commencement address, etc.

I expect 100 or so posts from elitist racist ####### tomorrow trying to explain that this is more reverse racism, or that I'm wildly throwing around an unfounded accusation of racism.

Google Boy, you flat made up what he said, not only distorting his comments but going so far as to put things in quotes that he never said -- or was even close to saying. I don't think that reflects well on you at all.

This also raises another point: Obama was getting points precisely because he stuck by Wright. That showed what "character" Obama had.

Only from pinkos like me, Ray. "Average" people were, as someone said above "horrified and disgusted" by Wright's "vile" words.

And I wouldn't call DN a douchenozzle, but google boy got him here. He DID imply all black people think alike with his comments, then turn around and say "but not jews" when presented with similar voting statistics (although X% jews < 90% blacks)

I think the proper comparison was % "those of greek ancestory" voting for Dukakis.

I thought it was because this time, unlike in 2000, McCain decided to embrace the fundies. Thus the solicitation of endorsements from, and appearances with, Parsley and Hagee, thus journeying to Falwell U. to give the commencement address, etc.

Yup. He decided his best shot at winning was to get into bed with the hatemongers, so that's what did.

This also raises another point: Obama was getting points precisely because he stuck by Wright. That showed what "character" Obama had.

What to think of that now?

You must be deathly afraid of his being elected.

What changed?

Wright was hell-bent on using the attention he got from Obama to advance his "extremist" views (using quotes b/c I refuse to participate in the marginalization of the man and his opinions just because the MSM has decided in advance of giving them serious consideration that they're extreme and/or unfounded). It was clear to Obama that their friendship was subordinate to Wright's desire to give his more controversial views a wider audience, which seems like the opposite approach than that Obama took when the controversy about Wright started. Wright basically called Obama a tool for his formal participation in organized politics- at least that was what I took to be the subtext of the clips I saw yesterday...

I don't have a horse in this right now, I like Obama but live in NYS so my vote doesn't count. Did see him speak in Washington Square Park and really enjoyed it. Several of my students were very "early adopters" with Obama and I've since come around to see what they found so energizing.

This also raises another point: Obama was getting points precisely because he stuck by Wright. That showed what "character" Obama had.

What to think of that now?

No win situation, and that he is reacting pretty much like anyone or everyone else.

One thing I did like about Bush was, even when asked rather relevant questions, he would just not answer them and claim to be above the media's gotcha games. Okay, not like, but amazed with.

Edit: comma.

For the record, almost 90% of all people who live in major cities vote alike for president. Finding large voting blocks in presidential elections isn't that hard to do. Suggesting that voting the same means thinking the same, but only if you're black, that takes...umm....

Google Boy, you flat made up what he said, not only distorting his comments but going so far as to put things in quotes that he never said -- or was even close to saying. I don't think that reflects well on you at all.

since it was so recent, i assumed most people at least read the post. sorry to be misleading, i was going for humorous mockery and missed the mark. i stand by my elitist racist douchenozzle charge...

btw, when did d0uchebag start getting censored? if this standard is being applied widely across the interwebs, it may account for the rising popularity of douchenozzle...

This also raises another point: Obama was getting points precisely because he stuck by Wright. That showed what "character" Obama had.

What to think of that now?

That yesterday, Wright effectively declared he was refusing any such gracious gestures from Obama.

GOOGLE BOY: "Paraphrasing, Rich. And when someone takes such a childishly ignorant view, I'm OK addressing them as such..."

Your supposed paraphrasing is a mischaracterization of that post. Further, you lied by putting those sentences in quote marks. It's pitiful that you lack the fortitude to address what someone actually says, as opposed to attacking a false characterization of that person's remarks which you put in quote marks.

I don't mean to demean you, here. I suppose it is the case that at the DeVry Institute for Bad Teachers, you never learned that quote marks actually mean you are quoting someone.

Now, to address what DMN said: "When there's that extreme level of racial solidarity, it's not quite as unreasonable to wonder about 'thinking mostly alike.'"

At DeVry, they must also have skipped over reading comprehension, Google Boy. Nieporent doesn't say or even imply that "it's OK to think all black people think alike." (Your false quote.) He implies that it is unreasonable to think that all whites think alike. He said it is unreasonable to conclude that all blacks think alike. However, he said it is "not quite as unreasonable" to wonder about the latter, in light of Obama's strong black vote.

In light of Obama's strong black vote, I still don't think it's reasonable to wonder, here. I think you have to consider two things:

1. It is down to two Democratic candidates, so all black voters in that party's primaries have to select either Clinton or Obama. When voters have a choice only between two candidates,* they may not agree with the one they are voting for on all or most issues. But they may have more disagreements with the other candidate. As such, their "unity" in thought can be misleading;

2. Voters don't always vote along policy or philosophy grounds. Ethnic and/or racial identification in voting goes all the way back to the large Dutch vote for Martin Van Buren in American politics. As such, Obama is probably attracting black Democrats who are pro- and anti-immigration; pro- and anti-Farrakhan; pro- and anti-leaving Iraq; pro- and anti-free trade; etc. As such, it is not so much that this larger group (90%) that supports Obama because they all share his views on the issues. Rather, they are attracted to him the same way Van Buren attracted New Holland to his candidacy.

* Earlier in the campaign, there were of course far more than two candidates. However, I think the polls showed that prior to the South Carolina primary, the black vote appeared to be more up in the air. I would guess that the events there combined with his success in Iowa demonstrated to a lot of undecided black voters that Obama was a winner and (due to normal ethnic politics) the one they wanted to back....

I mentioned this in another thread but it bears repeating: Mike Dukakis got similar percentages of Greek American votes in 1988. And in the general election, Greek-Americans, who are (I forget the exact ratio, but something like) 2:1 Republicans, voted overwhelmingly for Dukakis, despite their differences with him on issues like taxes and regulation and so on.....

The limits of this ethnic voting patterns would probably be seen, however, if a candidate, despite his ethnicity, held views strongly antithetical to a major principal of his own ethnic/racial group. If a Jew ran for office on an anti-Zionist platform, he wouldn't get the Jewish vote. If a Hispanic candidate ran on Tom Tancredo's platform, he wouldn't win many Hispanic votes.

This also raises another point: Obama was getting points precisely because he stuck by Wright. That showed what "character" Obama had.

What to think of that now?

You must be deathly afraid of his being elected.

Not at all. In fact, I expect him to be the next president (er, did expect; we'll have to see how the dust settles here, but probably he'll be ok). But he's no worse than Hillary, who I don't want either. (I also will not pull the lever for McCain, as I've said.)

My point above was that, rather than (initially) sticking by Wright out of principle, Obama was just being a politician. I don't fault him for that -- just as I don't fault Hillary for taking advantage of the Wright issue.

Obama thought it was best to stick by Wright then; he thinks it best to sever ties with Wright now. That's fair enough. I didn't give Obama character points for sticking by Wright then, so I don't think Obama has any less character now. But others _did_ give Obama such character points, so I was wondering how they view his character in light of today's developments.

Does anyone think it is possible that the actions of the last two days have been a planned cooperation by Wright and Obama's campaign? Wright gets in the spotlight again, says something controversial, which gives Obama a chance to 'reject and denounce him' to hopefully remove this issue as a distraction moving forward. This way, it looks more legitimate than if he had 'thrown him under the bus' in the Philadelphia speech for comments from the past, because now he is responding to something that just happened.

Possible? No. Brilliant hypothesis, but no. And for the same reason I don't think Cheney engineered 9/11. It's not that he wouldn't be perfectly willing to treat thousands of lives as though they were pawns in a chess game (the Iraqi dead say, or don't say, "hi"), it's just that conspiracies are brutally difficult to pull off.

That has always seemed like a double standard to me, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified. One difference is exemplied by this: 90%. That's the percentage of the black vote that Obama is getting. When there's that extreme level of racial solidarity, it's not quite as unreasonable to wonder about "thinking mostly alike."

This is willfully stupid. Do all Obama voters think mostly alike, or just the black ones?

Nearly 80% of Jews have voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections. Do they think mostly alike?

You're missing my point, I think, which I think is partly my fault for not expressing myself clearly. It isn't that blacks vote 90% for the same party; you might be able to find some other group that has a similar pattern in that respect. (Although I doubt any subgroup close to the size of black America is that extreme in its voting together; Jews are much smaller, more geographically concentrated, and still don't come up to that level.) It's that this is a situation where there essentially aren't any ideological differences at all between the candidates, and 90% are voting one way based solely on racial solidarity. I'm not saying that it's reasonable to say that blacks think identically on all issues by any means; I'm talking about issues related to race. 90% of Jews -- or even 80% -- did not vote for Joe Lieberman when he ran for president in 2004. So if blacks are going to "stick together" to that much of an extreme, why is it so odd to question how far that sticking together goes?

Andy, you must have missed or willfully ignored by response to your "Google Challenge". It's not our fault that you cling to this false dichotomy gotcha game like an 8 year old. As I said before, enjoy your bubble.

DeVry Institute, you never learned that quote marks actually mean you are quoting someone.

#####, my school kicks your school's ass. But I'm not the one who raised the issue. I may not devote as much of my considerable intellectual gifts to reading and writing about baseball as you do, but when it counts, I got it. And talking politics with this elitist, racist douchnozzle is not where it counts....

In response to SB's tongue-in-cheek suggestion that black people think alike, DN suggested that we should entertain the possibility that all black people think alike. He did not suggest this about any group other than african americans. Jews? Not a chance. We even have several posts above confirming that, yes in fact, Jewish people whether by culture or nature, have differences of opinions. Those of African or partially African descent on the other hand, again DN does not speculate as to why, may in fact show similar thought patterns as evidenced by their voting preferences in a democratic primary...now, that's as stupid a suggestion as it is racist (that one group of people thinks alike because of the color of their skin), but just because it's both stupid AND racist doesn't mean it's neither, as Rich suggests...hell, i didn't even need to go to college at an overpriced, left-leaning private school to figure that out...just to placate you though, we can poll some DeVry students and see what they think...

GOOGLE BOY: "For the record, almost 90% of all people who live in major cities vote alike for president. Finding large voting blocks in presidential elections isn't that hard to do."

Are you just making this junk up? Let's see your source for that 90% figure. Or are you just "paraphrasing"?

since it was so recent, i assumed most people at least read the post. sorry to be misleading, i was going for humorous mockery and missed the mark. i stand by my elitist racist douchenozzle charge...

[Ignored Comment] is bliss, gb. Put two of your least favorite on the list, the guys there's never any real point discussing anything with, and I practically guarantee your BTF enjoyment factor will skyrocket.

It's that this is a situation where there essentially aren't any ideological differences at all between the candidates, and 90% are voting one way based solely on racial solidarity.

Well, maybe, but there are reasons to vote against HC that may be separate from "backing the black candidate." They may think HC is dishonest; they may think having another Clinton is dynastic; there may be black men who are sexist who would vote for a white male instead of for Obama because they think he is wimpy; there may be blacks who are more centrist who would prefer someone like Bill Clinton to Obama; there may be blacks who are way far left who'd vote for Kucinich instead of Obama; and there are almost certainly some who don't much like Obama but just think we should have a black pres; there may be some who think he is MLK and JFK in one man, etc.

You have two candidates with a lot of similarities: well-known senators, pretty leftist, celeb connections, fund-raising skill, big name buzz--so in that context, race wins. In another, it might not to the same degree. And, my biases are showing here, but while I have never lionized Obama and have always told my friends to remember that he, HC and McCain are first and foremost politicians trying to win, I do still really like the guy, think he has some brains and seems like a decent man with some empathy for others, and as such find him far more likable than HC, and I think a lot of people--white, black and green--agree. So, I think that while 90% of black voters arrived at the same conclusion, but not necessarily for the same reasons, and that to me means that it is very unlikely they are "thinking mostly alike." One can "wonder" about that, of course, but I don't see it.

My point above was that, rather than (initially) sticking by Wright out of principle, Obama was just being a politician. I don't fault him for that -- just as I don't fault Hillary for taking advantage of the Wright issue.

Obama thought it was best to stick by Wright then; he thinks it best to sever ties with Wright now. That's fair enough. I didn't give Obama character points for sticking by Wright then, so I don't think Obama has any less character now. But others _did_ give Obama such character points, so I was wondering how they view his character in light of today's developments.

Uh, no. Things have changed since the first utterances. Obama's actions are not incongruous. Once, he heard that Wright said some inflammatory things. He said those weren't appropriate. But now Wright is making an effort to aggravate Obama. That he can't stand for.

It's not that complicated.

Chris,

If you don't mind my asking, are you planning to vote for Obama? I know you are an independent, and I thought you were right of where Obama is on most issues. Sticking up for the guy a bit does not = vote for him in all cases of course.

"there essentially aren't any ideological differences at all between the candidates, and 90% are voting one way based solely on racial solidarity."

From your perspective or mine, David, there are no differences between the candidates. However, living where I do, in a left-wing (mostly white, though substantially Asian) college town, I am exposed to the fact that the far-left of the Democratic Party sees a serious difference between Clinton and Obama: the Iraq War.

This difference doesn't play out moving forward. But once Senator Clinton voted in favor of authorizing the war and (unlike say John Edwards) failed to flagellate herself over that vote, they wrote her off. The attraction to Obama came for many of them on this issue.

So for argument's sake, say one-fourth of all black Democrats fall into this category: they wanted someone other than Clinton on the grounds of the Iraq War or some other specific issue which may not seem crucial to you or me, but is to them.

It's also not unlikely that the 10 percent of black Democrats who are sticking with Clinton are doing so on a specific issue or personal identification: fondness for Bill's policies; her being a female; her greater experience; etc.

That leaves -- again, for argument's sake -- the other 65%. It would seem reasonable to conclude that, because they agree with Clinton and Obama on most of the issues or see no great issue dividing them, they are voting along grounds of racial/ethnic identification.

You have pointed out that other groups don't have this extreme a level of identity politics. However, I think it's important to note that most (or probably all) identifiable minority groups do have this general trend of supporting the person from your same group. (I would guess that 90% or more of American Indians in Colorado voted for Ben Nighthorse Campbell, for example.) And then it's worth noting that the black experience is substantially different from that of the Italian-American or Polish-American experience, having been drawn together tighter due to outside pressures and prejudices. And further, despite their large size, a very large percentage of black Americans are in the lower half of the economic spectrum. As such, they will tend to vote along similar lines because they have similar economic interests. And even those black voters who are better off may tend to vote along similar lines, if their personal incomes derive from the relative success of other black people who are less fortunate.

If you don't mind my asking, are you planning to vote for Obama? I know you are an independent, and I thought you were right of where Obama is on most issues. Sticking up for the guy a bit does not = vote for him in all cases of course.

Yes. Because I drink the Kool-Aid. Obama is undoubtedly a candidate of a different nature. The level at which he has said "This isn't about this mudslinging junk. We (all of us) can make it about problem solving." Hillary, of course, isn't interested in that.

McCain may well be. I like him too, but I don't believe he can hold off the Republican Nazis.

Yes.

You and Andy both like the guy. He is a uniter after all.

I watched his "Understand each other" speech. It was just great words. No politician cares about what I care about, but at least Obama wants to lift people above pettiness. He is asking all of us to be responsible for our own feelings and respect another's because we don't always know everyone else's circumstances. But even within your own mistrust of each other, to rise above that, and respect that each developed that mistrust "honestly".

And now that we all understand it's difficult, let's work together to just make things better.

He's asking for the nation to be more like BTF. How can I not vote for that?

Or maybe 90% of African American voters choose Obama because he is unlikely to personally racially slur Gandhi?

Those Blacks and South Asians, always sticking together.

Uh, no. Things have changed since the first utterances. Obama's actions are not incongruous. Once, he heard that Wright said some inflammatory things. He said those weren't appropriate. But now Wright is making an effort to aggravate Obama. That he can't stand for.

Chris, before this weekend the situation was:

Wright said some inflammatory things in snippets of sermons going back several years. Obama essentially ended up claiming, broadly, that he had heard or at least was aware of some of those statements. But Obama told us that, even though he didn't agree with Wright's statements, there were understandable reasons why Wright had made those statements. Obama then argued that these were just brief snippets repeated over and over again to make Wright look bad; Obama said that they were just snapshots in a 30 year career and were taken out of context.

I don't think the above is an unfair summary.

Now, what changed over the weekend? Two basic things happened:

1) Wright continued to make such inflammatory statements, thus blowing a hole in the argument that the clips of his sermons were just infrequent, isolated statements taken out of context. Obama had been arguing such, and when Wright proved otherwise -- confirming what many of his critics had thought -- it made Obama's judgment of the situation look bad.

2) Wright told us that Obama had to say what he said, because he's a politician. That both (A) conveyed Wright's view that Obama is just a regular politician, and (B) implied that Wright thinks Obama actually does subscribe to his views. That made Obama look bad.

The first item above was not a "change" in anything -- it simply revealed that Obama's argument that these were isolated statements "taken out of context" was at best naive, and at worst disingenuous.

I suppose the second item above can be classified as a "change," but at best it simply reveals how horrible Obama's judgment of Wright was, and at worst it reveals that Obama gambled that Wright would keep a low profile to avoid confirming Wright's true colors -- and lost.

I don't think Wright is "making an effort to aggravate Obama"; I just think that Wright is trying to defend himself and his views, and in so doing he's confirmed those views. That made the situation untenable for Obama, and he decided that severing ties was better than being joined at the hip with Wright.

He's asking for the nation to be more like BTF. How can I not vote for that?

May God have mercy on our souls.

First, it's only an unfair summary in the last four words (which seem forced). They are out of context of Obama's relationship with Wright. They are presented as though Obama was there saying "Amen", when that wasn't how it happened. So that completely does away with your #1.

And 2) Wright is clearly seeking the publicity. "Classified as a change". Is it your opinion that prior to Wright's recent comments Wright thought Obama was "just a regular politician"? Otherwise it is a dramatic change.

As for "revealing how bad Obama's judgment was" well, that's the same nonsense Obama is saying we shouldn't listen to. DO you think Obama should refuse to associate with the Republicans in Congress because they are pro-life, and moreover extremely pro-life? Is it bad judgment for Obama to be on friendly terms with half the country?

Your requirements for how much a person can associate with someone with differing views is, IMO, inappropriate.

First, it's only an unfair summary in the last four words (which seem forced). They are out of context of Obama's relationship with Wright. They are presented as though Obama was there saying "Amen", when that wasn't how it happened. So that completely does away with your #1.

First, that pre-supposes that Obama wasn't there for many of these controversial statements. I don't think that question has been settled yet, by any stretch, and it's hard to rely on Obama's candor here.

Second, I don't see how it does away with my #1. No matter when Obama first heard the controversial statements, he certainly was aware of them by the time these "YouTube clips" hit. And, yet, Obama pretended that the controversial statements were infrequent and represented a "caricature" of Wright. That was naive at best.

And 2) Wright is clearly seeking the publicity.

I wouldn't say Wright sought the publicity, so much as the publicity sought Wright. He instantly became a household name, and then laid low for a month, watching as he was attacked endlessly. Then he decided to come out and defend himself. I'm not saying he might not enjoy the publicity, but I at least think your causality arrow may be backwards.

DO you think Obama should refuse to associate with the Republicans in Congress because they are pro-life, and moreover extremely pro-life? Is it bad judgment for Obama to be on friendly terms with half the country?

Your requirements for how much a person can associate with someone with differing views is, IMO, inappropriate.

Chris, this was a bad argument when Obama made it, and it's no better an argument now. There's associating and then there's associating. Obama had a close 20 year relationship with Wright. And you're comparing that to someone Obama was friendly with from working together in Congress? Please with this.

You're missing my point, I think, which I think is partly my fault for not expressing myself clearly. It isn't that blacks vote 90% for the same party; you might be able to find some other group that has a similar pattern in that respect. (Although I doubt any subgroup close to the size of black America is that extreme in its voting together; Jews are much smaller, more geographically concentrated, and still don't come up to that level.) It's that this is a situation where there essentially aren't any ideological differences at all between the candidates, and 90% are voting one way based solely on racial solidarity.

What this overlooks is that before Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro opened their big yaps, the black vote wasn't nearly as concentrated in Obama's favor as it is now. Whether you or anyone else here wishes to acknowledge this, the fact is that many black people feel that the attacks on Obama via Wright have left them under a quasi state of siege, and in circumstances like that they're hardly likely to support the candidate who's been exploiting the issue for her partisan gain. What seems like a mere "political" attack to many whites seems much more "personal" to many blacks. And it's the biggest reason that Hillary will have absolutely NO chance of beating McCain in November. She'd be lucky to win ten states.

--------------

Andy, why are you making it a black and white issue. Why does it have to be either Obama shares all of Wright's views or Obama and Wright are diametrically opposed?

Tell you what, Frida. You show me one (o-n-e) instance where any (a-n-y) of Wright's "controversial" views have ever (e-v-e-r) been echoed by Obama. I'll then begin to take any of this BS on a serious philosophical level, as opposed to acknowledging it as a wedge issue that's hurt Obama in the polls.

Andy, you must have missed or willfully ignored by response to your "Google Challenge". It's not our fault that you cling to this false dichotomy gotcha game like an 8 year old. As I said before, enjoy your bubble.

Well, this was your entire "response" to my challenge to find one quote which would lend credence to your thought that this isn't "black or white":

Andy, you seem to willfully ignore the position as posed to you, by constantly retorting with 'The Google" challenge, which further proves that this issue is black or white to you. Enjoy the bubble that you've built for you and your candidate of hope.

Translation: "I can't find even one quote which would demonstrate that Obama's worldview has been influenced by Wright, so I'll pretend that "20 years of association" is just as bad or worse."

And what exactly is this "middle position" that you allude to but never quite spell out? Is it that Obama's association with Wright has hurt him politicaly? Well, duh. Is it that his association with Wright alone disqualifies him in your eyes? If so, then just say it, and more power to you---but what makes this a "middle" position, as opposed to a "black and white" one? What is your "not black or white" position, anyway? And what evidence do you base that position on, beyond what we already know about "20 years"?

This Wright issue is "black and white" for me for the simple reason that after all the huffing and puffing, Jeremiah Wright has had about as much demonstrable influence on Barack Obama's political views as Mary Matalin has had on James Carville's, or vice versa. And we're not electing a preacher; we're electing a President.

Chris, this was a bad argument when Obama made it, and it's no better an argument now. There's associating and then there's associating. Obama had a close 20 year relationship with Wright. And you're comparing that to someone Obama was friendly with from working together in Congress. Please with this.

That's the problem. It's a good argument. My sisters and I have vastly different views on abortion. Should I denounce them? MY oldest friend and I do as well. I have terrific friendship of a guy a work who believes things I could never believe - far right ideas, but we have plenty of other stuff in common, and we work closely everyday.

That Wright is misguided in some areas doesn't mean he cannot provide caring and sensitive advice on many other things. I find it close-minded to think that if a person is off his rocker in an area or two that he cannot provide value elsewhere.

It's *ONLY* poor judgment if you are looking for political influence or looking to make sure one only associates with the right people. You want Obama to explain "I didn't inhale". ANd it's not bunk. Lift yourself out of that mire.

Has anything Obama has done in his career indicated Wright's influence, or that he has poor judgment in his decisions because he had a relationship wiht Wright? Wouldn't the billions of other good decisions Obama has made override the singular "be in Wright's church" one you find so reprehensible?

Where do you think the "judgment he used"in being iun Wright's church is going to rear its ugly head as President? He's going to start playing poker with Kim Il Jong? He's going bowling with Chavez? These guys will start giving Obama policy advice?

It IS the crap that Obama is preaching against - Obama has made tons of policy and public decisions, none of which can you in anyway link to "influenced by Wright's rhetoric", or "shows the same bad judgment that would also allow him to be in Wright's church".

It's nonsense, and I defy you to offer any demonstration otherwise.

Obama said that they were just snapshots in a 30 year career and were taken out of context.

As I suggested above, what changed was precisely the context of Wright's statements. As I think I tried to explain in an earlier thread (or, hell, maybe it was earlier in this thread, that was a long time ago), for example, his "God D**m America" statement within context was a theological statement about God and man and governments doing and not doing God's will. I don't agree with his theology there, but that's a theological argument that's at least somewhat "mainstream" and is wholly appropriate inside a church. Criticizing the government in a speech to the National Press Club, however, moves beyond a theological position and into a political position which gives the statements a different (and, in my opinion - and I would guess Obama's too - a more troubling) connotation.

I guess I'm just curious whether Ray and friends actually believe that this will manifest in any negative policy. After all, I can't imagine one way in which Obama could manifest Wright's views in policy destructive to the country, and the relationship with the extreme right that you dismiss with this "20 years" retort that is just as annoying and not nearly as funny as "I want my two dollars", has delivered decades of horrible policy.

I don't care if Bush was best friends with Falwell or not. This abstinence only and war on drugs stuff has ravaged whole communities.

As I suggested above, what changed was precisely the context of Wright's statements. As I think I tried to explain in an earlier thread (or, hell, maybe it was earlier in this thread, that was a long time ago), for example, his "God D**m America" statement within context was a theological statement about God and man and governments doing and not doing God's will.

Not "governments." "Government." In the Moyers interview he tried this same explanation, tried to broadly apply his anti-American statements to "governments" plural. Yet, the only "government" he cited in his sermon, in a long list of transgressions, was that of the USA.

There's associating and then there's associating. Obama had a close 20 year relationship with Wright. And you're comparing that to someone Obama was friendly with from working together in Congress? Please with this.

With committee and subcommittee hearings, meetings, time on the Senate floor, and encounters in the cloakroom, a Senator can probably see some colleagues more in one year than they see their own spouses. Probably more than they see their ministers in 10 or even 20 years.

Most encounters with a church pastor are once a week for an hour or two at a time. And the encounters in this case were in a huge church with thousands of other members, many of them more prominent than Obama for most of his membership there (hello, Oprah). What makes you think Obama had some sort of monopoly on Wright's time beyond Sunday services, or that Wright had a monopoly on Obama's time? You can describe a relationship with your priest or rabbi or minister as "close" in a spiritual sense without actually spending much time with them at all.

Also, Wright's comments yesterday blew no holes in Obama's argument about the frequency with which Wright had expressed such things when he was present. Wright was repeating the controversial statements, and expanding on them yesterday, because he was asked about them. It's ridiculous to extrapolate that into a blanket claim about what Wright was saying in the 998 other sermons he preached, let alone in other encounters with Obama or other parishioners. I read comments elsewhere today today that a lot of Trinity United's membership were shocked to see Wright go so overboard in his attempts to defend himself yesterday, because it bore little or no resemblance to what their typical encounters with him were like.

Not "governments." "Government." In the Moyers interview he tried this same explanation, tried to broadly apply his anti-American statements to "governments" plural. Yet, the only "government" he cited in his sermon, in a long list of transgressions, was that of the USA.

No, starting at the 4:32 mark of this video, Rev. Wright explicitly mentions the historical failures of the Roman, British, Russian, Japanese, and German governments.

I guess I'm just curious whether Ray and friends actually believe that this will manifest in any negative policy.

Assuming you're interested in a serious exchange, E-X -- instead of your normal tactic of asking me a question and then insulting me once I answer it -- I'll answer the question.

No, I don't claim that this will manifest itself in any negative policy (other than just the basic comment that I disagree with Obama's policies generally). But I think associations are relevant and reflect on abstract qualities like judgment and reputation -- qualities that a president needs in order to be a good president. After all, in picking a candidate we're on some level taking a leap of faith that he has the intangibles to succeed in the role.

I think many people in this country believe that associations are relevant in picking a candidate, just as I think many people are now pretending that associations are not relevant so that they can give Obama a pass because they like him.

Not "governments." "Government." In the Moyers interview he tried this same explanation, tried to broadly apply his anti-American statements to "governments" plural. Yet, the only "government" he cited in his sermon, in a long list of transgressions, was that of the USA.

Uh, this isn't true.

Assuming you're interested in a serious exchange, E-X -- instead of your normal tactic of asking me a question and then insulting me once I answer it -- I'll answer the question.

I'm sorry if you are insulted, perhaps it's because you insult me before answering the question and that changes the tenor of the conversation?

No, I don't claim that this will manifest itself in any negative policy (other than just the basic comment that I disagree with Obama's policies generally). But I think associations are relevant and reflect on abstract qualities like judgment and reputation -- qualities that a president needs in order to be a good president. After all, in picking a candidate we're on some level taking a leap of faith that he has the intangibles to succeed in the role.

How good have we been at doing that lately?

Not "governments." "Government." In the Moyers interview he tried this same explanation, tried to broadly apply his anti-American statements to "governments" plural. Yet, the only "government" he cited in his sermon, in a long list of transgressions, was that of the USA.

So if he critiqued the government of Bhutan for some inexplicable reason, you would feel better?

So if he critiqued the government of Bhutan for some inexplicable reason, you would feel better?

Depends whether he wore a Bhutan flag pin on his lapel.

Not "governments." "Government." In the Moyers interview he tried this same explanation, tried to broadly apply his anti-American statements to "governments" plural. Yet, the only "government" he cited in his sermon, in a long list of transgressions, was that of the USA.

No, starting at the 4:32 mark of this video, Rev. Wright explicitly mentions the historical failures of the Roman, British, Russian, Japanese, and German governments.

Yes, he mentions that these governments "failed." But he doesn't list any transgressions for them. Instead, he delivers a laundry list of transgressions for the US government.

But I think associations are relevant and reflect on abstract qualities like judgment and reputation -- qualities that a president needs in order to be a good president. After all, in picking a candidate we're on some level taking a leap of faith that he has the intangibles to succeed in the role.

For whom did you vote in 2000, and 2004, if you don't mind my asking?

I'm sorry if you are insulted, perhaps it's because you insult me before answering the question and that changes the tenor of the conversation?

A fair point for this particular exchange, but in other exchanges you've taken the lead. But fine.

No, I don't claim that this will manifest itself in any negative policy (other than just the basic comment that I disagree with Obama's policies generally). But I think associations are relevant and reflect on abstract qualities like judgment and reputation -- qualities that a president needs in order to be a good president. After all, in picking a candidate we're on some level taking a leap of faith that he has the intangibles to succeed in the role.

How good have we been at doing that lately?

Not so good, but that doesn't really speak to my point.

Nor does it mean that Obama will be any better.

For whom did you vote in 2000, and 2004, if you don't mind my asking?

Bush and Bush, with the further explanation that I was happy to vote for Bush over Gore in 2000, but I chose the lesser of two evils in 2004; I wanted to vote for the Democratic candidate in 2004 -- I would have if it were Lieberman -- but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry.

E-X,

I asked the negative policy question awhile back. Ray's answer then was "I haven't the foggiest clue" after he said "I object to the question."

Joey took up the "foggiest clue" quote, and said that Obama is a "tyro" and said the fact (in his opinion) that we don't know enough about him is a problem.

Earlier in this thread, (prev page) Good Face said that he feels it is legitimate to be concerned that Obama might "tolerate or even encourage" "other Wrights" in the administration.

I think DMN has talked about it as well; I do not remember what he said.

I guess I'm just curious whether Ray and friends actually believe that this will manifest in any negative policy. After all, I can't imagine one way in which Obama could manifest Wright's views in policy destructive to the country, and the relationship with the extreme right that you dismiss with this "20 years" retort that is just as annoying and not nearly as funny as "I want my two dollars", has delivered decades of horrible policy.

I think Obama will offer plenty of negative policies -- he is a big government type, after all -- but I don't think any of them will be caused by his association with Wright.

I don't care if Bush was best friends with Falwell or not. This abstinence only and war on drugs stuff has ravaged whole communities.

I agree that the WoD has been horrible, but it's unfortunately been quite bipartisan. (Democrats sometimes talk a slightly better game, but they never do anything more than lip service.)

As for abstinence-only, it's hard to see how telling kids not to have sex can "ravage" anything, let alone a community. Studies done of the federal promotion of abstinence (which, yes, pre-date Bush) show that it had absolutely no effect on anything. People who received such education were no more or less likely to have sex, to delay having sex, to have multiple partners, or to use contraception. (Yes, that's right: contrary to the spin put on by liberal activists, abstinence-only didn't keep kids from using contraception. One thing about abstinence-only programs are that they unite liberals and conservatives in believing, loonily, that schools have a much bigger influence than they do. As if anybody who owns a television -- or has access to the internet -- needs 50 minutes of health class to teach them what sex and contraception are.)

I was happy to vote for Bush over Gore in 2000, but I chose the lesser of two evils in 2004

I'm okay with anyone who voted for either of the candidates in 2000. I'm also okay with anyone who voted against either of the candidates in 2004.

I'm okay with anyone who voted for either of the candidates in 2000. I'm also okay with anyone who voted against either of the candidates in 2004.

There are more than two candidates on the ballot. (If you mean candidates with a realistic chance to win, for the majority of us who live in solid-colored states, there's only one candidate on the ballot, not two. Makes it easy for me to have voted for Browne/Badnarik; I didn't have to worry about the effect of my vote on the outcome. Had NJ been in play in 2004, I'd have voted against Kerry too, I think. Fortunately, didn't have to make that choice.)

Instead, he delivers a laundry list of transgressions for the US government.

I believe it was SugarBear Blanks here who referred to Rev. Wright as being in the "prophetic tradition". Now, this is a strain of theology that I'm not particularly comfortable with, and because of this, I wouldn't choose to attend Rev. Wright's church. But, the role of the Old Testament prophet is to warn those who would listen to repent and change their ways or face the wrath of God. In that light, Rev. Wright's purpose here is to warn America of its failures in the eyes of God. There's no point to pointing out the specific transgressions of the Russian government (assuming he means either the Czarist government or the Soviet government), as it's too late for that government. He's trying to save America, by pointing out the ways that it has failed God in the hopes that it might redeem itself - a recurring theme of the snippet of the sermon that I linked above is that governments can change, both for ill (Bush) but also for good (Truman, Clinton).

There are more than two candidates on the ballot.

I suppose to be exacting about it I should have said "either of the major-party candidates on the ballot", but I figured people would know what I meant.

just as I think many people are now pretending that associations are not relevant so that they can give Obama a pass because they like him.

I am not saying "associations are not relevant". It depends on the association, and the actions one has other than a given association.

I think Obama will offer plenty of negative policies -- he is a big government type, after all -- but I don't think any of them will be caused by his association with Wright.
---Nieporent

Among the 1,001 things that are more than a bit revealing about this entire Wright discussion is the fact that the Clintonites and the Republicans have spent infinitely more time fretting about a preacher with no demonstrable influence on Obama's political views than they have examining the ideas of the people who actually have influenced Obama. Though that would seem to be a bit more relevant.

But then in 2000 it didn't seem all that important to examine the views of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, either. They were just ordinary, middle of the road Washington types---never a "black and white" thought in their moderate makeups---who would never dream of associating with any nutballs like Jeremiah Wright, so obviously America was going to be in middle of the road and rational hands. It's so nice to know that Obama is the only candidate who's associated with questionable types.

Not so good, but that doesn't really speak to my point.

Nor does it mean that Obama will be any better.

Well, we've agreed that it will not affect policy, and I'm happy to hear that he associated with the African American church leaders in our area.

As for whether Obama will be better than Bush--how could he possibly be worse? Are you hyperbolizing?

I think he will be great, although not nearly progressive enough.

Among the 1,001 things that are more than a bit revealing about this entire Wright discussion is the fact that the Clintonites and the Republicans have spent infinitely more time fretting about a preacher with no demonstrable influence on Obama's political views than they have examining the ideas of the people who actually have influenced Obama.

It's only "revealing" to you, Andy, because you've been out to lunch for this entire discussion, harping on "demonstrable influence on Obama's political views" when not a single person other than you has been interested in discussing that line of inquiry.

As for whether Obama will be better than Bush--how could he possibly be worse? Are you hyperbolizing?

Well, I actually said that there's nothing to guarantee that Obama will be "any better," but I can imagine someone being worse than Bush, yes. Bush has been quite bad, but not historically bad (and certainly not Evil). But that's a debate for another 2399-post thread.

Among the 1,001 things that are more than a bit revealing about this entire Wright discussion is the fact that the Clintonites and the Republicans have spent infinitely more time fretting about a preacher with no demonstrable influence on Obama's political views than they have examining the ideas of the people who actually have influenced Obama.

It's only "revealing" to you, Andy, because you've been out to lunch for this entire discussion, harping on "demonstrable influence of Obama's political views" when not a single person other than you has been interested in discussing that line of inquiry.

Which is exactly my point, that so many people are interested in dwelling on a man who has had no influence on Obama's political views; and no corresponding interest in examining the views of the people who might actually have some influence on him! Not to mention the lack of interest in probing the views of those folks who might actually influence Hillary or McCain. It's only nutball preachers with no demonstrable influence who seem to arouse your.....attention.

It's as if the entire 1980 campaign had been devoted to the views of Nancy Reagan's astrologer, and that George H.W. Bush and the media had devoted two entire months to parsing everything the astrologer had said, and with great solemnity "raised questions" about Ronald Reagan's "relationship" with such an obviously screwball wife.