But RR: Do you think that associations are not relevant? If so, did you always think this?

Of course not, but I don't see the Wright association anywhere near the same way you do, for a wide range of political, cultural, intellectual, and, admittedly, emotional reasons. This is in part why I have changed my role in Wright discussions more to questions and observations, with less out-and-out advocacy. The gap is massive.

Chris Matthews feels a "tingle" when Obama speaks.

I have heard Wm. Bennett and any number of other Repunditcan types say similar things about Reagan. Some people like to listen to Obama speak; you apparently don't, other than to parse what he says about Wright. Some people find Obama inspiring; you seem to think he's basically at best a phony clown with poor judgment who is too liberal for you anyway. Fair enough.

And, I think many right-wing pundits have pissed on Matthews for that. I have seen it 4 or 5 times. It is not under all that many media-driven radars.

On a completely different subject, my wife tells me that the cat needs anxiety medication. At this rate, I'm going to need anxiety medication, never mind the cat.

As a cat owner, I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, how does one make such a determination?? What's the desired effect? How do you administer the medication other than seizing the wee beastie and forcing it down his throat?

This is far more interesting to me than Obama at this point...

Are there more than one pastors to Obama's congregation?

Techincally, yes, but Jeremiah Wright is the senior pastor at Trinity UCC. He recently stepped aside for a younger pastor (Morehouse grad out of Atlanta, coming out of church in Augusta GA) but he's the spiritual head of the church, no doubt. But the notion that Obama is somehow a Manchurian candidate for Wright's more radical liberation theology cuts universally against the grain of what we know about the candidate. Obama came to Chicago as a community organizer with no real religious conviction. He was told by many people that he'd have a better go at his mission if he worked with the local black christian community. He eventually landed with Trinity, specifically because of their "both arms of the cross" message. (i.e. you don't stop being a member of the faith when you leave the church, which is what Obama was interested in as an organizer.) In due time, he came to a conversion moment due to the ministry of Wright. But if you read Obama's clear and concise accounting of this in "Dreams of My Father" you'll see that nothing about Wright's ministrty to Obama was wrapped up in his more radical/conspiratorial ideas.

I'm not trying to say Wright wasn't Obama's primary pastor and spiritual guide, but any vaguely rational mammal can distinguish between what Barack Obama believes about his faith and his relation to his country, and what Jeremiah Wright believes.

In another forum, I asked a Catholic (in an admittedly antagonistic style) "did you convert to The Church because of it's history of torture and murder, it's historically rabid anti-semitism, or it's more recent harboring and denfense of child molestors?" That's the sort of guilt by association I see going on here. Obama is being tarred as some sort of Wright-controlled puppet, a golem run by the scary black man with the funny Afro-centric robes, as if he's not clearly and _obviously_ his own man. At the same time no one seems to care that John McCain is rushing head long into the political embrace of similarly wing-nutty religious "leaders." That makes me wonder, and it sort of pisses me off.

Republicans and the moronic failures that support them should be rounded up en masse and thrown in jail.

I say that the far left wing international socialist scum in America should all have their birth certificates and social security numbers revoked and be put on a slow boat to China. So there.

How do you administer the medication other than seizing the wee beastie and forcing it down his throat?

My cat (old, previously abandoned, adopted her late in her life) is on meds--not anxiety meds, but I have heard of that before. Some meds you can grind up in the food and it will still have an effect. Getting the stuff down their throats is not easy, but they get better after you do it a few times.

So, MH1F, is your anxiety due to the cat, Hampton leaving his rehab start, or the election?

Seriously, how does one make such a determination??

I gather it's sort of hazy. If the cat is running around exhibiting anxious behavior, and things like changing its food, changing its litterbox location, changing its litter, etc. don't reduce this behavior, there is a limited amount you can do until they invent a cat-English translator. Apparently, at this point the vet starts recommending that you put the cat on Valium. I swear I am not making this up.

What's the desired effect?

To get the cat to stop ####### on the carpet. Or behind the washing machine. Or in the log bucket. Or on my wife's luggage. Or, you know, pretty much anywhere but in the box.

How do you administer the medication other than seizing the wee beastie and forcing it down his throat?

I really am not looking forward to finding out the answer to this question.

And, I think many right-wing pundits have pissed on Matthews for that. I have seen it 4 or 5 times. It is not under all that many media-driven radars.

It was a really weird thing to say and more than a little out of place.

The article MCofA (#2499) linked from Harper's expresses what I have read in many books on World War I:

It didn't matter that ... the empire's civilian leaders had been stunned by (Field Marshal Ludendorff's) announcement, in September of 1918, that his last, murderous offensives on the western front had failed, and that they must immediately sue for peace. The suddenness of Germany's defeat only supported the idea that some sort of treason must have been involved.

I should add that, as Kevin Baker stresses here, the treason myth was propagated by German nationalists for their own purposes in the years after the war. I don't know if most Germans, in Nov. 1918, first thought "treason" as the reason for the defeat.* But it's important to understand that the German people were overwhelmingly shocked, in 1918, by the announcement that their army had quit. They had no idea up to that point that things were going badly for Germany; and they couldn't understand why foreign troops were immediately allowed, without a fight inside Germany, to occupy the western part of their country and why France was given back its pre-1870 territory.

* I do believe this was the case, but I doubt there are any polls to prove it.

I really am not looking forward to finding out the answer to this question

Picture yourself as McNamee and the cat as Clemens.

It was a really weird thing to say and more than a little out of place.

Yep, particularly for a guy whose show is called "Hardball." I don't blame Repubs for going off on Matthews, but there are also plenty of high-profile mediatypes who are not at all into Obama.

Republicans and the moronic failures that support them should be rounded up en masse and thrown in jail.

I say that the far left wing international socialist scum in America should all have their birth certificates and social security numbers revoked and be put on a slow boat to China. So there.

And they'd both be happy, because the far left wing international socialist scum, not being particularly bright, would believe the Peoples Republic rhetoric; while the Republicans and the moronic failures who support them, being quite a bit more focused on the bottom line, would quickly see past the rhetoric and discover that they and their Chinese counterparts were brothers under the skin. The buzz they'd feel once they figured this out might even rival Chris Matthews' famous tingle.

So, MH1F, is your anxiety due to the cat, Hampton leaving his rehab start, or the election?

Mainly, the cat. I never realized just how stressful it could be to have a cat until I started fretting about what it was doing every minute because it couldn't be trusted not to #### on things. To say nothing of the effect that locking a cat up in a small area of the house, so that its nightly accidents can be easily cleaned up in the morning, can have on your ability to sleep soundly -- those lungs may be small, but they are loud. And, of course, let's not leave out the sheer pleasure that is mopping up puddles of cat urine twice daily.

I feel sorry for anybody who has anxiety issues stemming from Mike Hampton injury problems -- that poor guy must be needing electroshock by now.

Some people find Obama inspiring; you seem to think he's basically at best a phony clown with poor judgment who is too liberal for you anyway. Fair enough.

That's not the case at all. I enjoy listening to Obama speak; I think he is intelligent (although clearly inexperienced politically) and reflects a deep understanding of social issues that other candidates do not. (Economic issues? Not so much.) I also think he's personable and could handle the job, even though I disagree with him politically. He also has a strong presence. I won't move to France if he's elected.

I don't blame Repubs for going off on Matthews, but there are also plenty of high-profile mediatypes who are not at all into Obama.

George Stephanopolus and Charlie Gibson, for example.

What's the desired effect?

To get the cat to stop ####### on the carpet. Or behind the washing machine. Or in the log bucket. Or on my wife's luggage. Or, you know, pretty much anywhere but in the box.

Ugh, my sympathies. Not much smells worse than cat pee. Mine is generally good with the box, but the odor is still unmistakable in the general vicinity. I suppose I should be thankful I have as few problems with her as I do.

Best of luck with the medicine administering!

Edit - Just read 2611... is this a new animal? Sounds like extreme behavior from a pet you've had for a while.

Edit - Just read 2611... is this a new animal? Sounds like extreme behavior from a pet you've had for a while.

We've had her for a bit less than a year now; this started up a little over a month ago. Our theory is that she's anxious because of the neighbor cats who come by to hang around the house and yowl at her through the windows. Unfortunately, we can't really keep them away, cats being cats.

We've had her for a bit less than a year now; this started up a little over a month ago. Our theory is that she's anxious because of the neighbor cats who come by to hang around the house and yowl at her through the windows. Unfortunately, we can't really keep them away, cats being cats.

Hrm. The behavior you're describing often comes when a cat feels extremely insecure about her territory. My advice is worth what you're paying for it, but I'd consider moving her litter box to a place in the house where she seems most secure. Maybe keep an eye out for areas she frequently marks with her cheek/anal glands as possible destinations. Ideally a place where you don't go often and where other cats can't see her.

If she's peeing on certain landmarks and it's possible to get rid of them, throw them away. Cats are creatures of habit, and once they start peeing on something, it's really hard to make em stop. Small rugs, your log holder, your wife's luggage, etc. Can always get new stuff.

Also make sure the litter box is very clean... some cats tolerate dirty boxes more than others, but they'll ALL go elsewhere when it gets to be too much, so don't give em an excuse.

If I was in your shoes, I'd definitely be exploring the valium option myself. Good luck!

Speaking, obviously, for myself, my concerns are character, judgment, honesty, and reputation. As to reputation, I think that who someone associates with, or forms a close longstanding relationship with of the kind they had, certainly has an effect on how the person is viewed by others, on how seriously he is taken by others, and on how deeply he is respected by others. Since the president is the face of our country, I want someone who will be respected.

I also think that judgment, character, honesty, and reputation are things which impact a president's decisionmaking ability, and therefore I think that if some of these are questionable, it can represent flaws in his decisionmaking ability in the abstract.

Do you honestly feel that one relationship in Obama's life outweighs every otehr decision he makes? Why would you make these arguments?

Oh because of this:

That's not the case at all. I enjoy listening to Obama speak; I think he is intelligent (although clearly inexperienced politically) and reflects a deep understanding of social issues that other candidates do not. (Economic issues? Not so much.) I also think he's personable and could handle the job, even though I disagree with him politically. He also has a strong presence. I won't move to France if he's elected.

So you are just trolling?

As to reputation, I think that who someone associates with, or forms a close longstanding relationship with of the kind they had, certainly has an effect on how the person is viewed by others, on how seriously he is taken by others, and on how deeply he is respected by others. Since the president is the face of our country, I want someone who will be respected.

Are you implying Obama wouldn't be respected or taken seriously, or viewed as less than then the President? Do you really believe that?

So you are just trolling?

Um, no. Just because I think that X doesn't make one an ideal candidate, or the best candidate, does not mean that I think X would prevent that person from being able to do the job.

Are you just trolling?

Are you implying Obama wouldn't be respected or taken seriously, or viewed as less than then the President? Do you really believe that?

As seriously, Chris. As seriously. These things are all relative. I said associations have an effect on how seriously he is taken by others.

I think, say, Sharpton wouldn't be taken seriously at all as president (except by Democrats, apparently, since they laughably invited him on stage to participate in the 2004 debates). I think Obama would be, but that this also reflects negatively on him.

In another forum, I asked a Catholic (in an admittedly antagonistic style) "did you convert to The Church because of it's history of torture and murder, it's historically rabid anti-semitism, or it's more recent harboring and denfense of child molestors?"

Could you phrase this in a non-antagonistic style?

Mike - I'm sorry about your cat. Have you tried catnip? Seriously, it's like cat pot. I'm actually not kidding at all, if you haven't tried it, get some today, put it on your cat's fur, pet it in, and on the rug to roll in.

Hrm. The behavior you're describing often comes when a cat feels extremely insecure about her territory.

That's one of the possibilities the vet suggested. We took the cat in for a check-up when it started happening, to make sure there wasn't anything physically wrong with her, and we've been fiddling ever since.

My advice is worth what you're paying for it, but I'd consider moving her litter box to a place in the house where she seems most secure.

Yeah, we moved her litter box something like four times; actually we did almost everything short of putting a box in every room in the house. There're still, like, four around the house in various places. Part of the problem is that she doesn't really seem to be secure anywhere other than at the top of her six-foot Castle Grayskull, and it's hard to get the litter box to balance up there. :)

She's safe from being *seen* by other cats ... well, everywhere we've put her box I think. She's just not safe from being heard by them. The house is just too radial to keep her away from their noise if they want to hang around the windows and yowl. Even if we put her in a room where there's no view of the outside at all, she'll still spurn the box.

We've tossed out a number of things she's found attractive and exhaustively cleaned those we just can't bear to throw out. She won't use her box even when there's literally *nothing* in it but litter (or newspaper, we tried that, too) -- my wife and I rake that thing like it was a Zen garden.

If I was in your shoes, I'd definitely be exploring the valium option myself. Good luck!

This makes me feel a little better about medicating her; I feel a little unhappy about giving a cat something that neither I or my wife would take. Of course, the difference is that my wife can tell me what's bugging her rather than peeing on the carpet.

Mike,

You (or the mrs or both) must love this cat. She's a lucky animal.

I say that the far left wing international socialist scum in America should all have their birth certificates and social security numbers revoked and be put on a slow boat to China.

You're cruel... making us live under unrestrained capitalism like that...

Um, no. Just because I think that X doesn't make one an ideal candidate, or the best candidate, does not mean that I think X would prevent that person from being able to do the job.

As seriously, Chris. As seriously. These things are all relative. I said associations have an effect on how seriously he is taken by others.

So we're clear. 1. Obama can do the job. Do you mean do the job well? I mean, *I* could "do the job", but that's not likely what you mean. Do you mean he could do a good job?
2. How seriously do you think the world (or whomever is taken him seriously, or respecting him) will take him? Guffawing behind his back? Do you think the world will give him considerable respect, or just fake respect?

"AS seriously"? As seriously as what? Relative to what? How seriosuly they might have taken him? WRT what? Where would it come into play?

At some summit, Obama starts talking about bringing people together and Kim Il Jong leans over to Hugo Chavez and whispers "Well, you can't really take him seriously - his minister believes in black threology." Is that what you think is going to happen?

Give us some hypothetical where you think this fatal flaw is going to trip up Obama as President. He isn't going to get some vital legislation through because of it? What do you think is going to happen?

MH#1 - We had to banish our cat to the bathroom for this. Keeps us from leaving towels on the floor, too. It a quite large bathroom, 10 x 10 or so, and warmest and sunniest room in the house.

Are you implying Obama wouldn't be respected or taken seriously, or viewed as less than then the President? Do you really believe that?

I think Obama feels he won't be as respected or taken as seriously, hence the strongly denouncing.

I want to make sure you saw it, Mike, so I'm repeating it: catnip. It might not work for you, but it was how we got our insane cat out from living behind the water heater in the basement for 3 months after a move. THREE MONTHS! It is definitely worth a shot.

Chris, choosing a candidate is a matter of weighing all the factors involved. The Wright association is one factor. That's all I'm saying, and all I've ever said.

Andy (for example) doesn't even think it's a factor.

I've never said this makes Obama unfit to be president, or that I wouldn't vote for him on the basis of this. I think it's a marker against him, is all.

I've only taken issue with people who are arguing that this is not an issue.

I've only taken issue with people who are arguing that this is not an issue.

I was under the impression they are saying "In the grand scope of who Obama is and what he stands for, this is an issue for those that want it to be an issue."

Obama has done and said so many things that are counter to what Wright preaches, I don't see how anyone can practically see Wright as some kind of big negativity. Sure "I wish Obama didn't have such a close connection to that loony", but it's preposterous to say "How could Obama be such a horribel judge of character! Anyone with that poor of an ability to evaluate close relationships or is just that naive is unfit to be president!"

Which it seems some want to stretch teh Wright relationship to. UNLESS someone sees that Wright's relationship will have (NOT "be perceived to have") a deleterious effect on Obama's policies and actions. If one feels that Wright will not, and that whomever the next POTUS will be highly regarded and well-respected, then it becomes a non-issue - or an issue with no effect - a distinction without a difference.

Let me turn the question around - if the President willfully violates the law, and Congress doesn't care, are the judiciary just supposed to shrug?

Well, yes. I'm not sure what you're going for here, but the judiciary doesn't get to prosecute people. Only the executive can do that.

Yes but only the judiciary can grant the President an immunity to prosecution.

Are you implying Obama wouldn't be respected or taken seriously, or viewed as less than then the President? Do you really believe that?

I think Obama feels he won't be as respected or taken as seriously, hence the strongly denouncing.

I'm pretty sure that Obama knows in his heart of hearts that his long association with Rev. Wright was brought about by a whole host of factors, ranging from the political (meaning it never hurts to be associated with a popular church within your neighborhood) to the communitarian to the spiritual. The white folks often call it "networking."

I also surmise that Obama feels that his lifelong public record as a racial healer rightfully outweighs the rhetoric of his minister, which he has never once endorsed; and that at heart he thinks that he shouldn't really have to explain this, since to any fairminded person it's just so f*ck*ing obvious.

That said, he wasn't born yesterday, and when the facts on the ground (or in the polls) began to indicate that this phony non-issue has indeed caused him a distinctly real (political) problem, he reacted accordingly, as would anyone else in his place. Hence the denunciations.

And yes, I suppose that this is what you'd expect from a "politician." The point being....?

And if anyone actually thinks that any world leader other than a reurrected Ian Smith would take a President Obama "less seriously" because of his association with Rev. Wright, if I were you I'd put that stuff you're smoking away, because whatever it is might result in a pretty long jail sentence. For better or worse, there are not too many countries left in the world that are blessed with the likes of the Republican right wing and its tactical allies in Camp Hillary.

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

Chris, choosing a candidate is a matter of weighing all the factors involved. The Wright association is one factor. That's all I'm saying, and all I've ever said.

Andy (for example) doesn't even think it's a factor.

Oh, Andy reads the polls, and Andy knows it's a factor. A political factor. Period. With an expiration date of November 4th, one way or the other. At which point both Rev. Wright and this whole phony "issue" will revert back into a pumpkin, having served their purpose.

Could you phrase this in a non-antagonistic style?

The argument I see most often re: Obama and Wright can be mostly summed up as "the sins of the father are the sins of the son," or in this case, "the sins of the preacher are the sins of the entire congregation, no matter what they say otherwise." Obama is being tarred and feathered with the eccentricities and rhetorical flourishes of Wright because he chose to attend Wright's church. The obvious analogy I'm drawing with the Catholic question is "why doesn't this cut both ways?" If Barack Obama is culpable for every failing of his pastor and church, regardless of his individual statements, beliefs and actions, why isn't John Kerry culpable for the Inquisition, or the many pogroms throughout history carried on by the RCC, or the child rape crimes of Boston's clergy? Why isn't EVERY Catholic so stained? What I'm seeing levied here is a "blood libel" except traced by congregation rather than maternal descent, and I want to know why that's a-okay, diddly dokey fine when we're talking about Obama and his scary black pastor, but not okay when talking about Catholics, or fundamentalists of the lighter shades, or John McCain and John Hagee. All I ever hear is some rote repitition of "these are real concerns" or, if the speaker is being a bit more honest, "Obama and Wright are just different", but I have never, not once, heard an explanation as to WHY they're different or what those massive, "concerning" differences are.

I mean, aside from the fact that they're not pale of hue, of course. (Yeah, I'm calling a double standard here, where the black church has to account for its rhetoric and passions in ways no white church ever has had to. Which is to say, this isn't about Obama and Jeremiah Wright. It's about a guantlet of extra road blocks that would be thrown up against ANY black candidate. Because whether or not white America likes it or not, Jeremiah Wright is NOT exterior to the mainstream of the black church.)

These "real concerns" you keep talking about seem to reduce to "association," and nothing beyond that.

At this time, yes. I'm complaining about association for its own sake. Not association because Wright has convinced Obama to do anything. Association. Nothing beyond that.

So demanding that I produce something "beyond that" is simply changing the subject, and then crowing that I haven't produced anything beyond that is dishonest. I'm not going to produce something beyond that; I don't care whether there's anything beyond that.

Again, these "concerns" begin and end with the fact of association.

Yes.

You keep hinting ("bad judgment," yada yada yada) that there's fire behind the smoke, but lots of us recognize who's been throwing kerosene on the embers for the better part of two months, and it hasn't been Obama.

No. I don't keep hinting anything. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. (I'm pretty sure I've explicitly said "bad judgment" numerous times.) Nor have I said that there's fire "behind" the smoke. That is the fire.

If you want to argue that it isn't bad judgment, fine. If you want to argue that it's bad judgment, but not enough to disqualify him, fine. If you want to argue that you don't care about the issue at all, fine. If you want to argue that it only matters to you if someone can prove that it has affected Obama's views, fine; if you then want to say that nobody has proven any such thing, so you're going to continue to support him, fine. (*) But don't argue that it can't matter to other people.



(*) Though I think that's sort of an odd approach to politicians generally. Being president isn't an entitlement; we ought to start with the presumption that a person isn't qualified, and only support him if he proves that he is. We shouldn't start with the presumption that he is, and only stop supporting him if he proves that he isn't.

But don't argue that it can't matter to other people.

Sure it can matter to other people. Other people think stupid things all the time.

I mean, aside from the fact that they're not pale of hue, of course. (Yeah, I'm calling a double standard here, where the black church has to account for its rhetoric and passions in ways no white church ever has had to. Which is to say, this isn't about Obama and Jeremiah Wright. It's about a guantlet of extra road blocks that would be thrown up against ANY black candidate. Because whether or not white America likes it or not, Jeremiah Wright is NOT exterior to the mainstream of the black church.)

And that's why the sanctity of the pulpit was invaded in the first place -- as cover to smear by showing what "goes on" therein. "God DAMN America!" was just the Trojan Horse.

The gap between blacks and whites is never any bigger than it is on Sunday mornings, and there's no way that was going to remain unexhibited.

Sure it can matter to other people. Other people think stupid things all the time.

The association matters to Obama too.

I was under the impression they are saying "In the grand scope of who Obama is and what he stands for, this is an issue for those that want it to be an issue."

Well, Andy puts the word "issue" in quotes because he claims it's not a genuine issue at all. (I see that in his latest remarks he calls it "a phony non-issue.")

It's one thing for one to concede that it's a negative issue but that one feels that Obama's positives outweigh his negatives. That at least acknowledges that it's a legitimate issue and that people are not being "phony" for raising it.

It's quite another to pretend there is no issue.

Obama has done and said so many things that are counter to what Wright preaches, I don't see how anyone can practically see Wright as some kind of big negativity.

Here, try this:

Associating with one who holds racist and anti-American views is a big negative.

Wright holds racist and anti-American views.

Obama associated with Wright.

Therefore, Obama's association with Wright is a big negative.

Q.E.D.

And that's why the sanctity of the pulpit was invaded in the first place -- as cover to smear by showing what "goes on" therein.

Another prime example - back before the Republican primary was actually decided Mike Huckabee openly courted and held fund-raisers in Texas with the leadership of "Christian Reconstructionists." These are people who quite literally want to re-write the Constitution so that it is in line with "biblical law." There was nary a peep in the larger press about this. Why does Huckabee get a pass on his crazy as religious affiliates where Obama has to explain every word uttered by any black person within a 200 mile radius?

These "real concerns" you keep talking about seem to reduce to "association," and nothing beyond that.

At this time, yes. I'm complaining about association for its own sake. Not association because Wright has convinced Obama to do anything. Association. Nothing beyond that.

So demanding that I produce something "beyond that" is simply changing the subject, and then crowing that I haven't produced anything beyond that is dishonest. I'm not going to produce something beyond that; I don't care whether there's anything beyond that.

Well, if you'd been as forthright in the past as you've just been there, I never would have pressed the point. But I'm glad to see that you've euthanized your already dead horse.

And the rest of what you're saying continues in this same vein. I don't see that I have anything more to argue with you about. I've never said that it "can't matter to other people," since I've repeatedly acknowledged its clear political impact. This is like saying that the sky is blue.

And I fully respect your own, and anyone else's right to make whatever you want out of Rev. Wright, Rev. Hagee, or anyone else---just as I assert my own, and anyone's else's right to mock and lampoon those who try to make mountains out of molehills. I trust that you reciprocate, acknowledging that you might reverse the mountains and the molehills in that last sentence.

(I'm pretty sure I've explicitly said "bad judgment" numerous times.)

But you'd have to admit you haven't come close to proving it.

There's simply nothing wrong with the preaching Rev. Wright did on Sundays, and nothing to warrant a congregant leaving the congregation -- which is why few, if any, did.

The association matters to Obama too.

The realities of a political campaign require that this be addressed (and Obama rightly distanced himself from Wright when the latter went on his recent publicity tour - morally, not just politically - because it's clear that Wright's continued divisiveness is at odds with Obama's message of hope and unity.) That does not in any way mean we can't debate the deeper underpinnings of the matter here, outside of a political arena.

To me, the fact that there is a black discourse on god and community, and a white discourse on god and community, and for the most part that white discourse has no knowledge of the existence of any other, is a bad thing. What we see when whites have to acknowledge the existence of this other discourse, though, is not dialogue but all forms of demogoguery. (On both sides, blah blah blah.) That's also bad.

This is exactly right.

If you've ever done any discrimination simulations, the privileged group doesn't even discuss that dynamic in their reflections. The other group's responses are utterly consumed with the discrimination dynamic. To the privileged groups, that perspective seems whiny and self-absorbed.

It doesn't really matter what ethnicity, background, age, class or profession you choose (unless they are familiar with the exercise)--the vast majority of people replicate the same dynamic. The difference is in how people react once the purpose of the activity is displayed. Most people see the point of the activity and what it demonstrates about human reactions to privilege. Others get mad and don't wish to consider the issue.

What percentage of members of mainstream ethnic majority churches are conscious of their African American brethren on a daily basis? How about the converse?

There isn't going to be "racial healing" in America except over an exceptionally long period of time. There definitely isn't going to be racial healing if discourse on god and community is kept racially segregated, though. What we're going to see in any event is going to be bad, but I hardly think that preferring the bad that is out in the open to the bad that is segregated and hidden is "Panglossian". It's just one weighing of a bad situation.

I understnad that voices like Wright's may have a net negative affect on the long-term reconciliation. Perhaps. From my perspective, you have a situation where the problem is at least in large part due to the complete lack of interest in any other perspectives on the part of the ethnic majority. Wright toiled in his church and worked hard to rehabilitate the South Side in ways that others were unwilling and nobody remotely cared.

Suddenly we made the horrible mistake of running an actual black man for President and people are horrified that Wright exists and that becomes the story.

Wouldn't any reasonable person with a brain wonder why we don't care about giant South Side African American church enough that we would be absolutely shocked, I mean shocked, at what was going on in them. Perhaps if we paid more attention to these communities, we might have some foggy notion as to where that anger comes from. But no, unlike the reasoned approach to something new: "What's the explanation for this?" "Let's learn more about it!", we respond with snap judgment and little or no interest in the explanation.

Remember, learning about something is not the same as condoning it.

And that's the great obstacle to racial reconciliation. It's not that Americans are THIS CLOSE to facing down all of the realities and implications of race in their society, but nasty nasty minorities are making good majority tentative about the whole thing.

The idea is so patently ridiculous that it smacks of the same ethnocentrism that populates the perspective gap in the first place.

Racism is nasty and ugly and no, it doesn't make it's victims beautiful souls pure as the driven snow. As long as we continue to look at the bitterness and anger that results from our racial reality as the problem itself, we cannot claim that we are remotely interested in bettering the situation.

I say that not in bitterness, of which I have no personal business harboring given my lot in life--which is far beyond what I could even hope to ask for, nor judgment which holds no utility except to motivate change, but merely observation based on my interest in the situation.

and that at heart he thinks that he shouldn't really have to explain this, since to any fairminded person it's just so f*ck*ing obvious.

Andy, can you explain why the thesis Obama put forth in his race speech no longer held after the events over the weekend?

Another prime example - back before the Republican primary was actually decided Mike Huckabee openly courted and held fund-raisers in Texas with the leadership of "Christian Reconstructionists." These are people who quite literally want to re-write the Constitution so that it is in line with "biblical law." There was nary a peep in the larger press about this. Why does Huckabee get a pass on his crazy as religious affiliates where Obama has to explain every word uttered by any black person within a 200 mile radius?

In fairness to the media, Sam, I'm pretty sure that if Huckabee had been seen as a more serious contender for the nomination, you would have heard plenty more about this, especially if there'd been anyone there catching any of this on tape.

and that at heart he thinks that he shouldn't really have to explain this, since to any fairminded person it's just so f*ck*ing obvious.

Andy, can you explain why the thesis Obama put forth in his race speech no longer held after the events over the weekend?

If you'll be a bit more specific about "the thesis" you're referring to (there were several talking points), and the "events" you're talking about (there were many), I'll be glad to give it a stab a bit later. I don't want to start now, only to find that I've misinterpreted your question.

Well, if you'd been as forthright in the past as you've just been there, I never would have pressed the point. But I'm glad to see that you've euthanized your already dead horse.

I've said that dozens of times, and then one thread later (or one page later in the same thread), you're back to saying, "Nobody has shown that Wright has influenced Obama's views."

(Yeah, I'm calling a double standard here, where the black church has to account for its rhetoric and passions in ways no white church ever has had to. Which is to say, this isn't about Obama and Jeremiah Wright. It's about a guantlet of extra road blocks that would be thrown up against ANY black candidate.

There is no "gauntlet of extra road blocks," unless Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright was a conspiracy by white people who drugged Obama, drove him to Wright's church every Sunday, and had him mention Wright glowingly and with great respect and admiration in his book.

Obama was doing just fine until clips of Wright's sermons surfaced.

Because whether or not white America likes it or not, Jeremiah Wright is NOT exterior to the mainstream of the black church.)

That's not what Obama said:

"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

In fact several people besides me have either raised or agreed with my point that these "real concerns" you keep raising are hollow ones, given the complete absence of political or ideological influence on the part of Wright to Obama.

They are indeed hollow concerns.

Sheesh, Andy. There's dishonest, and then there's just outright lying. You've crossed from politician territory all the way into Kevin territory.

Andy's an honorable guy. You, on the other hand, have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you're an imbecile.

Why? If Bush and top members of his administration approved of a policy of torture, and all indications are that they did, then why is the charge of war crimes outlandish?

The charge, of course, isn't outlandish. Bush has admitted to authorizing torture, and to doing so from the White House. If you believe torture is illegal and, since there's evidence that White House approved torture has lead to deaths, you would have to agree charges should be brought. You can claim that such shouldn't be pursued, but you can't claim there isn't substnative evidence of war crimes.

Nice handle change, ark.

Thanks, robin. It's a lonely business here at BTF, but someone has to hold high the flaming sword.

That's not what Obama said:

"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

Obama is working as hard to change the black church, which in most ways is identical to the black community at large, as he is to get white people to realize that the biggest problem with race in America isn't "black folks just don't try hard enough." If this guy had an R behind his name he'd be the holy ####### grail to so called "conservatives." He IS the change you've been asking for for decades. But he has a D behind his name, thinks social spending isn't completely useless and had the audacity as a black man in American to join the black community in America, thus he's soiled goods for you. That says more about you than it does about Obama, I'm afraid.

There is no "gauntlet of extra road blocks," unless Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright was a conspiracy by white people who drugged Obama, drove him to Wright's church every Sunday, and had him mention Wright glowingly and with great respect and admiration in his book.

This either the most disingenious thing I've ever read or just jaw-droppingly ignorant. I hate to break this to you, Ray, but a black guy in America, even one "half white" doesn't have that sort of mobility. And god forbid he actually want to communicate and identify with other black people...

Wright holds racist and anti-American views.

Wright's views on race and learning are unfortunate to say the least. The Klan doesn't need a prominent black man making their pseudo-scientific claptrap for them. But I wouldn't call Wright "anti-American" and I'd require you to explain yourself if you're going to throw that sort of fireball around.

This either the most disingenious thing I've ever read or just jaw-droppingly ignorant. I hate to break this to you, Ray, but a black guy in America, even one "half white" doesn't have that sort of mobility. And god forbid he actually want to communicate and identify with other black people...

Obama is being criticized for his association with Wright. I was pointing out that the association with Wright was real, not invented. Obama says that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. So Obama could have forged a relationship with a pastor who did more accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

I was pointing out that the association with Wright was real, not invented. Obama says that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. So Obama could have forged a relationship with a pastor who did more accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

Again, are you being intentionally disingenious? If Obama's comments re: the black church are valid then they are derived FROM HIS EXPERIENCE AT TRINITY. As a member of Wright's congregation. He hasn't been in another black church that I know of, has he? He's saying Wright's PR tours and the exerpted sermons don't represent the Trinity he attended.

Associating with one who holds racist and anti-American views is a big negative.

It didn't hurt Nixon, or Reagan or Bush (either one). Do you know anything at all about Jesse Helms?

But I wouldn't call Wright "anti-American" and I'd require you to explain yourself if you're going to throw that sort of fireball around.

I'll decline, thanks. If you won't acknowledge that Wright made anti-American comments, I doubt you're interested in a serious discussion.

Andy, can you explain why the thesis Obama put forth in his race speech no longer held after the events over the weekend?

I've explained this to you already.

If you won't acknowledge that Wright made anti-American comments, I doubt you're interested in a serious discussion.

There's a difference between "is anti-American" and "made anti-American statements". Is associating with Jane Fonda now political death?

I'm complaining about association for its own sake. Not association because Wright has convinced Obama to do anything. Association. Nothing beyond that.

Really? You can't find a person that doesn't have an association with someone that could be undesirable. Certainyl no Republicans, and not most Democrats. And since we have a good ol' boy system, no Libertarians. Well, nor everybody in the world, yourself inclusive.

You are welcome to complain about anything you want, but if you are complaining about it "for its own sake", then Sam hit the nail on the head.

Hell, you are actually one of those guys people shouldn't be associating with.

This whole Wright fiasco has been the function of two things: (1) the hopelessly lost media's financial interest in keeping the Democratic race as competitive and provocative for as long as possible; and (2) the need for "respectable" cover for those in whose proclivities and/or interest it is to scream as loudly and as often as possible, "HEY AMERICA, YOU'RE ABOUT READY TO ELECT A BLACK MAN TO THE PRESIDENCY."(**)

Ah, the always bankrupt liberal strategy of crying racism whenever they lose an argument.

The claim that the media has a "financial interest" in keeping the Democratic Race going is particularly odd; the media acts annoyed whenever they can't declare a winner after the first week of primaries. They were ready to call the election for Obama after Iowa.

Really? You can't find a person that doesn't have an association with someone that could be undesirable. Certainyl no Republicans, and not most Democrats. And since we have a good ol' boy system, no Libertarians. Well, nor everybody in the world, yourself inclusive.

Again with the pulling something out of context. Obama didn't merely share a cab ride with Wright once; that's not the sort of "association" we're talking about. Nor did he merely work at the same employer as Wright, attend the same church Wright happened to attend, belong to the same political party as Wright, or go to the same school as Wright. This isn't like the fact that he once served on the same board as Bill Ayers or once went to the same dinner party as Ayers. We're talking about a close, decades-long association, both personal and political, of his own choosing.

The claim that the media has a "financial interest" in keeping the Democratic Race going is particularly odd

Not really, actually. I think some people at the grass/net roots level are getting tired of it NOW, but it has been a huge story, with a lot of angles, for a long time, as the relative amount of coverage Clinton/Obama get as opposed to what McCain is getting demonstrates. I don't know that news shows/web sites etc are making money off of it, but I do think people are following this campaign very closely--witness, for example, the number of comments we have on it here at BTF from people who would never vote for either of them. Republicans are eating it up; Democrats are worried etc etc etc. Wright has added yet another angle.

I am not blaming the media for this per se--they are part of a bigger picture and are what they are--but the idea that much of the media would not like the selection of the Democratic nominee to be a dramatic, racially-charged cliffhanger ending with a twist of some kind in Denver flies in the face of common sense.

I want to make sure you saw it, Mike, so I'm repeating it: catnip. It might not work for you, but it was how we got our insane cat out from living behind the water heater in the basement for 3 months after a move. THREE MONTHS! It is definitely worth a shot.

Thanks -- I'll give it a try. We're sort of at the point where we'll try just about anything. :)

Robinred: to the extent that Jeremiah Wright-esqe angles exist to cover, then I agree the media is happy that the campaign exists. But to the extent that it's just a routine campaign -- which it mostly was before Wright damned America -- they were bored with it and wanted it to be over, IMO.

By the way, I hope our resident conservative gets the same Google ads served up that I do; he can subscribe to Ann Coulter's newsletter, as any conservative would want to do.

"just a routine campaign -- which it mostly was before Wright damned America"

Yes and no. Pre-Wright, I noted this as a rhetorical strategy I saw used by many conservatives: ho-humming the Demo contest, ignoring the fact that Clinton is a woman and Obama is black. On a certain level, that's true--they are just two Demos, ideologically, and Clinton is, like McCain, "next in line." On another level of course, it is not "routine" at all, and while I can understand people saying that if they got tired of hearing about the "historic and dramatic" contest between the Democrats, there is in fact a contrast between this matchup and the Republicans' relatively quick, safe choice of McCain.

The other factor is that the ostensible betting line favorite was/is running 2nd. While I concede that early media coverage in many ways was biased towards Obama over HC, I think there was far less pressure on her to drop out than there would have been on him with the same "math."

So, I disagree: once the media saw, after the tears and votes in NH, that this could be a long battle, they have covered it that way.

We're talking about a close, decades-long association, both personal and political, of his own choosing.

SO am I. Are you at all familiar with Jesse Helms?

We're talking about a close, decades-long association, both personal and political, of his own choosing.

SO am I. Are you at all familiar with Jesse Helms?

Of course he is, but he sees old Jesse as merely a States' Rights fan in a hurry. He also thinks that the southern strategy had nothing to do with pandering to racists, and that Lee Atwater's memory has been slandered by liberals.

The other factor is that the ostensible betting line favorite was/is running 2nd. While I concede that early media coverage in many ways was biased towards Obama over HC, I think there was far less pressure on her to drop out than there would have been on him with the same "math."

One thing that puzzles me is the lack of coverage of the fact that for Clinton to win, she'll have to persuade x of the remaining, uncommitted superdelegates, while Obama will need y of the remaining, uncommitted superdelegates. It's the story, and has been the story for a while now, but other than doing my own calculations, I've never heard x and y from any source.

Though perhaps that feeds your point, in that the gap is so large between x and y that it kills the race, and therefore the story.

Ah--here's an interesting item,

Does Business Really Outperform Government?

I have to say, not nearly as often as people think it does.

One thing that puzzles me is the lack of coverage of the fact that for Clinton to win, she'll have to persuade x of the remaining, uncommitted superdelegates, while Obama will need y of the remaining, uncommitted superdelegates. It's the story, and has been the story for a while now, but other than doing my own calculations, I've never heard x and y from any source.

Though perhaps that feeds your point, in that the gap is so large between x and y that it kills the race, and therefore the story.

I think that in fact the media has noted this gap in most of its analyses. Clinton's only "strategy" has been to try to scare the uncommitted superdelegates into thinking that Obama is unelectable because of what the Republicans will be able to make of Wright. So far they don't appear to be buying it, possibly because of its almost breathtaking cynicism, and even more because they can see the same huge negative numbers attached to her that everyone else can. Her negative numbers among the general electorate are by far the largest among the three candidates, and they're worse now than they've ever been, thanks to the totally negative thrust of her campaign.

The irony is that while Clinton has been steadily increasing her lead over Obama among white Catholic Democrats, Obama has more than made up for that with his even bigger margins among independents---many of whom might be persuaded into seeing McCain as "Bush's Third Term." This is why Obama continues to lead McCain (though narrowly) in nearly all of the national polls, in spite of all the recent hits he's taken, and in spite of Hillary's far greater appeal to those with one foot in the grave. The superdelegates aren't dumb, and they know damn well that the Clinton base is old and backwards looking, while the Obama base is young and future oriented. Ideology aside, which sort of base would anyone here rather build a party on?

re. #2671--

I have seen a few scattered things at Real Clear Politics about that, and I think Newsweek has a "numbers guy." I also saw a few small stories saying how she'd have had to win PA about 70-30 to make a big dent, delegate-wise. So, it's out there--but it is not a central narrative.

I am on Obama's mailing list, and after the losses in TX, OH and PA, they sent out emails explaining how Obama still has the edge in terms of delegates. So the Obama campaign wants that front and center, but I can see why few other than Obamabots such as myself would care.

But she has more supers, which may or may not matter. As I've said several times, I think it is obvious that she stayed in after going down 11 times in a row in part because she knew the Wright details would surface, and in part because of her strength in key states. That will be the argument she and her people will make and are making: Wright makes Obama unelectable and she is stronger in states that the Demos need on the red/blue map. She will also say that Obama has plenty of time, and once he has distanced himself from Wright over time and gained more exp, will be in good shape for a 2012 or 2016 run.

I think that in fact the media has noted this gap in most of its analyses.

Of course we may have different news sources, but while the numbers are often run for elected delegates, I still can't recall hearing, 'Hillary needs to persuade (say) 300 of the uncommitted supers, while Obama needs only 160.' That version would seem to make all the hue and cry seem like just fussin' over the inevitable.

Clinton's only "strategy" has been to try to scare the uncommitted superdelegates into thinking that Obama is unelectable because of what the Republicans will be able to make of Wright. So far they don't appear to be buying it, possibly because of its almost breathtaking cynicism, and even more because they can see the same huge negative numbers attached to her that everyone else can. Her negative numbers among the general electorate are by far the largest among the three candidates, and they're worse now than they've ever been, thanks to the totally negative thrust of her campaign.

It seems this way to me, too. I was amused and disgusted by Bill Clinton, of all people, warning a crowd that the Republicans would use negative stuff, and that people were just plain tired of all this Washington fighting and backstabbing.

The superdelegates aren't dumb, and they know damn well that the Clinton base is old and backwards looking, while the Obama base is young and future oriented. Ideology aside, which sort of base would anyone here rather build a party on?

An excellent point. Vote for Hillay and alienate your potential base for a generation, or take a shot with Obama. Even if Obama loses, the base is still there for whomever runs in 2012.

I wonder at what point Hillary gave up on the vice-presidency.

I’m screwing around with the delegate counter at CNN. There are 294 uncommitted superdelegates. There are 9 primaries. Obama is likely to win NC and ORegon (I think). Small margins - 54-46 or so. Hillary wins WV, KY, MT, SD, PR by similar margins. They split Guam and Indiana. So, not counting the supers, Obama has the same lead he has today (138 delegates). He’s still 90 delegates shy of the nomination. So to win the nomination, he needs about 90 of the remaining 294 supers. Assuming they split like they have, he gets about 120. If the split morelike the way teh regular voters went, it’ll be closer to 50:50.

Is this a joke? How is she in this anymore?

I don't believe she can convince 205 of the remaining supers to go her way. Plenty will still back barack. Even winning the supers 2:1, she loses the nomination.

Well, personally, there is a tiny part of me that hopes that the Democrats' ship capsizes, and Obama comes back for 2012 election with Wright as his running mate.

But I don't think the country could survive the next four years of carnage and bad policy.

I don't care too much about the Wright-Obama situation. However, when this came out about 4 weeks ago, I noted on a thread that Obama's failure to distance himself from Wright (who I believe is nuts) showed poor judgment and that failing was relevant in that "good judgment" was one of the main things Obama sold himself as having. Obama excused this by implying that he had no idea that Wright was such a loon. This comment from a black minister (whom I've never heard of) suggests Obama was being disingenuous:

The Rev. William Revely, pastor of 300-member Holy Hope Heritage Church, questioned Obama's truthfulness in claiming he had not heard some of Wright's contentious remarks from the pulpit.

"Anybody who has heard Jeremiah preach has heard that," said Revely, who has known Wright since the 1970s. "Jeremiah, he's a pastor, and as a pastor you have to see things as they are. Politicians see things as they want them to be."

Of course we may have different news sources,

No doubt true; I'm sure Andy doesn't get The Limbaugh Letter like you do.

"...has heard that"

Which Wright stuff does this refer to?

Which Wright stuff does this refer to?

The way I read it, Revely is referring to all of it; otherwise he'd have specified which statements in particular he was referring to.

Of course, I've learned never to rely on the AP to report a story competently.

Here's another comment from Revely, from April 25th:

The Rev. William Revely of Detroit's Holy Hope Heritage Church said he thinks because of the controversy over his past sermons, now may be the best time for Wright to speak.

"He needs to be heard," Revely said. "When you talk about the liberation of our people, you have to start with the understanding of what we've gone through and what we're going through. Jeremiah has been one of those that have been sounding the trumpet for a long time."

I have seen a few scattered things at Real Clear Politics about that, and I think Newsweek has a "numbers guy." I also saw a few small stories saying how she'd have had to win PA about 70-30 to make a big dent, delegate-wise. So, it's out there--but it is not a central narrative.

Missed your post the first time through, robin. That's about as detailed as I've heard it. It's the smart, telling, and inescapable analysis Chris put together in 2676 that should be front and center in the news, imo.

No doubt true; I'm sure Andy doesn't get The Limbaugh Letter like you do.

Shhh. If they find out they'll throw me out of the True Conservatives' League (TCL).

I’m screwing around with the delegate counter at CNN. There are 294 uncommitted superdelegates. There are 9 primaries. Obama is likely to win NC and ORegon (I think). Small margins - 54-46 or so. Hillary wins WV, KY, MT, SD, PR by similar margins. They split Guam and Indiana. So, not counting the supers, Obama has the same lead he has today (138 delegates). He’s still 90 delegates shy of the nomination. So to win the nomination, he needs about 90 of the remaining 294 supers. Assuming they split like they have, he gets about 120. If the split morelike the way teh regular voters went, it’ll be closer to 50:50.

Is this a joke? How is she in this anymore?

I don't believe she can convince 205 of the remaining supers to go her way. Plenty will still back barack. Even winning the supers 2:1, she loses the nomination.

Well, one thing you're ignoring is that all the superdelegates are uncommitted. Some have endorsed one candidate or another, but that's only an intent, not a binding obligation. If things change between now and the convention -- like when they find out that Obama killed Jon Benet Ramsey on orders from Jeremiah Wright -- then Hillary can pick up more votes from people who had previously indicated that they backed Obama.

(You're also ignoring Michigan and Florida, but that's another story.)

Ok, another question. Since people seem to agree that there's no policy effect of the Wright-Obama relationship, and it's merely an association issue, does that mean that any and all African Americans or other ethnicity people who were members of Trinity or for that matter any Black Liberation based church have questionable judgment and should not be considered for president?

Yeah - Joe Andrew and Baron Hill just switched from Clinton to Obama today.

And this should teach people to try to predict the logic of the superdelegates:

Hill, a conservative Democrat in a swing Indiana district, said Obama's denunciation of Wright's inflammatory remarks on AIDS, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other issues showed "strength of character and commitment to our nation that transcends the personal."

Andrew said he switched from Clinton because of Obama's handling of Wright and the gas tax.

Joe Andrew and Baron Hill just switched from Clinton to Obama today.

Excellent news. The SuperDs need to get the hell off the fence.

Excellent news. The SuperDs need to get the hell off the fence.

Maybe they've been following this BTF thread?

"does that mean that any and all ... members of Trinity or for that matter any Black Liberation based church have questionable judgment."

Obama deserves to be held to a higher standard than most parrishoners at Trinity, at least for the fact that he is a well educated and intelligent man and knows that Wright was out of his mind when he spoke of his theories on AIDS and so on. Presuming that Obama never heard any of the specific crazy sermons that have been made public -- I really don't think it's hard to believe Obama missed all of these specific sermons -- he undoubtedly (over 20 years) should have formed the judgment that Rev. Wright was a lunatic and in some regards a hate-monger. Yet knowing that, Obama stayed very close with him and included Wright as his campaign's spiritual advisor. He also had his own children attend Trinity services. That seems like a bad choice, but I realize it's possible that in private, Obama countered the inflamatory rehtoric of the Rev., explaining in more reasonable terms what is right and wrong to his kids.

I have never thought this controversy in any way disqualifies Obama ("should not be considered for president"). I think what it has done is call into question Barack's judgment (by tying himself for so long to a nut). But even with that, there are a hundred or more things a voter could reasonably decide he is the best person for the job, and if Obama lost points on that ground, he could triumph in a reasonable person's mind by winning more points on all other grounds.... I think it should be added, along these lines, that no one votes for the perfect candidate. In fact, most often voters are voting against the other guy as much as they are voting for Obama or for Clinton or for McCain....

I, for example, voted for John Kerry in 2004 in the general election. That was the first time I had voted for a Democrat for president since I was in college (Mondale, 1984). I didn't agree with Kerry on a large number of issues. I didn't like him personally. I thought he had a Dukakis-eque aloofness which was off-putting. I feared his court nominees. I expected he would over-regulate and over -tax the economy. But I wanted to register my meaningless (in California) vote against the re-election of the incompetent boob I had voted for in 2000. So I voted for Kerry....

Many will vote for Obama, because they really don't want McCain or Clinton. (And likewise, others will do the same in reverse.)

2685. Eraser-X is dominating this site! Posted: May 02, 2008 at 12:54 AM (#2766184)

Ok, another question. Since people seem to agree that there's no policy effect of the Wright-Obama relationship, and it's merely an association issue, does that mean that any and all African Americans or other ethnicity people who were members of Trinity or for that matter any Black Liberation based church have questionable judgment and should not be considered for president?

The silver lining to this, if true, is that Oprah could still be considered for president!

Rich, fair enough. I certainly respect the necessity of people to look at this issue in context of its significance which is nearly zero and integrate that into their assessment of the candidate.

But that is not what is happening. This is the main issue in the media discussion and has been for a number of weeks.

So I'll ask again, and not directed at your judgment, merely your assessment of the gneeral situation:

Obama deserves to be held to a higher standard than most parrishoners at Trinity, at least for the fact that he is a well educated and intelligent man and knows that Wright was out of his mind when he spoke of his theories on AIDS and so on.

So most parishioners at Trinity and other black churches with similar ideologies are there because they are dumb and/or poorly educated and the others who are smart, have no judgment?

Sorry, I wouldn't leave a church if that statement about AIDS was made. I could give a #### about it. It affects nothing. What does it matter? People are wrong about stuff all the time. Pretty much anyone who goes to that church is not going to change their approach to ANYTHING based on that statement. It's not good to be wrong, but what's the damage in this case.

All I've heard so far is that it's "divisive". Divisive of whom? What's divisive is Hollywood's white geared media. Or our segregated school system. Or our segregated religious communities.

Jeremiah Wright did not establish any of these things. He has very little control over these national challenges. There are people in Wright's position preaching unity. Mainstream America has never heard of them. They won't hear of them unless they can be used to tear down a black presidential candidate. There is no possible way Wright could have done a lick to promote anti-divisiveness on a national scale. (edited, I was hyperbolizing a bit)

It's like we've made Jeremiah pouring a glass of water on Bourbon Street the main issue everyday of the news when Bush is flying helicopters over the flooded lower-9th.

I would vote for Tyra Banks before Oprah, and I mean on policy, not on looks.

I would vote for Tyra Banks before Oprah, and I mean on policy, not on looks.

You would choose Oprah over Tyro on looks?

Apropos to nothing in particular, Eraser, when was the last time you saw an optometrist?

Is this a joke? How is she in this anymore?

1. The media LOVES their horse races. Even when the race is over.

2. It's the undead Clintons.

3. You have to let that Hydra die clearly and unmistakably of its own accord. Last thing we need is the ####### Clintons banging around four or eight years from now talking about how they were "forced out" of 2008.

3. You have to let that Hydra die clearly and unmistakably of its own accord. Last thing we need is the ####### Clintons banging around four or eight years from now talking about how they were "forced out" of 2008.

Yes, and after stealing from the Lee Atwater campaign book for the bulk of their campaign, they can then turn around and claim that Obama was secretly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy!

Is this a joke? How is she in this anymore?

I rather she stay in the race.

Yes, and after stealing from the Lee Atwater campaign book for the bulk of their campaign, they can then turn around and claim that Obama was secretly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy!

Right. I don't think the Clintons realize how much hatred they've generated for themselves with their embrace of Rove/Atwater politics.

Maybe Mike Hampton's fans' cat is concerned over the superdelegates, Wright, McCain, Hilary vs. Obama, and has simply freaked out.

Right. I don't think the Clintons realize how much hatred they've generated for themselves with their embrace of Rove/Atwater politics.

The Clintons are as they have ever been. They have their good points (smart, tough, determined, ruthless), and their bad points (grasping, dishonest, manipulative, egomaniacal, ruthless), but they are what they are, and always have been. It's just that most liberals have only recently started to pay attention to the bad stuff.

Sorry, I wouldn't leave a church if that statement about AIDS was made. I could give a #### about it. It affects nothing. What does it matter? People are wrong about stuff all the time. Pretty much anyone who goes to that church is not going to change their approach to ANYTHING based on that statement. It's not good to be wrong, but what's the damage in this case.


You hold your religious leaders to a much lower standard than I would if I were at all religious, and a much lower standard than many people I know who do attend church or synagogue.

I expect that a person who takes it upon himself to lead a spiritual community does not offer outlandish, unsupported conspiracy theories, and does not throw fuel onto the fire of already difficult race relations by casting the other side as homicidal monsters.

When Wright demonizes the "government," he's really demonizing "white people." The message of "white people hate us and they are going out of their way to kill us, by creating a horrible disease" is a serious, serious problem. I'd be equally disturbed (and was) by "God caused 9/11 because of gays."

Jeremiah Wright did not establish any of these things. He has very little control over these national challenges. There are people in Wright's position preaching unity. Mainstream America has never heard of them. They won't hear of them unless they can be used to tear down a black presidential candidate.

Wright has influence over his congregation and his community. He can be a force that works to bring people together, or a force that feeds and perpetuates the gap between groups.

If I'm to be expected to take the role of religion as a signficant thing in a politician's life (as opposed to a sham for political gain), then I'm going to take it seriously. I take it seriously that Obama has a long history of connection with a racist conspiracy theorist who spreads a message of hate. I take it more seriously that this connection is one which he supposedly is on the receiving end of spiritual guidance.

Do I think Obama agrees with Wright? No, I don't. But I think that Wright is a figure that is hurtful to race relations in this country and I think it represents extremely poor judgment to remain associated with such a person while running for office. At best, Obama didn't care or didn't think about the appearance of such an association, and that's not some trivial thing. It isn't EVERYTHING, but it's something significant.

This is a very close race for the Democrats, and it appears like we're gearing up to a very close general election as well. It doesn't mean that people who criticize Obama for this are racist.