Obama’s Big Race Speech
I’m listening to it now. Apparently he never heard Jeremiah Wright say a cross word about white people — you know, the same white people who (Wright thinks) deliberately gave black people AIDS. He is explaining about black churches and black anger, and how whites shouldn’t condemn expressions of black anger without understanding its roots.
I’m not finding it inspirational in the slightest. I find myself wishing I could be listening to Larry Elder, who preaches that we still have racism — but that with hard work and determination, you can do what you want.
At the end of the day, we’ll see how the speech played out, but to me, it exposes the weakness of the Democrat message on race.
Obama wants it both ways. He asks America to rise above race and religion, while hoping to appear religious himself. But he is in deep trouble if a spotlight is shined on his own THEOLOGY. See:
Christian Prophet (722a97) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:25 amhttp://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com
…it exposes the weakness of the Democrat message on race
Rest assured that the press will not present the message in that way.
physics geek (6669a4) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:34 amIt’s impossible to be both a victim of the ruling class and the foremost of the ruling ruling class at the same time. At the risk of having this site being litigated before the Supreme Court, what the f**k is that mealy-mouthed clown trying to sell us?
nk (34c5da) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:41 amWhy do you bother listening to the speech if you’re not going to understand what he’s actually saying.
He clearly says several times that he was aware of Jeremiah’s offensive speeches. He condemns them and points out specifically why Wright is wrong. Just because he also discusses the roots of black anger, you can’t just claim that he doesn’t also talk about why that anger is counterproductive.
Nadav (0f1550) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:42 amPopcorn. Gotta buy more.
Old Coot (fafb85) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:42 amIt seems that Shelby Steele accurately anticipated the content of “Obama’s big speech” in this morning’s WSJ.
driver (faae10) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:04 amhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
#4,
Obama is a mealy-mouthed weasel. A talentless mealy-mouthed weasel who wasted the wonderful legal education his grandparents gave him to be Mayor Daley’s pet. He was born of privilege, lived a life few black or white children do, but he needed blackness credibility to be accepted in Hyde Park. So he joined Trinity Church. Yeah, I don’t know all that much for sure that he agrees all that much with Reverend White. But he sure as hell used it for all it was worth to build his constituency.
nk (34c5da) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:10 amHeh!
How many times did he say “My FORMER pastor?”
Way to create that appearance of distance that wasn’t there before, buddy.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:18 amIf he truly considered those speeches/sermons to be “offensive”, why did he wait until now to condemn them?
Did he not serve in the Illinois State Senate 1997 – 2004? As chairman there of the Health and Human Services Committee?
Has he not represented the people of Illinois as a US Senator since 2004?
He admits that he has been “aware” of them all this time? And said nothing? Done nothing? Until now, after he has been a presidential candidate for months and months?
The real reason he separated himself and his candidacy from Wright is that the Wright videos are now on the web for all to see.
In short, Obama will do the right thing only when people are watching him and the timing is such that they could impact his personal goals.
Oh, for a neutral MSM.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:22 amThe question I needed to hear him answer was “Why did I remain with a church and minister that continuously played the race card over 20 years during his sermons?” He never answered it…and probably flushed his chance for the White House down the drain with it. Juan Williams on FOX this AM, he thinks that this will be hanging over him through the remainder of the primary season, and if nominated, through to the general.
Was it me or did it seem like his speech was all hope and little substance?
I came across this earlier this morning, kind of gives a little more insight into Obama
Obama screamed at me
fmfnavydoc (affdec) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:22 amThis is just a prelude. The first broadside merely confirmed the distance. The next broadside, Tony Rezko, is gonna put the Good Ship ‘Obama’ on the ocean floor.
KobeClan (49560d) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:26 amCome general election time, a 527 group is going to grab on to one of those empty-suit, pant legs and shake it until it comes off.
And the MSM will be right to claim that another of their favs has been Swiftboated. That is, simply xposed.
PLC14 (f74534) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:44 amThis was a great speech delivered brilliantly. It was not given to solve any of the problems facing us, he like the Founding Fathers he mentioned, swept them under the rug for future generations.
Other than for people on the Right and Nutroots Left, it relaxed fears, was as effective as was possible, and in short: he won the election this morning like it or not.
It is a major mistake for the Right to dump on it because he didn’t say what THEY wanted to hear; he said what HE wanted to say. And when was the last time a politician wrote his own speech.?
Howard (cc8b85) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:47 amI guess we can officially add the “politics of grievance” to the Obama campaign platform.
I thought he was supposed to be above all that — to “heal” the country’s broken soul.
I wonder what his answer would be on the question of reparations for slavery. I thought I knew would it would be, but now I wonder.
wls (e9f058) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:51 amPlease. He’s only doing this NOW because someone noticed what his pastor was saying.
Why else would he have noted, back when he first announced his canidacy, that he might have to distance himself from Wright?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:52 amNice speech. Blah blah blah. Even swallowing every word he said I’m still left with one major and two derivative quesions: If he’s running as the guy who is a healer and uniter how come he couldn’t heal Jeremiah Wright? Didn’t he have twenty years to try? If he couldn’t fix his good buddy who he loves and who loves him, how is he going to heal the country?
Nocomme1 (fcb275) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:53 amHaving integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/18/2008 @ 8:57 amEmpty platitudes and more weaselly garbage. Another politician, just like the last one, who was just like the last one……ad infinitum. You can’t believe a word they say, and if you do you are an fool.
MikeD (d9960d) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:02 amActually, I think Obama hit a home run with this speech. It’s not too surprising that it doesn’t go over well here, but people who read this site are not exactly his audience, are they?
Instead of pulling further away from Wright, Obama actually draws him closer. He more explicitly rejects his rhetoric, but then he argues that we need to “understand” where black anger is coming from in order to heal and unite the country.
Now… is that sincere? I have my doubts. And even if Obama really does want to get past racial grievance theater, I don’t see that he has any plan for it, beyond electing a black man as president. And that’s not going to bring healing to our country either if it has to be bundled with swallowing his vague socialism.
Don (030af8) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:02 amNocommei> Ah yes, just like if McCain couldn’t stay with his crippled first wife, how can we expect McCain to stick with America if she ever gets hurt? Personal relationships are so perfectly analogous and comparable to governing qualities, aren’t they? Obama may have made a tepid speech and he may be a blank slate candidate, but let’s not try to bring any more retarded arguments to the table than there already are.
Mike (8e0e3b) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:06 amPurely as a student of rhetoric, I found it fascinating that Obama took the direction he did. The reflex reaction among politicians is to throw the inconvenient guy under the bus – like what happened to Ferraro. They get “disappeared.”
“Rev.” Wright disappeared from the website and the advisory committee, but Obama refuses to disown him. That’s not the usual. It’s a big calculated risk. But, especially since he has the press in his pocket, I suspect it’s going to be a winner for him.
Either he is an unusually savvy student of human nature (read: con man), or he has some very smart people writing speeches for him.
Don (030af8) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:07 amSo, I take it a President Obama will put a temporary hold on the AIDS and Crack distribution projects currently ongoing?
Techie (ed20d9) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:13 amYou say that as if most here don’t damn him for that…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:14 amIf the media continues to give Obama and Wright cover, then they, the MSM, will have to answer as to why they hold such dispicable and disgusting views.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:16 amI can’t wait to see Olberman stutter and stammer as he tries to explain that he isn’t a white black-racist.
Now the election is about race …
bill-tb (26027c) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:24 am“Ah yes, just like if McCain couldn’t stay with his crippled first wife, how can we expect McCain to stick with America if she ever gets hurt? Personal relationships are so perfectly analogous and comparable to governing qualities, aren’t they?”
Mike:
Your McCain/wife/America analogy might work in the Bizzaro world but not here in the real one. Obama claims he can help to heal the relationship between Blacks and Whites and bring them together but he couldn’t do it with his friend or entire church apparently. Lesson: He isn’t very good at bringing Blacks and Whites together.
An analogous argument against McCain would be that he didn’t stick with his first wife therefore he won’t stick with his future wives. Lesson: He doesn’t stick with wives.
Your analogy isn’t analogous. LOL
Your analogy is false.
But it was a nice try.
Nocomme1 (fcb275) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:24 amI agree with Don #19 + #21.
Sadly enough.
Also, I do believe that the MSM will give him cover, just as Another Drew suggested in #24, but that they will close ranks enough in so doing it that this will fade away.
But I’d love to be wrong.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:27 amObama disn’t completely disavow Rev. Wright because doing so would alienate too much of the black vote.
And we can’t have that.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:29 amHe did say he heard some of that stuff but I couldn’t hear him too well what with all the American flags on stage flapping.
This was a bit late but, with the big dailies ignoring the whole controversy, he might get by. On the other hand, the people most likely to be offended by the Wright speeches are Democrat white voters. We’ll see.
Mike K (f89cb3) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:33 amWrong, Don, we are his audience.
That’s because to get elected, he does not have to convince the Democratic party faithful – they are going to vote for him even if he has two heads, an anti-semitic symbol tattooed on his forehead and “I Loved Arafat” t-shirt.
What he has to do is convince the Reagan Democrats to stay, and the middle class white independants that he is a safe person to elect as President.
He can’t do that with Wright on his shoulder, and any competent McCain campaign will be able to do that so long as he keeps the issue alive with weaseling.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:40 amI really think the last two would increase his support among democrats…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:42 amThe speech is directed at people of good faith who are capable of rational persuasion. I.e. not you guys. Duh.
Vergil (444e9b) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:46 amThat would exclude many liberals. Code Pink, for example…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:49 amSure would. Glad we agree.
Vergil (444e9b) — 3/18/2008 @ 9:53 amMike K:
Hurt, perhaps, but not offended. They are likely to wonder what more they should have done before pulling his lever.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:07 amBlack liberation theology alienates huge blocks of American voters; Catholics, white Protestants, Jews,
white males, even Hispanics. Could probably toss in atheists, Buddhists, and Wickens into the mix.
Obama’s toast.
KobeClan (49560d) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:12 amVergil, I always appreciate being informed of when someone’s opinions are not worth listening to. Thanks for adding yourself to that list.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:14 amOH!
KobeClan (49560d) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:22 amSPQR, you mentioned a competent McCain campaign.
There’s the rub.
McCain’s running out of feet for which to shoot himself.
No problem, SPQR. You’ve been on my list for months. I’m glad we’ve achieved reciprocity on this.
Vergil (444e9b) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:25 ambill-tb is right. BHO and MSM have successfully “constructed a frame for” (we would call it “spun”) the Wright controversy to be solely about race, rather than about loony conspiricism (CIA invented AIDS) and blame-America-firstism (Hiroshima, goddamn America.) To the extent they characterize criticism of Wright as mere racial dispute, they effectively disarm their critics. They are already provoking some of their more colorful critics (I’m looking at you, Ace and Derb) to descend, in the last couple hours, to some pretty crude insults, I’m sad to observe.
gp (72be5d) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:33 amI for one could care less what color or gender a person running for President is. What I do most passionately care about is the “outlook” the “philosophy” the “honest beliefs” of the individual.
Barack is an empty suit period looking to gain money, prestige and power. Nothing to do with race, but certainly with ego!
Hillary is a female, not a woman and what she was willing to put with and support and her belief systems based on Marx are so way out there that she should never be our President.
Sue (51f5fb) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:38 amA caller to Dennis Prager this morning described himself as a black liberationist and proceeded to go on a scripted rant. Dennis gave him quite a bit of time and quietly asked him for a couple of examples but got nowhere with him and finally ended the call. I am less optimistic about racial progress than I was two weeks ago. If intelligent blacks believe this stuff we are really in trouble. I suppose people can build successful careers in some fields and still hold these delusions of persecution, but I don’t know how.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:40 amAnd she sure as hell ain’t no Lady…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 10:41 amHe did say he heard some of that stuff but I couldn’t hear him too well what with all the American flags on stage flapping.
Gee, maybe Obama will go back to wearing a flag lapel pin now.
JVW (85f15c) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:03 amMy take: Obama believes it is OK to hang out with a racist hate monger for 20 years, donate tens of thousands of dollars to said racist’s organization because whitey doesn’t understand Black wacko grievance theater.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:12 amI wonder how Obama will excuse William Ayers with? The man is a freaking terrorist!
PCD (5ebd0e) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:21 amA large contingent of Hillary voters will cross over or sit on their hands if BO gets the nomination. Samantha Power said they’re supposedly “obsessed” in OH already – you think this speech helped? The dude is toast because actions speak louder than words, even to some Democrats.
rhodeymark (1aaf2a) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:26 amBottomline – Obama is tepid in his disapproval (and sometimes not disapproving at all) of black nationalism, or whatever it is his preacher is preaching, and the crazy ideas about AIDS that go along with it. And he is tepid in his support of Americanism, or any display of it, until all the flags started blossoming around him in the last week.
Thus he seems to be running on there being a moral equivalence between the two, but there is not – Americanism is a force for inclusiveness and respect, and the black nationalism he is an apologist for is not.
So he may be qualified to be President of the lay advisory board of his Church, but he is not morally qualified to be President of the United States.
And wait – wasn’t it almost unconstitutional a while back for a candidate to mention his religion so directly in the campaign? And he didn’t just start that yesterday. And how come membership in a church that was racist until 70 years ago, as was society in general, a disqualification for the Presidency, while membership in one that is actively racist today is apparently almost a benefit?
When Obama decides to address questions like this, maybe I will take him seriously. Until then, he is just another race hustler, albeit one slightly more clever than we have seen before.
sherlock (b4bbcc) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:34 amsherlock –
You posted:
“And how come membership in a church that was racist until 70 years ago, as was society in general, a disqualification for the Presidency, while membership in one that is actively racist today is apparently almost a benefit?”
A great Q! I sure wish those folk could be forced to address that!
I doubt they ever will, though. They’ll heartily ignore that while they run after and trump up some more politically convenient accusation.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/18/2008 @ 11:44 amI find it odd that Obama would sit in a church that would make whites, including his own mother,
John425 (eae6ea) — 3/18/2008 @ 12:45 pmfeel uncomfortable and still have the nerve to say we must look beyond it.
Obama is speaking to people who are looking for common ground with each other, who desire unity and collaboration. Of course that’s not going to play well with a certain ideology who’s primary focus is exclusion.
Favor strong borders (exclusion), an aggressive a non-negotiable foreign policy posture (exclusion), long jail sentences for those who violate the law (exclusion), and denial of any “diversity-oriented” programs (exclusion)? Then more than half of what Obama says sounds like gibberish. It’s not surprising that so many posters here are befuddled by his speech
His platform is about getting along. Understanding other people’s perspectives, and taking advantage of common interests, rather than trying to be all about your own interests to the exclusion of everyone else.
I know what it’s about, because I hang out on blogs with you guys all day because I want to understand where you’re coming from. I’m trying to bridge the gap. Of course, I just end up getting called every name in the book most of the time.
I understand Obama’s underlying desire to unite, to understand and overcome differences. And I recognize what he’s up against — because I spend a lot of time reading it, on blogs like this.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/18/2008 @ 12:48 pmPhil, his platform is about generalities, blandness, and not upsetting the apple-cart; in other words, getting elected. He has no notion (or at least one that he’s willing to share with the rest of us) of what he’s going to do once he’s President.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/18/2008 @ 12:55 pmJust another politician who wants to be, not neccessarily do.
I’m confused. Which group is excluding? The one that freed slaves, or the one that says the whites made HIV to kill blacks?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/18/2008 @ 12:56 pmAs long as he is going to talk about ending slavery in America, it would be nice to mention the US Army and Navy and their contribution. The protesters, petition signers and drum circles didn’t end slavery. Neither did the politicians. The Army ended slavery, and they were killed by the hundreds of thousands to end slavery. He could have talked about that, but he wanted to talk about something else.
tyree (d9bd6c) — 3/18/2008 @ 1:01 pmPhil, what drivel!
You stopped just short of calling me a racist xenophobe because I oppose illegal immigration, and you have the gall to claim you’re all about getting along and bridging the gap.
Sorry, Phil, I’m not buying the crapola you’re dispensing.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/18/2008 @ 1:03 pmYou stopped just short of calling me a racist xenophobe because I oppose illegal immigration, and you have the gall to claim you’re all about getting along and bridging the gap.
I’m wondering how you have determined that I “stopped just short of” calling you a racist xenophobe.
Do you know what I’m “stopping just short of” calling you now?
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/18/2008 @ 1:37 pmI didn’t mean on this thread, Phil. I can go get what you wrote on another thread, if you really want to play that game.
I’ll say it plainly: you are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/18/2008 @ 1:44 pmI’m sick of seeing black radio talk show hosts blast Senator Obama for not injecting racial ferver into his retorict. These black men and women, self proclaimed experts, make a living by instilling racial confusion. They are creating an atmosphere of paranoia and racial divide. Now they are saying Sen. Obama should denounce a pastor for what he preached in the past. Is that politics or self promoted angry black radio?
Monkey Business (ce8989) — 3/18/2008 @ 1:58 pmSteverino, I know you weren’t talking about this thread. You said I “stopped just short of” calling you something. How do you know I was going to call you something, and then “stopped just short” of doing so?
Now, if you took a general statement I made about a particular point of view being xenophobic, well,
I’ll say it plainly: you are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Why label me? Does that help our discussion in any way?
See, I know that I don’t “stop just short of calling” you something, because I’m not interested in name-calling. I’m interested in reasons people hold ideas and opinions. Not so I can slap a label on them and move on, but because I actually want to learn how to overcome what I believe are serious problems.
I don’t think problems can be overcome by slapping labels on the people involved, splitting them up into “good” and “bad,” and dismissing (or marginalizing/ignoring/villifying/deporting)the “bad” ones. So I’m not interested in “calling” anyone anything.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/18/2008 @ 2:01 pmwhy don’t you leave a phone number so you guys can argue in person. this is a blog
Monkey Business (ce8989) — 3/18/2008 @ 2:03 pmI’m sick of seeing black radio talk show hosts blast Senator Obama for not injecting racial ferver into his retorict. These black men and women, self proclaimed experts, make a living by spewing racial confusion on the air-ways. They are creating an atmosphere of paranoia and racial divide. Now they are saying Sen. Obama should denounce a pastor for what he preached in the past. Is that politics or self promoted angry black radio?
Monkey Business (ce8989) — 3/18/2008 @ 2:06 pmAny thoughts, arguments, or comments
Since many people commenting on this thread seem to think that “Rev.” Wright’s rage is simply emotional, or a superficial consequence of his upbringing, it might be helpful to point out that Wright’s racist theology is a very deliberate choice. That’s “deliberate” in the literal sense, the result of thought, study, decision, deliberation. It’s not just the Wright is angry because he was denied equal treatment as a youth. Wright accuses US whites of intentionally creating and spreading the AIDS epidemic, of creating crack cocaine and intentionally using it to kill blacks, etc. All of these ideas spring from his “black liberation theology” which he credits to James Cone of Union Theol. Seminary. Cone described it this way (hat tip: Wall Street Journal)…
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
Somehow I don’t think this is a position that will allow compromise, or eventual reconciliation. It calls for the elimination or capitulation of the whites – not “healing.”
Don (c9e244) — 3/18/2008 @ 3:01 pmWhy, it almost sounds exclusionary!
fat tony (863566) — 3/18/2008 @ 3:30 pm“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”
And this clearly evidences that black ‘theology’ is anything but theology. It is a mash of politial posturng while prescribing conditions that God is to follow espoused by angry self-righteous people. It is shameful and ridiculous for this in any way to be construed as Christian faith. And most importantly, this is not representative of the selfless love exampled on the Cross.
Dana (af09b0) — 3/18/2008 @ 3:45 pm“Why, it almost sounds exclusionary!”
Yes it does, doesn’t it? Not surprising then, that Obama condemns it. And entirely consistent that, while condemning the ideas, he does not disown/dismiss the man espousing the ideas. Because that would be exclusionary.
Phil (0ef625) — 3/18/2008 @ 3:46 pmI think Mr. Obama wants to be something that he is not, and that is honest. This is not about race, it is about hating the USA. Oh, great he does not agree with the Pastor. Now, he can be president. Roland, learn how to be an objective analyst. Where were you when Bill Clinton was being hit, or when McCain went through his situation? Pleeeeeeese.
Magda (4e1682) — 3/18/2008 @ 4:19 pmDisavow! Disavow! Why is it important for Obama to disavow his pastor? What moral standard insists that he do so and not apply that same principal to the members of the Catholic Church? How many Catholics DISAVOWED the Catholic Church in the face of the widespread sexual abuses of Priests with the knowledge of the church hierarchy? How many Catholic Americans and Catholics who serve in our Congress made a disavowal of the Church in the midst of those circumstances? (How many were asked to?) Rather I suspect they too made a separation. (Just like Obama) They separated the unacceptable ACTIONS of a few men, from their Church and did not disavow the church nor its leadership.
Marie Brown (d4e874) — 3/18/2008 @ 4:24 pmThese people disavowed the priests actions but not the Church that by its actions supported those pedofile priests.
In principle, how is Mr. Obama’s disavowal of the actions but not the man any different?
Besides,who wrote the rule that says if you disagree with another person you must disavow them? Surely seems to be some hypocrisy in here somewhere? Might it be RACIALLY motivated??????
Phil:
Thank you for noticing. I wasn’t sure after reading you at 51 and 59. My take, if you’ll indulge me, was that a Shorter Phil would read something like this:
“There are those of us who are inclusionary, and then there are the rest of you.”
I am glad to see I was mistaken. You seem willing to condemn exclusion where you find it, even on the left, despite not having provided examples of it above. It was my error to read more into that than was there.
However, I don’t follow your claim that you can condemn an idea without being exclusionary. And, I don’t see why we shouldn’t condemn the promulgator of such noxious evil thoughts. Obama may not excoriate his friend, but is that really out of a desire to be inclusionary?
Don’t get me wrong. I sympathize with Obama’s plight here, and overall think he is handling the problem better than he is being given credit for. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for him, nor that I think he has even come close to addressing some pretty legitimate concerns about this issue. It certainly doesn’t mean that I believe he or his speech are getting any serious critical attention in the MSM.
fat tony (863566) — 3/18/2008 @ 5:36 pmMarie, your analogy fails. There is no comparison between the failures of individual priests / the supervision of them by church hierarchy and the ideology and theology being advocated by Wright. If the Catholic Church catechism praised sexual abuse, then you would have a point.
As it is, you do not.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/18/2008 @ 5:43 pmPhil…
I can’t be friends with David Duke, can I???
Even if I grew up with him….even if I went to college with him….even if I attended the same church with him….even if I am godfather to his children, or stood at their baptism….even if I was best man in his wedding….
I can’t be friends with him….and still be President, can I???
reff (59b2ad) — 3/18/2008 @ 5:50 pmOh, and Phil….pay for his speeches, support his foundations, politic for him….
Those would be things I can do, and still be his friend, and still…
Be President, right???
reff (59b2ad) — 3/18/2008 @ 5:51 pmA question for Patrick: A while ago, you seemed to think that it’d be much better for Republicans to run against Clinton than against Obama. Who would you rather run against now?
Not Rhetorical (427588) — 3/18/2008 @ 5:56 pmPhil…now, I’ll answer…you can too…
No, Phil, I can’t be his friend…his beliefs are too far out of the norm of what must be for our country, our world, to exist today….I can have one final, desperate, long conversation with him, and try as hard as I can to change what he believes, that blacks are not the enemy, that white racial superiority is wrong, that God does not want me to destroy blacks…
And, I’d have to have had that conversation about 20 years before I decided to run for President, so, in our discussion that would have had to be sometime around 1966, and I couldn’t run for President till after 1986 or so….
Obama has been in that church, supporting, encouraging, sustaining, participating, and all of those things….a church that believes that if God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. He knew of the beliefs of the church, and the leaders of the church, and didn’t walk away….
And, now, he expects me to believe that he does not believe that italicized, bolded line above, even though he did support, encourage, sustain, participate in, and, in the end, believe, in all those things…
This can’t be true??? And, respectfully, you can’t believe it either, can you???
reff (59b2ad) — 3/18/2008 @ 5:59 pmDuke is, however, a friend to democrats.
They elected him, after all…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:26 pmActually, Scott…
Duke ran in a Metairie, LA, State Congressional district as a Republican, and while he was completely disavowed by the LA Republican Party, he won, and served one term….
But, notice, that he was immediately disavowed by LA Republicans when he qualified to run…
As soon as he qualified….not after 20 years….
Then again, he was disavowed by Republicans all the time, but, the local/national MSM didn’t accept that….
Unlike now, when they accept anything/everything Obama says about his racist/hatemonger pastor….
reff (59b2ad) — 3/18/2008 @ 7:46 pmU guys ur a bunch of arseholes…
porths (8f32b2) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:01 amdis iz why America iz goner fall!
Steverino:
I have noticed exactly this about Phil. I hope you do go dig up his old comment and rub his nose in it. If you remember the exact wording I can probably find it for you.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:00 amThat’s right, Reff… I keep confusing him with the Grand Kleagle in the Senate…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:06 amWait a minute, this David Duke? A Republican? It is to laugh.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:25 amreff, didn’t Duke change parties to run as an R in Metairie?
Actually, I’m reminded of this because of Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, it seems to me that the LA Repubs attempted to challenge his affiliation change and were rebuffed.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:40 amEW…
No, he had been a registered “Republican” for many years before, including when he ran for Governor, against Edwin Edwards (D), Federal Prison, TX…
The campaign slogan of the century…
“Vote for the Crook”…
reff (bff229) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:54 amLouisiana’s “open primary” laws allows everyone to run at the same time, and the top two will run off, unless the winner gets 50%+1…
reff (bff229) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:55 am