Obama Responds

[ziggy29]

And while McCain has been an elected official longer than both, when that "experience" includes things like the Keating Five scandal, maybe it is not so valuable. And, as Obama himself said, experience without good judgment is worthless.

Maybe. But McCain, like John Glenn, was found to have had a rather minor role in the Keating Five thing. It was mostly Riegle and DeConcini, and to some degree Cranston, who were really on the take.

 

[Texas Proud]

Anybody who believes that Obama did not hear ANYTHING like what was on the video at some time during his 20 years also are the people who believed Clinton did not inhale....

Does it matter to me... not at all..

Does Ferraro's comments get to the level she should have resigned? No...

Even the lady that called Hillary a 'monster' probably should have been given a second chance....

The level of 'intolerance' is just way to high... that is why some of the good people do not want to get into the meat grinder call politics...

 

[Gumby]

How about we focus on what the candidates themselves say, instead of trying to "tag" them with the intemperate remarks made by some of their supporters?

 

[samclem]

How about we focus on what the candidates themselves say, instead of trying to "tag" them with the intemperate remarks made by some of their supporters?

The character and attitudes of those the candidate chooses to associate with are significant.

What the candidates say is interesting, and may or may not be significant

What the candidates actually do is more significant than what they say. And much more significant than what they say they will eventually do.

One thing Obama actually did (for twenty years) was attend that church, where Rev Wright preached. Another thing he did was to bring his family there. A thing he said was that Wright was an important influence on him.

Nobody's trying to "tag" Obama with a remark made by a supporter. First, "supporter" is too passive a term--this is a guy Obama has said he admires and turns to for advice.


I don't blame Obama's remaining supporters for trying to change the subject. "Please--let's concentrate on his moving speeches and promises, not what he has done."

 

[Gumby]

I won't repeat my posts about Reverend Wright. It is clear that that we have both made up our minds about the situation and further discussion would be futile.

 

[ERD50]

None of them is the perfect candidate for me. Each of them has positions with which I disagree .... Of Clinton and Obama, however, I choose the politics of hope and inclusion.

Maybe he won't be able to do it, but I am willing to take a chance on someone who will at least try. All I have seen from Clinton is the old politics that divides us and cynically manipulates those divisions to gain power at any cost. I can't support that.

Even though we approach things from a different viewpoint, that is my general feeling also.

As far as record goes, Obama has been in elective office longer than Clinton. .... And, as Obama himself said, experience without good judgment is worthless.

Clinton keeps harping on experience, but here is what we do know: Obama has been able to deliver delegates, get the money he needs, and he hasn't changed his message with every shift in the wind. Clinton ran out of money, had a wide lead taken away from her, changed her campaign managers, claimed Obama would not debate her, then complained that the debates weren't 'fair', then shot back with a 'kitchen sink' approach. She seems to want to blame everyone else for her failure.

Based on that little exercise, HRC has not demonstrated leadership qualities, Obama has.

I hope Clinton drops out soon. I want to see how McCain and Obama deal with each other.

Obama is far too liberal for me, but if he is capable of bringing people together for a common good, that might produce some positive results. Even if those results don't align exactly with my beliefs, I'll take it over the old politics. Heck, it's impossible for any single person to represent everyones views. Since I can't expect someone to represent me exactly, I'd like to at least have someone who has demonstrated leadership qualities.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Obama is far too liberal for me, but if he is capable of bringing people together for a common good, that might produce some positive results.

If a group as disparate as the American population can ever arrive at a common good I will eat a cow pie. Maybe some Swiss Canton, maybe even Finland could be conceived as having a common good.

But America is permanently Balkanized. I shudder to imagine the "common good" that could come out of this. For the most part, someone else will extract their good from mine. I would rather people do not come together to do this.

Wasn't the Bolshevik Revolution about bringing people together for the common good?
Ha

.

 

[ERD50]

If a group as disparate as the American population can ever arrive at a common good ...

Ha

.

It is rare, but it happens. Seems like the best case is when we have gridlock - only the laws with wide support can get passed w/o a lot of scrutinty.

But you are right - overall things are so messed up and fractionalized it is hard to imagine any real good happening, no matter who gets in. I'll be happy with 'less bad', and that is probably dreaming also.

On that cheery note....

-ERD50

 

[Texarkandy]

What is this "civil rights agenda" that you fear?

I see where you are headed with that, but before you paint me with the "R" word - let me clarify

I have no problem with equal opportunity & equal treatment under the law. I think that's about as far as the federal govt need go with civil rights.

What I refer to when I said "civil rights agenda" is the agenda of financial handouts and affirmative action programs to black communities, activist groups, churches, schools, etc. - based solely upon skin color.

Obama has already as much as said he supports reparations for blacks in America via federal financial handouts to black schools.

IMO - The problems in the black community in this country will not be solved (or even much helped) by federal financial handouts.

 

[chinaco]

If Obama were to take a position that he would not push for a bunch of new handouts and social engineering...

I would vote for him (if he is the Dem candidate).

The Republican party needs to be punished. The Bush administration has created a mess. No need to reward that party for scr3wing things up.

Republicans... it is not about you the voter... it is about the leadership in the party. Once you separate those two issues... it make things a bit easier. We did not scr3wup voting for Bush. He scr3wed up. And it is the scr3wing that is gong to keep on giving for years to come.

 

[Gumby]

I see where you are headed with that, but before you paint me with the "R" word - let me clarify

I have no problem with equal opportunity & equal treatment under the law. I think that's about as far as the federal govt need go with civil rights.

What I refer to when I said "civil rights agenda" is the agenda of financial handouts and affirmative action programs to black communities, activist groups, churches, schools, etc. - based solely upon skin color.

Obama has already as much as said he supports reparations for blacks in America via federal financial handouts to black schools.

IMO - The problems in the black community in this country will not be solved (or even much helped) by federal financial handouts.

I think you have at least one of your facts wrong. It was Alan Keyes, Obama's opponent in his Senate race, who supported slave reparations. Obama opposed it then, and I have seen nothing since but the hyperventilating speculation of right wing bloggers and op-ed writers to suggest that he supports it now. But if you have a factual source indicating otherwise, I would be interested to see it. If it is the case that he has called for reparations, I would have to disagree with him on that, but I don't think he has.

I also don't believe he has called for "financial handouts and affirmative action programs to black communities, activist groups, churches, schools, etc. - based solely upon skin color", but if you care to narrow it down to some specific position he has taken, we can certainly discuss that position.

P.S. -- I think you are correct that we rarely solve problems simply by throwing money at them. This applies to most social problems, not just "problems in the black community".

 

[Texas Proud]

Obama is making great speeches and such about 'change' and 'bringing people together'...

I just do not see it in his record.... he voted 'present' on (IIRC, but I could be wrong) over half of the votes when he was not in the Senate...

He has been on the left side on almost all votes since joining the Senate...

Where is his history of 'bringing people together' in politics? I mean the ones who actually vote in the Senate and House....

McCain talks about how conservative he is, but he has a history of 'compromise' and has actually voted on compromise legislation...

So how does Obama plan to do what he says? When even HIS history says otherwise?

 

[dex]

I have written before that I understood what drove his pastor's words and therefore did not find them disturbing, but I also think that the old politics of grievance (no matter how legitimate) and group identity are not what we need today. I think as Obama's own words demonstrate, he believes the same thing. The President of the United States is supposed to be the president of all of us, not just the rich and powerful. We must look forward and work together - black, white, brown, red and yellow together. Old and young together. Rich and poor together. I don't see how anyone could object to this message.

It appears from the senator's statement that he finds the pastor's statements "inflammatory and appalling"
RAW DATA: Obama’s Statement Condemning His Pastor’s Controversial Sermons - America’s Election HQ

How do you reconcile your "not finding them disturbing" with the senator's comments about the pastor's sermons The pastor was a person the senator chose to employ as an advisor in his campaign.

 

[Texarkandy]

.... But if you have a factual source indicating otherwise, I would be interested to see it. If it is the case that he has called for reparations, I would have to disagree with him on that, but I don't think he has. ......

Look at his response re: reparations in the S Carolina debate - he dodged giving a direct answer & started talking about schools - (looks like he tore a page from Alan Keyes playbook there)

Frankly, I don't trust what the man says, it's seems all carefully crafted to elicit an emotional response and that makes me suspicious.

There's not much of a track record to indicate how he would govern. When someone doesn't have a track record - it is legitimate to look at who they have associated with in the past - & that is very telling in the case of Sen Obama.

Looking at who he has associated himself with over the years, I can only suspect he's a "stealth candidate" for far left liberal agendas that include a lot of emphasis on ideas of "social justice" & "redistribution of wealth". If you are OK with that, I'm happy for you - that's not the kind of Administration I want. (think Dorothy Hill as Secy of HHS?)

Contrary to his claim that he will unite America - I think an Obama presidency would have the result of further dividing America.

 

[samclem]

I think an Obama presidency has the potential to raise public cynicism and apathy to a new level. His candidacy has excelled at building expectations in many people who have not traditionally been involved in politics and who don't much watch the goings-on in Washington. By studiously avoiding explicit discussion of the tough choices, he's built a cloudy dream castle on a whipped cream foundation. Look and be amazed, but don't lean against a wall.

If he is elected, the real world will not be put on hold and those who supported him will see there's no pie in the sky. The whole thing was a mirage. They'll maybe start to think that they should have looked under the hood and spent a little less time gushing over the paint job. Or, they'll blame the lack of "progress" on those naysayers who keep bringing up the uncomfortable truths and ruining everything (e.g. that people work harder and produce more when there is a tighter linkage between effort and reward. That high tax rates can lead to decreased government revenues. That abandoning allies in a foreign country of high strategic interest to the US can have terrible long-term consequences and you don't get a "do over".) Whether they blame Obama, themselves, or the opposition party, we'll be set up for a wave of cynicism that will be astounding.

 

[haha]

They'll maybe start to think that they should have looked under the hood and spent a little less time gushing over the paint job. Or, they'll blame the lack of "progress" on those naysayers who keep bringing up the uncomfortable truths and ruining everything (e.g. that people work harder and produce more when there is a tighter linkage between effort and reward.

The fact is that people who are emotionally rather than rationally attracted to something rarely change their minds when it doesn't work out.

Groups who wait patiently for a spaceship to lift them off this messed up earth rarely turn on their gurus when it doesn't show up. They blame some external thing- like bad vibes from non-believers. Marginal group members will drift off, but usually not the core, especially if the guru is skilled and charismatic. Same with this candidacy. If he wins and if it goes demonstrably bad, independents and cross-overs will vow not to be gulled again. But the core supporters will blame someone else.

Ha

 

[Texarkandy]

The fact is that people who are emotionally rather than rationally attracted to something rarely change their minds when it doesn't work out.

So the question for Obama is - is that "core" of emotional voters enough to get him elected in the general election?

Obama has tried so hard not to be the "racial candidate" & appear to be a moderate - I suspect his past associations are going to make that more difficult from here on out as more and more things come to light.

 

[W2R]

So the question for Obama is - is that "core" of emotional voters enough to get him elected in the general election?

Obama has tried so hard not to be the "racial candidate" & appear to be a moderate - I suspect his past associations are going to make that more difficult from here on out as more and more things come to light.

I think he very well may be elected in the general election. If he doesn't, that "core" of emotional voters is going to feel cheated and enraged, and I fear that may lead to unrest and violence in some cities.

I am not anti-Obama, but pretty much equally drawn to (and repelled by) all three candidates. It's sort of like being hypnotized by three cobras as far as I'm concerned.

 

[loosechickens]

I find myself quite fascinated by the tremendous amount of vitriol coming from Republicans and the Clinton campaign on the comments of the pastor, now retired, from Obama's church. Methinks they are protesting WAY too much......and are throwing every rock they can hurl in the way of this man becoming President. At last, Hillary Clinton, working in concert with the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It's almost too delicious for words. I found this piece by Frank Schaeffer illuminating. LooseChickens

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero

Posted March 16, 2008 | 04:23 PM (EST) (Frank Schaeffer)




When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.




Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.​

And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....
​

Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...​

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.
Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (Jane Smiley: I'm Already Against the Next War - Politics on The Huffington Post )

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.

 

[Texarkandy]

...... Methinks they are protesting WAY too much......and are throwing every rock they can hurl in the way of this man becoming President. ......

Well, that's politics - "if you can't stand the heat" as they say

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.

Statements like that just go to show that Obama's surrogates have an automatic response to anyone who would attack their "dear leader" - all they have to do is yell "Racist" and the conversation is supposed to be over.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I think he very well may be elected in the general election. If he doesn't, that "core" of emotional voters is going to feel cheated and enraged, and I fear that may lead to unrest and violence in some cities.

I think it's much more likely that this "core" of emotional voters would feel cheated if Obama wins a majority of the pledged delegates and the popular vote, only to have the result overturned by the superdelegates.

 

[haha]

I think it's much more likely that this "core" of emotional voters would feel cheated if Obama wins a majority of the pledged delegates and the popular vote, only to have the result overturned by the superdelegates.

America was meant to be a republic, not a one man/ one vote populist democracy.

Ideas like the Electoral College, super delagates, and so on, are there for a reason.

Ha

 

[dex]

I find myself quite fascinated by the tremendous amount of vitriol coming from Republicans and the Clinton campaign on the comments of the pastor, now retired, from Obama's church. Methinks they are protesting WAY too much......and are throwing every rock they can hurl in the way of this man becoming President. At last, Hillary Clinton, working in concert with the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It's almost too delicious for words. I found this piece by Frank Schaeffer illuminating. LooseChickens

So you are disagreeing with Senator Obama when he said
'Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.'

The senator has known the reverand for over 20 years and even had him on his presidential campaign. The senator found his remarks so offensive that he removed him from his campaign staff.

Why are you disagreeing with the senator?

 

[samclem]

An entertaining analysis of Obama's reaction to the Rev Wright blow-up.

American Thinker: Deconstructing Obama's lawyerly evasions on Wright

In Part:

"[FONT=times new roman,times]Contrast Senator Obama's pattern of behavior and evasions with McCain's straight talk express perspective. Did Obama think he quelled controversy over Rezko when he stalked out of a news conference when he had let reporters ask their quote of "like 8 questions". How does that square with his calls for transparency and honesty in government? [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]

Barack Obama is not a new type of politician; he is a very old type -- a blusterer who lived before the age of google and DVDs and YouTube, when politicians could blithely make statements and promises that bear no relation to previous promises and statements. Veracity can be checked and monitored.

Senator Obama reveals a type of arrogance and smugness in thinking and a low regard for the people and their right to know. Contrary to his evident beliefs, Americans are not mostly dopes."[/FONT]

 

[Letj]

L

Contrary to his claim that he will unite America - I think an Obama presidency would have the result of further dividing America.

You are absolutely correct since there are some people in this country that will never accept a black man (albeit only half black) as president.