home

Why Obama Chose Wright

Josh Marshall and Noam Scheiber try to get ahead of the Wright curve by anticipating the next question - why did Obama choose Wright as his pastor. I believe their efforts are counterproductive. Scheiber chooses a passage from David Mendell's Obama biography to attempt to explain why Obama chose Wright as his pastor. In fact, the entire exercise is condescending. I believe most people are either brought up in a faith chosen by their parents or are drawn to its religious tenets. Obama himself has said that it was Wright who brought him to accept Jesus Christ as his savior. To wit, it was Wright's persuasiveness about Christianity being the "true religion" that made Obama choose Wright as his pastor. Not in Mendell's telling, now endorsed by Scheiber and Marshall. More . . .

To hear Mendell, Marshall and Scheiber tell it, Obama's was the choice of a calculating pol (personally I think this is true) and snooty elitist:

His intellectualism and black militancy put him at odds with some Baptist ministers around Chicago, with whom he often sparred publicly, and he finally accepted a position at Trinity. ... Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday. Even if some blacks consider Wright's church serving only the bourgeois set, his ministry attracts a broad cross section of Chicago's black community. Obama first noticed the church because Wright had placed a "Free Africa" sign out front to protest continuing apartheid. The liberal, Columbia-educated Obama was attracted to Wright's cerebral and inclusive nature, as opposed to the more socially conservative and less educated ministers around Chicago. Wright developed into a counselor and mentor to Obama as Obama sought to understand the power of Christianity in the lives of black Americans, and as he grappled with the complex vagaries of Chicago's black political scene. "Trying to hold a conversation with a guy like Barack, and him trying to hold a conversation with some ministers, it's like you are dating someone and she wants to talk to you about Rosie and what she saw on Oprah, and that's it," Wright explained. "But here I was, able to stay with him lockstep as we moved from topic to topic. . . . He felt comfortable asking me questions that were postmodern, post-Enlightenment and that college-educated and graduate school-trained people wrestle with when it comes to the faith. We talked about race and politics. I was not threatened by those questions." ...

But more than that, Trinity's less doctrinal approach to the Bible intrigued and attracted Obama. "Faith to him is how he sees the human condition," Wright said. "Faith to him is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life. That's far more important than beating someone over the head with Scripture that says women shouldn't wear pants or if you drink, you're going to hell. That's just not who Barack is."

Wright certainly reveals his egotism in that passage. But I do not agree with Scheiber when he writes that:

[I]f you buy Wright's account--and it rings pretty true to me--it was his intellectualism and social progressivism that won Obama over. Certainly it's hard to imagine that someone like Obama, who came from a progressive, secular background, would have felt genuinely comfortable in a socially conservative, anti-intellectual church. The problem for Obama is that the flip-side of these virtues was a minister with a radical worldview and a penchant for advertising it loudly.

(Emphasis supplied.) I am not at all sure that is what Wright said. Moreover, I am pretty sure that is not what Obama has said. In this telling, Obama's choice of Wright was based on his radicalism and Obama's intellectual elitism. This is NOT a flattering portrait of Obama in my opinion.

Scheiber unwittingly drives the nail in with his final passage (he later updates to try and soften the blow):

[P]ut another way, means that Obama's decision to join Trinity was probably the opposite of cynical. Trinity was the place where, despite the potential pitfalls--and he must have noticed them early on--Obama felt most true to himself.

(Emphasis supplied.) Most true to himself? I think Obama spent yesterday arguing that Wright was not anywhere near being where one could find Obama's "true self."

With friends like these . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

< Late Night: Gas Guzzlers | The [W]Right Church >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not flattering? Of course it's not flattering (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:22:52 AM EST
    Just as it was not flattering for Wright to tell the world that Obama broke with him for political reasons. Moreover, this

    Obama's choice of Wright was based on his radicalism and Obama's intellectual elitism

    Comes as close to the right wing stereotype about out of touch liberals as I can imagine. I only hope that what Obama did yesterday will end questions on the topic. I doubt it, frankly.

    didn't Obama write a DK diary (none / 0) (#171)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    saying Dems shouldn't run away from religion? or something like that.

    Parent
    No More Psychodrama (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    I've had enough father-son psychodrama in the White House after W and Poppy.  I don't want the rerun with Barack and Jeremiah.  

    AMEN TO THAT!!! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BernieO on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:44:00 AM EST
    Yeah, who cares why he chose Wright? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    I'm sure there wasn't a long interview process. Like most of us, he probably just starting going and decided to stay.

    The question: Why did he STAY with Wright? Oprah obviously left after a year because she found Wright to be a nut, why didn't Obama?

    Parent

    All politics (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:33:30 PM EST
    all the time.

    I still believe that he joined the place to be seen for political purposes.

    Completely cynical.  If there were a way of confirming, my money would be on Obama never really bothered to listen. As long as he was noticed, he was OK with anything.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    I thought one of the reasons we weren't supposed to vote for Clinton was because it would re-introduce her 'marital psychodrama' back into the White House (was it Andrew Sullivan who proposed that notion?)  Apparently he underestimated the ability of the media to manufacture psychodrama as needed.

    Parent
    the more his supporters try to spin (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:24:23 AM EST
    the worse I think Obama comes off. Listening to a clip (admittedly, not a representative sample) of one of his speech in Indiana yesterday (on NPR this morning), he really sounded off his game. Flag lapel pins? Meanwhile, Hillary is sunnily bopping about talking about pragmatic policy issues. Whether you think (as I do) that her gas proposal is Krugman-esque pandering, she is in her element and on her game. I thought the contrast was stark, and that this whole situation has really taken a toll on Obama's campaign energy.

    Obama always sounds off his game (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:26:43 AM EST
    That appeals to people, for some reason.

    Parent
    Worked great for Bush. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:32:10 AM EST
    I swear, the more time I spend looking at politics the less I understand the mind of the American electorate.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:34:13 AM EST
    It makes me question my own political judgement. sometimes.

    Who knows what gives Chris Matthews the "tingle."

    Parent

    Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    He did like the flight suit, remember?

    Parent
    Not me (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BernieO on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    I have a lot of friends who say they wished they had listened to me about Bush. I keep reminding myself that my judgment on that was far superior to the pundits like Tweety. It still is.

    Parent
    you... (none / 0) (#114)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    have a rather low bar for judgments if Chris Matthews sets the standard

    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:29:17 AM EST
    Obama won't pull a Digby and site "abandonment issues"  WTF?  And she thinks he should be president?

    BTW:  Krugman doesn't agree with suspending the gas tax.  Read his blog.

    Parent

    i understand (none / 0) (#13)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:32:45 AM EST
    Krugman's position; maybe my post doesn't make that clear, though. Sorry.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:27:31 AM EST
    he chose that church because of the politics.
    it was the place for an up and coming AA pol to be in Chicago.
    as some journo said months ago Obama may be brought down for something he only pretended to be.
    I think thats true.  he has no connection to the angry civil rights struggles Wright and his generation lived through.


    That is the best explanation (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by BernieO on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:58:05 AM EST
    I can come up with. The spin that Wright's intellectualism is what attracted Obama does not wash. It only takes listening to Wright for a short time to realize that he is blowing smoke, using tricks like throwing out names and intellectual-sounding words to intimidate challengers, etc. but the reasoning behind it is shallow and at times down right irrational. (Notice how he repeatedly asks if a questioner has read a long list of names of theologers and philosophers and when the person hasn't he refuses to deal with the question.)

    I dated a guy like that in college. Everyone thought he was deep and brilliant but it did not take long for me to realize that this was all posturing.

    The fact that Obama joined this church to establish himself - a guy raised in the white world - as an authentic member of the African American society is understandable. Why he stayed after he established his bona fides is the troubling part. He seems to think that he can get away with associating with questionable characters like Wright, Rezko, Ayers and Auchi. He had to have seen what the right wing propaganda machine did to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Cleland, etc. Don't forget he has long aimed at the presidency, yet he chose to associate with these guys for short term gain, then did not cut his ties when he moved to national office. That to me speaks of a typical trait of narcissists - they believe the rules do not apply to them. Sadly, as in Bush's case, they often don't. That does not make them good choices for president. We need someone whose feet are grounded in the reality-based world, not on some cloud of their own imagining.

    Parent

    speaking only for me (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:10:55 AM EST
    I am personally not exactly dazzled by the mans intellectualism.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#182)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    Wright's been saying is very old.  It sounds like a lot of stuff we heard in the late 60s, early 70s.

    I agree with Capt Howdy's earlier comment as well.  Obama joined for political reasons.

    Parent

    on target (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    Obama's moves are all political. He was a young man with a political career in mind and Wright open the door to voters. I don't by any of this psycho babble. This was a political choice gone bad. It goes to Obama's judgment, his own self inflicted contradictions about who he really is. Perhaps he should have figured that out before he ran.

    Parent
    He wasn't a pol at the time (none / 0) (#47)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:49:44 AM EST
    Obama was a community organizer trying to gain "street cred". Wright was the ticket into the church scene that you had to be plugged into for that kind of work. If Obama was thinking White House at the time he would never had gone near Wright's church.

    Parent
    havent we established (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    he has been running for the presidency since kindergarten?

    Parent
    Yeah, but we didn't say he was good at it. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    touche (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:11:31 AM EST
    Politics and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:13:57 AM EST
    I think he always had the notion to go into politics.  You've got to start somewhere.  Community organizer is a good way for people to take notice of who you are.  

    From a McClatchy article titled Obama's Church Pushes Controversial Doctrines:

    "As a community organizer, would people join Trinity? Yes!" said Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago's divinity school. (He said he'd contributed $25 to Obama's campaign.)

    However, "someone who wanted to run for public office would think twice about intentionally using Trinity as a leverage," Hopkins said. "When it's Election Day, all the politicians come to Trinity. But not every day."


    Parent

    methinx its partly (none / 0) (#48)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:49:57 AM EST
    - as Anglachel blogged in her Radical Chic post.

    Obama sought radical street cred, people like Wright & Ayers gave him an aura of radicalism, without actually being radical.

    Kind of like people who want the cachet of gangsters, by listening to a lot of macho rap, and associating with rap stars.

    Apparently in some social circles, having people like Ayers as a friend at parties increases your 'coolness' quotient. Like in being a friend of the Fonz increased the coolness score, because he looked scary and your parents hated him.  

    Parent

    I think he chose ANY church because he needed to.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    ...and stayed at Trinity because he got swept up with the group think of Jeremiah Wright.  I found it interesting that Wright recently said:

    "They wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at Trinity..."

    This was a strange statement -- who has ever  called Trinity a "cult"?!? I think it actually IS more of cult of personality around Wright, than a UCC church, but its funny when people offer up attacks that were never made.  

    Parent
    I see a man thoroughly confused and conflicted (none / 0) (#154)
    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    and aren't we all, at times?

    From this experience, I believe Obama will emerge as a person who knows himself and this world in a much better way.  This will change him profoundly, IMHO, just as Gore, Kerry and Edwards were profoundly changed during their runs for the presidency.

    I still maintain that Obama is not quite ready now, but he will be ready, and he could be a great president.  I strongly wish he would accept the VP slot.  There is so much good that could come from that situation, for everyone involved.  But clearly, I'm in the minority with that opinion.

    Parent

    Political expedeincy... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by coolit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:30:13 AM EST
    no that there is anything wrong with that. It's just not a different kind of campaign.

    Obama chose Wright because it was a politically (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:32:09 AM EST
    expedient thing to do.  It was a large church and Obama could get more bang for his buck.  

    And (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:33:40 AM EST
    as usual, he didn't think past his next campaign.  When he joined, it made sense to join.  

    Parent
    That's certainly one explanation. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:54:55 AM EST
    Unfortunately for Obama, all possible explanations I can think of reflect badly on him in one way or another, as either an opportunist who embraced Wright's church for political expediency and is now trying to wash his hands of it for the same reason, or as someone who had no problem (even if he didn't agree) with Wright's more outlandish pronouncements and is now trying to feign outrage.

    I think the truth is somewhere in between - I don't doubt that part of the reason he went to the church in the first place was an effort to establish credibility in the black community, but I also think there was an element of searching for his own identity. And while I don't think Obama agrees with Wright's nuttier and more objectionable views, I'm sure he's looked the other way on many of them for a long time.

    Parent

    Do people ever read or reread what they've written (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    Trinity was the place where, despite the potential pitfalls--and he must have noticed them early on--Obama felt most true to himself.

    because if they read what they've written and see the above paragraph they cannot believe that they are doing Obama any good.

    Trying to put the egg back in the shell or genie back in the bottle is never easy. Talk is all ready out there that Obama is an "elitist" and that his "spiritual mentor" is some kind of a nut-job. Now he chose Wright instead of anti-intellectual churches?

    I don't see how they can possibly believe that these kinds of pieces are going to play well with anyone except an Obama supporter. And some of them may well be offended at the condescending tone. Anti-intellectual churches? Oh my.

    "anyone except an Obama supporter" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    I believe that is who they are written for.
    they are not written to change minds but to provide talking points.
    they are intentionally preaching to the choir.
    Josh Marshall and Noam Scheiber dont have a lot of readers in the uncommitted middle.

    Parent
    These are bad talking points (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:48 AM EST
    is my point.

    Parent
    BTD There was an update to that article (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:52:52 AM EST
    that attempts to change the emphasis on "felt most true to himself."

    Update: Just to clarify, by "felt most true to himself" I mean "most true to himself as a worshipper." The point is that the pastor who made him feel most welcome as a worshiper probably also made him pretty uncomfortable politically.


    Parent
    Somehow, that's even worse (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:43 AM EST
    and I cannot mentally contort myself into a pretzel to make sense of it.  So Obama agreed with it all spiritually but not politically, and the bottom line is that he can be schizophrenic if it suits him, of two or more minds.

    Then the question becomes which Obama would we see from day to day, hour to hour, minute to crucial minute if in the White House?  Would he cling to one policy one minute and another the next?  Would he cling to another country's leader one minute and then toss that leader and country under the bus, too?

    Shifting alliances based entirely on expediency with no central principle spell trouble, trouble, trouble.  And ongoing Obama Drama for years to come, as he works out his midlife crisis on who he really is.  No thanks; I've got my own midlife crisis to manage -- but not about who I am.  Mine is about who the heck the Democrats are.  :-)

    Parent

    I'm Having The Same Questions About The Party (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:48:12 AM EST
    I'm beginning to believe the party has the same problem that you highlighted for Obama.

    Parent
    amen (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    so to speak

    Parent
    Actually, I've had those questions (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    at least since seeing Dems put up candidates like Casey, who do not support the Dem platform and principles that are important to me.

    That's why I have to be an Independent now, which is very hard for me, a major break from my lifelong practice.  But my principles are more important to me.  They're not important to the Dems now, because in their desperation to make the tent bigger, they have come loose from their moorings.  When that happens, the tent may stay up for a while, but it has to collapse.

    I prefer to not be under the tent when it collapses.

    Parent

    Became An Independent Myself This Year (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    Although here in MO to do so is more a mental exercise than anything else since we do not registered by party affiliation.  What it does mean is that I will no longer buy into supporting the party or a candidate just because they have a D after their name. No more funds to the Dem organizations until they stand firm on core Democratic values and no money, work or votes for candidates that will vote with Republicans against my interests.  

    Parent
    Somehow that's even worse (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by votus on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    I'm thinking of some father figures who would be only too happy to advise the young commander in chief while he "sets the mission".....

    Parent
    Hijacking? (none / 0) (#176)
    by jackyt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    The "Unity Party" couldn't get off the ground. I'm beginning to think the Obama campaign is an attempt to subvert and supplant the Democratic Party using its own machinery.

    In Canada, the Reform Party did it to the Progressive Conservatives. At their re-forming convention, the first order of business was choosing a new name. They came up with Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party. It took them 2 days to realize the acronym was CCRAP! I kid you not.

    Parent

    I think I love this anecdote :-) (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    The (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:34:54 AM EST
    whole question of why comes down to two choices:

    1. He's a cynical and calculating pol who thought it would help him politically.

    or

    2. He agrees with the theology of the church.

    There's not much left other than the above.

    Either way (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    he loses

    Parent
    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:43:10 AM EST
    It might not be so black and white. It could be #2, but maybe he does not believe EVERY single part of that theology.

    For example, I am a very secular person, an atheist. But in my community there is a Unitarian church which I occasionally go to because I think they do a lot of good in the community - feed the homeless, promote environmental causes, social justice issues, etc etc. And, as I understand it, the Unitarians believe that faith is not about creeds, but about DOING good deeds. It sounds similar to what Wright talks about sometimes as well - living your faith by doing good works.

    Maybe Obama was attracted to that aspect of the church, but as he said yesterday, doesn't agree with the wingnut divisive stuff.

    Still doesn't explain why he waited until yesterday to say this, I'll grant you. But I can imagine some of what might have attracted Obama to that church.

    Parent

    He obviously admired Wright as a speaker (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    Remember the whole "plagiarism" non issue?  Notice how Obama's style resembles big tent revivals?

    Obama was probably also a bit envious of how a leader of a mega church can get a lot of clout and respect without having to do much more than to keep filling the seats.  Some churches are more about entertainment than they are about challenging their constituents spiritually and morally.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    but there are lots of other churches that do the same thing without the black liberation theology. So it kind of comes back to the fact that it either helped him politically or he agreed with the theology.

    Parent
    Don't forget that Obama stressed his faith (none / 0) (#119)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:19:31 AM EST
    he talked repeatedly about his faith and his church until it became an issue (i.e. when Wright hit the spotlight)

    Parent
    Ever since the Second Great Awakening (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    in the early 19th century, there have been plenty of faiths that are about witnessing the faith, creating a heaven on earth -- to use their common phrase -- rather than simply counting on belief to bring it in the afterlife.  

    This is the "Protestant impulse" that permeates all but the evangelicals.  This was the transformation of the Protestant faiths that gave rise to reform, from abolitionism to universal suffrage and more.  

    It would not have been at all difficult for Obama to find other options that fit this mold; there are many AA congregations even in my much smaller city -- Congregational, like his; Presbyterian; especially African Methodist Episcopalian; etc. --  that focus on doing good, and with good preachers.

    Parent

    If he'd gone Anglican (none / 0) (#172)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    He'd have had no trouble.

    So is choice was bizaRRE.

    Parent

    Okay, (none / 0) (#151)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    they do good work in the community. But if you heard the same kind of rhetoric as is coming from Reverend Wright would you continue to go? wouldn't you be able to find another place that does good work but doesn't contain language and/or issues that you find unacceptable?

    Certainly in 20 years one would think it possible to find a socially acceptable place to worship.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    I just think it's at least possible to think that Obama may have had mixed feelings about Wright and that church. There is good and bad there. I myself would not have stayed and listened to that kind of stuff, but I'm not him.

    Parent
    Maybe to stop the Muslim talk (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:54:17 AM EST
    He kept pointing out his 20 years with a Christian Church. And not a little corner church either. And what did Wright convert him from? Was it really that he needed to be a Christian to run for public office? It makes me uneasy that he says to people that he is for them but can't say so in public because he is running for President. Such as the Palestine thing. WHO is the real Obama? I can not believe anything from his lips anymore because I do believe that everything is calculated. Even his drug use. No one can remember ever seeing him use drugs. But it is in his book. Maybe that is calculated also to show how he rose up from his vices. And there are so many other things. He makes Kerry look like just one sandal.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:59:26 AM EST
    I think that is why he has been touting the church in his nomination run-to counteract the muslim meme. It still doesn't explain why he chose that church in the first place though.

    I agree that you don't know who he is or what he stands for. He hasn't been honest about his background either.

    Parent

    Or he is one of those (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:36:32 AM EST
    passive churchgoers who figures if they park their body in a pew somewhere every Sunday, they'll earn their way into heaven.

    Parent
    Probably a false bifurcation (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    but those are the probable choices, sure.

    Parent
    No, there's the father-substitute (none / 0) (#115)
    by Coral on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    answer, which is my best guess, and also gives us a reason why it was so hard for Obama to disassociated himself from Wright personally. It also explains Wright's antagonism toward Obama in some of his recent remarks--as a father-figure scorned.

    I can relate to the feelings of both. As a daughter, I remember when my Mom's statements or behavior made me cringe. And as a mother, when I recognize a similar response in my daughters, I feel genuinely wounded...and sometimes resentful.

    The issue of father-son competition has been alluded to in several columns (one by Todd Gitlin at TPM especially). Yes, Wright has been striking out at Obama, perhaps subconsciously trying to bring him down.

    I find the psychodrama compelling.

    Parent

    The more I think about it... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:35:48 AM EST
    ...the more I am coming around to a conspiracy theory.  Obama wasn't upset with Wright until yesterday, after Obama had a bad week politcally.  I can't prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was cooked up.  Wright says more stuff (but not new) over the weekend that's bound to outrage people, Obama makes a public "break" as he did yesterday and is "shocked". The MSM tells everyone it's over and behind us and we move on. It neutralizes it for the rest of the primary (since Hillary won't touch it), and it's now months before the GE, and will be "old news" by then.

    There's two competing stories here:

    1) Obama felt drawn to the church and to Wright, as he has claimed so many times for so long. While it is not my place to say what somebody should believe, I do question his judgment.

    He also claims he never heard Wright say any horrible things, so that means that a) he was never in church or b) he agreed with or just ignored the hateful stuff and dry hump-ing of the pulpit.

    OR

    2) Obama chose the church for political reasons. I don't care why people go to church - that's not for me to decide. But I think everything Obama does is calculated - he's a politician. But this latest speech just shows me that I can't trust anything he says.

    So, which is it?  Was he complicit and in agreement with these messages before or is he calculating now?

    I said the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:17 AM EST
    day ago but I dont think so now.
    it seemed like some kind of setup but if it was it was pretty ham handed.  and I dont think it is going to help him.  quite the opposite.
    also if you watched Wright its pretty clear he is off the reservation.  to say the least.
    the poster upthread is right Obama is off his game.
    visibly.

    Parent
    I've heard that conspiracy theory (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    and it seems rather contorted to me.  The reason Obama had a bad week politically is in large part because Wright took his act on the road.  If Obama had wanted to neutralize the issue by disavowing Wright, he could have done so in his speech on race.  He was obviously hoping that would do the trick, but it didn't go far enough.

    Hillary would not have used Wright against Obama in any event - she knows it would only backfire on her.  It's one of those things where you just sit back and watch your opponent self-destruct.

    The Republicans will have no such compunctions.  I don't believe this speech has changed anything in that regard.  

    As for Obama, I don't know what his motivations were in joining the church, and neither does anybody else but Obama.  What I do know is that it was incredibly stupid of him as an aspiring politician to keep up this association.  

    Parent

    Obama's bad week (none / 0) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    started with a bad debate, cranky retorts to the press and then getting his hiney handed to him in the PA primary.  Then there was the Weekend of Wright.

    You're right - he could have addressed this in his greatest speech ever given on race, but he didn't.  Which leads me to believe that at the time, he didn't see Wright as the liability he became (which we here all saw). Getting Obama elected would have increased Wright's prestige and status (being a spiritual mentor to POTUS would be a huge coup) - why would he torpedo him?  He knows how politics is played and he knows words are for effect.  That's why I don't think Wright was "off the reservation" - he knows what side his bread is buttered on.  

    And apparently it worked. The MSM are all hearts and giggles again about this topic.  Wright is old news.

    Parent

    Some of the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:10:58 AM EST
    Fox is still following the Wright story (obviously).

    I agree that at the time of the Philadelphia speech, Obama did not see Wright as the huge liability that he turned out to be.  He was hoping to contain the damage and control Wright.  

    I disagree, however, that Wright has no motive to torpedo Obama.  He knows, and probably knew from the time Axelrod asked him not to attend Obama's campaign announcement, that he was not going to be installed as "spiritual adviser" to the POTUS.  I'm guessing that he was OK with that, but as the campaign wore on, the videos became viral and Obama had to increasingly distance himself, Wright began to feel betrayed.  This is payback, IMO.

    Parent

    Hm (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:55:40 AM EST
    Do we think Obama and Axelrod are great actors?  Because they both seem really thrown to me.

    I was wondering if Wright was sent out as a surrogate to increase AA turnout in NC (like Clyburn) but somehow became an actor of his own and went entirely off message hence creating the crisis. The first two public appearances weren't the problem; it was only the third one.

    Parent

    Are there space aliens in this somewhere? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    Conspiracy theories always go better with space aliens.

    Seriously, I think what's happening now both men consider to be in their own best interest.  And I think the Obama campaign has had plan "Under the Bus" ready since the inception of the campaign in case a bad case of Wright fright developed.

    But the idea that the two groups are coordinating is needlessly complex.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#135)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM EST
    that the two groups are necessarily coordinating, but I don't think that Wright is particularly upset about what happened.  If Obama loses either the nomination or the election, Wright has more ammunition for his black people are victims mantra, and if he wins, he can claim that he helped by taking one for the team.  As far as Obama goes, he missed the opportunity to disown Wright and make him an non-issue before, and this gave him an opportunity to do it now before North Carolina and Indiana.  Given how quickly the MSM has fallen back into Obama worship, the timing was great for him.  I think they both won this round.  

    Parent
    I have long (none / 0) (#153)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:39:45 AM EST
    thought that many of the Obamans had been assimilated by the  Borg. However I don't say it around many people lest they haul me off to one of those nice "socially acceptable" rest homes where old people considered having lost their marbles wait to die.

    Parent
    If you end up there, hopefully you will be (none / 0) (#181)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    joined by this person. I thought this was so funny I had to share it with you all. I was reading the CNN story comments on the FCC story, and this comment caught my eye..and my funny bone.
    Obama/Casey 08 (Because America needs a president who WON'T "distort" reality and history for personal gain.

    Kind of makes me wonder what campaign they have been watching..LOL

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    are probably underestimating the power of the right wing smear machine!

    Yes, I think he's still going to win the nomination.  Yes, I also think the right wing is going to "raise" many of the questions raised here, but not in such a kind and flattering way ;-).

    They'll still be quite able to use Wright against downstream tickets, just as they're doing now.  

    Parent

    Absurd (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:00 AM EST
    imo.

    Parent
    We can agree to disagree :) (none / 0) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:47:48 AM EST
    I wouldn't put anything past Obama or Axelrod.

    Parent
    I would say its contrived outrage (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:03:00 AM EST
    and expediant outrage, but not a "conspiracy theory."

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    I can go with that.

    Parent
    Wright Comments=Obama secretly shares my opinions (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    This, in a nutshell, is the largest problem with Wright's recent remarks about Obama just "being a politician" or he "had to say what he say or he would be out of the race." Translation: he really agrees with me, but had to distance himself from me and my comments. That is why Obama had to act with more urgency than he has ever shown to quickly distance himself from Wright.

    But, if your "spiritual advisor," "mentor," and "sounding board" of 20 years says that you are, in essence lying, and that you really side with him, who do you believe?  Wouldn't Wright have gotten a sense over 20 years whether or not Obama agree or disagree with his world view?

    And if Obama really is sincerely alarmed by Wright, why now? Why didn't he distance himself from him before when he made one of his gazillion "controversial" actions or previous remarks, including his incessant promotion and collaboration with Louis Farrakhan.

    Not flattering and hard to refute. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    And since it's likely that Wright may escalate this battle every time he thinks Obama puts him down, Obama could be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    Completely scorn Wright and BLT and possibly the TUCC and risk Wright going completely ballistic.

    or

    Keep mum about any else Wright might say and hope the reverend quiets down and the media drops it.

    Parent

    Its like a priest coming out after a confession (none / 0) (#104)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:13:55 AM EST
    And saying "Ummm... actually this guy is just being a politician when he says that stuff. I, obviously, have heard otherwise."

    Parent
    WHAT DO YOU THINK IS IN THIS GUYS BOOK? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    It's obviously about Obama.  At least in part.

    Obama will be destroyed.

    Parent

    The piece (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:39:59 AM EST
    is definitely tortured in trying to wring too much out of what we know.

    One thing that bothers me is that Obama now says that Wright was never his spiritual guide, just a pastor.

    It's all over the papers today just how often he contradicted that this past year.  I think he's being fundamentally dishonest, even in his repudiation.

    Hard to understand how sniper fire could be so important while this big whopper gets a pass.

    An even less flattering view... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:26 AM EST
    and the most probable, to me, I read in an article on Obama quite awhile ago was that Wright told a non-religious Obama he was not going to get anywhere as a community organizer if his butt wasn't in a pew on Sunday mornings. It didn't matter what church, any would do. So Obama chose Wright's church because it required the least of him.

    I am a total cynic, but this seems the most likely scenario to me.

    I'd buy that (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    IIRC Wright Told Obama Almost Exactly That (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    It is in print somewhere but for the life I can't remember where. Could be in his Audacity book or one of the early articles on Rev. Wright? I'm not skilled at THE Goggle but maybe someone else could find it.

    Parent
    Obama said it (none / 0) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    but I as well cannot remember where it was.  I have been looking for that as well.  So much for intellect.  

    Parent
    Wright warned Obama... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM EST
    ...that the other local pastors viewed him as "controversial," though.  

    Parent
    An interesting component (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:43:08 AM EST
    of this is what some might call the "karma" inherent in this situation.

    I'm thinking, of course, of that wonderful activist who gave Barack the opportunity to run for her Seat when she was shooting for a seat in Congress.  As most people here know, when she lost, she attempted to get back in the race and Barack threw her under the bus.  He seems to have a habit of stabbing people in the back when it's convenient for him.  And now we see it with Rev Wright.  

    I can't help but wonder how those SDs fighting for their lives in down ticket races -- and being linked to Wright solely because of their early and continuing support of Barack -- feel watching how Barack treats people once he's gotten what he needs.  Not to mention the AA Community who may wonder what, exactly, they will now get from their support for Barack.  

    No guarantees he'll scratch their backs once he's scratched theirs, obviously.  It seems to be All About Barack.

    I definitely see the attraction... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:43:48 AM EST
    that Wright held was his complete control for the theater, the language, the persuasive element that captured the masses.

    I think it's clear that the style rubbed off on Obama. It's one thing to be smart but another thing to be a public speaker and to be captivating to masses of people. Wright definitely has it and Obama wanted to emulate it.

    Their relationship was only minimally about religion. Sure, religion gave Obama an amount of acceptability in the public realm but it's hard to believe that it's an enveloping notion to him.

    Their relationship smacks of teacher/pupil all the way.

    Here Is The Problem (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    Even this article based on an Obama biography contains statements that completely contradict what Obama said yesterday. Obama went with the meme that Wright was just the paster of his church trying to claim that was all he was. Yet, here again we have another example of Obama distorting the truth.

    Wright developed into a counselor and mentor to Obama as Obama sought to understand the power of Christianity in the lives of black Americans, and as he grappled with the complex vagaries of Chicago's black political scene.

    There are just too many documented cases that rebut what Obama said yesterday. This may not be brought out during the rest of the primary season but I darn well think it will be during the GE.

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM EST
    lies are piling up.  It's amazing to me that he's so careless about this stuff.  He had strong denunciation, but then he added in that bit, which completely contradicts himself.

    This habit is a really, really bad one and confirms, actually, Wright's opinion that he's just doing the politician thing.

    Parent

    Boils down to (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by suisser on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    "he's so careless about this stuff"

    This is becoming my take away on Obama. He's careless. Not what one wants in the CIC, imho

    Parent

    Yes, careless (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    is definitely showing here as the problem.  He was careless in letting Axelrod scapegoat Ferarro.  Digging a little story out of a local newspaper and blowing it into a national debate on race proved to anyone with a brain that he was stirring up the race issues.

    That's careless with people's emotions, in my opinion.

    He carelessly threw his grandmother's racism out for the world to see, and a lot of us noted it.

    He carelessly dumped on Wright in his speech, calling him a crazy uncle.

    Any mature person knows that one does not treat people this way, even in politics.  It's a rough sport, but there are limits.

    I do not agree with people who think Wright was all about being a ham.  I believe he's making a huge statement that his religious calling is above politics, and just because Obama is the first AA candidate to get this far, that doesn't give him the right to abuse that position and denounce the very principles he sat for 20 years and pretended to believe.

    I think that was Wright's message.  And I suspect he's got lots of AA people who totally agree.

    I'll be curious to see the polls and what fall-out this has in the AA community.  It's really their issue.

    Voters who may have wondered if this guy could be trusted will now know that he's the ultimate expedient type.  He'll say or do anything to get elected.  (Funny how these attack slogans are all coming back to describe himself.)

    Parent

    AA fallout? The Chicago Defender (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    as the historic AA press chain, first and largest in the country, as well as hq'd in the home of both Obama and Wright, will be the one to watch.  Nothing yet on its site on Obama's press op yesterday -- but so far, huge on its online front page is a photo of Wright and a story on his preaching of "racial tolerance" at the NAACP event.  This is the take:

    Detroit Branch NAACP President, Rev. Wendell Anthony, gave a moving introduction of Wright before his speech, at one point asking all clergy members, both Black and white, to stand. In his introduction Anthony said Wright's work is one that points to the historic role of the African American church to defend and speak to issues in the African American community. The NAACP will continue to speak truth to power, Anthony said, urging Wright not to feel lonely in what many are calling his new "battle to defend his reputation of helping and caring for the needy in America and Africa."

    Defending the NAACP invitation to Wright, Anthony said, "It's bigger than all three of them," referring to presidential candidates Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. and Republican Sen. John McCain. "This is about the African American church. This is about our church. This is about our people. This is about our right to speak truth to power. It is not a white thing, nor is it a Black thing. It is the right thing we're doing here tonight," Anthony declared.

    It's hard to imagine how the Defender would flip-flop from that and defend Obama over Wright.  But we will have to see.  Watch the Defender.  (But also the Baltimore Afro-American and Pittsburgh Courier; those are the big three, with franchises across the country.)

    Parent

    Many People Are Willing To Accept That Pols Do (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    what pols do. IOW distort the truth when it is politically expedient to do so. They may not like this fact but they accept the reality of it.

    Then you have people like many Obama's young supporters who want desperately to believe that their candidate is above all that.

    When all the contradictions are laid out for all to see it will go unfavorably against his uniter rhetoric, his judgement and his trustworthiness.

    Personally, I would like politicians to be above all this, know they will not be and hope they are not completely stupid when they do it.

    Throwing his grandmother under the bus makes me question if there is anything that Obama is unwilling to sacrifice to feed his political ambitions. The sheer stupidity of the way he handled this problem makes me question his ability to win the GE and handle the difficult problems  that now face the country.  

    Parent

    Bad judgment/bad politics (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by candideinnc on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    Obama infused his campaign with religion early on.  In making his faith a political issue, he brought his pastor with him on a really bumpy ride.  Now Wright has made race the issue of Obama's campaign, and it couldn't be a worse issue--more divisive, less productive--than anything Obama could have brought up.  No, this is definitely not some political ploy of Obama's, it is not some brilliant end run, and it does have the potential for crushing his political aspirations.

    Why this helps Hillary (none / 0) (#55)
    by coolit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:52:41 AM EST
    No longer can any Obama supporter falsely claim that Clinton made race an issue.  No longer can congressmen say that Clinton is ripping the AAs away from the party.  This controversy is far more "racial" than anything she has ever done, so the Obama campaign and supporters can no longer play their race card anymore.  

    This was the one thing holding back Clinton;  the veiled thought that she may be considered a racist.  Now, that consideration has been made, in all senses, moot.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04:10 AM EST
    I don't see that happening.  I saw a couple of AA talk-radio hosts on CNN and Fox last night, who were all up in arms about the prospect of Hillary "stealing" the nomination from Obama, and threatening to vote for McCain if that happens.

    I see Obama supporters claiming that the Clinton campaign is conspiring with Wright to bring down Obama.  

    I think that in the minds of some supporters, Hillary is a de facto racist simply for running against Obama.  That's not going to change.

    Parent

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:07:40 AM EST
    still playing the race card I see. They are hurting Obama more and more. I guess when Obama loses most of the rest of the states or loses in Nov. they'll be calling everyone else racists.

    Parent
    For many people (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    it's not a "card."  It's the way they see the world and people.

    They will believe in their hearts that anyone who supported Hillary is a racist.

    Today there was an editorial that essentially said that anyone who votes for Hillary because of the Wright flap is a racist.

    Politically, I think that the damage is done.

    Parent

    So frustrating (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by coolit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    I really thought that for the past 8 years, the American people had been so off base.  How could they keep electing Bush?  

    But then this election came and I was thinking, finally, we have done it, and I will again feel comfortable with the American people.  Our path has been corrected.

    But now, with everyone calling Hillary a racist, and she is trying to smear a black man, and she is stealing the nomination, and she is alienating black democrats .....

    I now find myself so different from the American people again.  This is  so frustrating.

    Parent

    "anyone who votes for Hillary" (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    one wonders if they actually believe this sort of crap will get MORE votes for them?


    Parent
    Um no (none / 0) (#183)
    by nell on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    Deciding that you do not wish to support Obama because of Wright is not about racism, it is about judgement. While Obama lost my support long before Wright became an issue, this situation with Wright was just one more thing that confirmed I made the right decision.  One of the things I detested most about GWB was his close association with religious extremists on the right. Wright may be a religious extremist on the left, but he is an extremist just the same.

    Though Obama may not share all of Wright's views, I simply cannot believe that he sat in those pews for 20 years and donated more than 50,000 to the church in two years time and did not know what Wright's beliefs are. While there is truth to some of what Wright says, I do think he is misguided when he uses terms like the US of the KKK-A and God D*** America. And don't even get me started on the extreme disrespect he showed to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Natalee Holloway, and this is just in the publicized clips. Neither Wright nor Obama have offered any apology to the Clintons.

    By attending that church and by funding the church, Obama implictly tolerates those statements, even if he does not agree in full. Perhaps you believe Obama when he says he didn't know, but I do not believe him for a second. It defies credibility to think that he was part of this institution for 20 years but had no idea Wright really had such extreme views. If he did not know, he is a fool. If he did know and said nothing, he has shown that he is spineless. If he could not stand up to his own preacher, why should I believe he will stand up to dictators, etc?

    I am a minority who does not participate in organized religion. My discomfort with Obama, which has grown due to Wright, has nothing to do with racism, it has everything to do with judgement. I believe you should speak out against bigotry in every form and Obama is either so clueless that he should not be president, or he failed to speak out against bigotry. Either situation is a huge problem for me.


    Parent

    just look... (none / 0) (#138)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    at the narrative from Survey USA's North Carolina poll released yesterday.

    Since January, Clinton had led among Carolina whites by 14, 19, 17, 22 and 23 points. But today, suddenly: 31

    This is before the latest Wright bubble had hit.

    His numbers are putrid. He polled 30% of the white voters in NC

    He is not electable.

    No amount of Wright drama was gonna help that

    Parent

    Unfortunately All Indications Are That (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    the Dem leadership is bound and determined that Obama will be the nominee rather than anger his young supporters and the AA community.

    So it looks like if his political aspirations are crushed, it will be in GE against McCain.

    Parent

    Digging, digging furiously (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:49:03 AM EST
    With friends like these

    Exactly.  People in a hole need to learn when to stop digging.  Is Obama a calculating pol?  Or someone whose true beliefs align with Wright?  Or someone who was duped for 20 years?  Is this debate helpful to Obama? I think not.  Why don't they just let the news cycle take its natural course because from what I've seen the MSM is going to spin this Obama's way at least until Wright pops up again.  If Obama's lucky, that will be after IN.

    It's as if they feel compelled to be right about Obama and to prove that Obama is always right, so they can't stop explaining things.

    Churches and Politics (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:54:14 AM EST
    In large American cities there are churches that are connected politically.  Preachers that the local politicians pay homage to and always include in the political power table.   If you are going to do anything in these cities politically, you have to be connected to those churches.  Wright was convenient in Chicago and to Obama's early politics.  He was convenient to giving him a Christian identity.

    He got a big bang for church going dollar.  He got connection in the community and a preacher who was connected to the local politicians.   All this high talking about intellect is a bunch of cover for politics as usual and sounds "elitist".  

    Sigh (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    Simple principle for Obama supporters: the less time spent on discussion of Rev. Wright, the better for Obama.

    Starting up a whole discussion about why Obama chose that church may be very intellectually stimulating, but it can't help Obama no matter how brilliant the conclusion is.  What would help Obama is talking about Wright as little as possible.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:04:11 AM EST
    I avoided discussing it as much as possible. I can't help it. The discussion now interests me.

    Before, it just seemed a political fire to be put out.

    But I am writing another post on this now.

    Parent

    It was my impression. . . (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    that Steve was referring to the bloggers you quote rather than to yourself.  It's true I was going to add a snippy comment to the effect that it is an Obama supporter (you) who wrote the post here, but hey.

    For my own part, I would prefer if you would continue to write as a more-or-less objective political observer rather than out of consideration for which Democratic candidate might be helped by whatever it is you say (with assumption that you won't be developing novel lines of attack for the Republicans to use).

    Parent

    Do you really believe (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST
    that republicans need to get talking points from dems?

    They've taken the smear to an art form.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    But it's a necessary caveat whenever discussing the touchy issue of Democrats writing about the Democratic primary.

    Parent
    That train's (none / 0) (#144)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29:12 AM EST
    left the station.  I've not seen such stupidity and nonsense and finger-pointing and vitriol since the run-up to the Iraq War, and that was more along partisan lines.  We've done this to ourselves.  

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Parent

    PS (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    This issue nicely ties in with your theory of Obama as media favorite.  One might go so far as to say the outcome of the election is now entirely in the hands of the media and how they decide to cover the Wright issue.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    they would certainly like you to think this but I dont buy it.
    as an example I would suggest looking back at the 90s when all the same people, for the most part, did everything they could possibly do to make us hate Bill Clinton and his numbers never dropped below 60%.
    you are vastly over rating the power of the MSM.  IMO.


    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#108)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    Helluva risk, if you ask me.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#157)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    Perhaps I was imprecise when I said "Obama supporters."  My advice was directed more at the "Obama advocates," if you will.

    Since your practice is to comment on all relevant aspects of the campaign, whether they cast Obama in a good light or a bad one, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your posts.  My comment wasn't at all directed at you.

    But I think those who are "in the tank" for Obama and simply want to do whatever will be most helpful for his candidacy need to understand that psychoanalyzing the Obama/Wright relationship is not doing their candidate any favors.

    Parent

    The guy has the thinnest resume in the history... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:24:39 AM EST
    ...of any major party nominee. (or would be if he is the nominee). What else do we have to talk about? He isn't like McCain and Clinton, where we can say, well this doesn't jive with x,y, and z that we know about him/her. Nobody knows who this guy is!  

    All we know is that Wright warned him that the area preachers thought he was "too controversial" and that it might hurt him as a community organizer, but he decided to join the church anyway. Then, he admits that he has heard "these type of offensive" statements during his 20 years at Trinity, but he doesn't quit. Now, he's running for President and all of sudden he has a problem with Wright, but Wright contradicts him and says that he is "just being a potician" and "just saying that or he would have to drop out of the race."

    If Obama is actually "just being a politician" and actually agrees with Wright on Farrakhan and other things, its a big, big problem.

    Parent

    you know what I'd love to see (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    OK, slightly off topic... but I'd love to see a candidate that doesn't go to church. Doesn't have a religious leader or spiritual mentor. Doesn't talk about their religion or god. Doesn't say a damn word about it. And when asked says, that's none of your business. Well, I can dream can't I...

    I saw a newsclip of Clinton re Church Attendance (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM EST
    I recently saw a clip of a reporter interviewing Clinton on the street.  She was asked when was the last time she went to church, and where.  She told him that was a totally inappropriate question to ask and left it at that.

    Parent
    Amen and Hallelujah! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:13:49 AM EST
    Yup (none / 0) (#113)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:16:53 AM EST
    That actually used to be the norm. All we knew about Papa Bush was that he was Episcopalian. Reagan was extremely private about his (non?)religion even though he exploited moral issues.

    When you think about it, it was Democrats like Carter that started the slide into beat-you-over-the-head-with-my-pious-religiosity politics.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#120)
    by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM EST
    I'd love that, too.  How do we put the genie back in the bottle?

    Parent
    Vote (none / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    Republicans off the island?  As long as we have Republicans, Democrats will have to run on "faith".

    Parent
    I think this fits Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    better than his Christian spin.  He did not go to church very often, sometimes not for years at a time.  I have never believed he was Christian. It just does not ring true IMO.  The Christian identity was probably for political reasons rather than spiritual.

    Parent
    Faith, it's such a tricky and personal thing (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    I practice a faith.  Many are the days that I must sit down with my higher power because I need to make some personal adjustments and sometimes I have to admit that gee, I really screwed that one up.  It is my faith though and it works for me and people who practice a different faith or believe different things would probably disagree with or be offended by my practice of my faith.  Can we get faith out of our politics now please.  Are we satisfied yet that the two don't do well together?  Have we fubared enough?  Are we done with this for this century yet?

    Yes. Separation of church and state (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    never sounded so good, which is why I'm not very interested in the whole religious context of this.  But Obama introduced the religon angle, so he must deal with the now negative consequences of that.  By talking about religion, he could fill up time and space that would have been better devoted to his political achievements.

    Oh, wait.

    Parent

    One of the people on TV yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:16:33 AM EST
    related that when she moved to Chicago, she heard that there were really two main AA churches that you could choose from--Trinity and Apostolic.

    She also pointed out that these two were "the" two main ones with lots of important people in them...

    I would say it's probably a combination of things that might've kept him there after the first visit.

    So I've been reading some of the comments (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by michellemarie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:20:37 AM EST
    on NYT and ABC news, and they made me want to check myself into an institution. People have convinced themselves that CLINTON is responsible for WRIGHT, and that she arranged all of his talk show appearances. What the bloody hell? I can't handle democracy when it involves IDIOTS like these.

    Honestly, Clinton has mentioned Wright a grand total of two times. And one of those times was Monday when she urged us to put the Wright issue behind us.


    It puts blame for what has happened (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:25:04 AM EST
    on someone other than the person most responsible - Obama.  This sounds too much like what has happened with George Bush.

    Yuk.

    Parent

    just like the bushies (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    This subset of Obama followers are like the 20% or so of people that still think dubya is the greatest president ever. Must be some really good kool-aid. Really stunning. And there's really no answer to give them. I think perhaps some therapy is in order.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:45:54 AM EST
    You don't think Lady Macbeth would tip her evil hand by actually mentioning Wright too much in public, do you?  That's part of her diabolical cleverness. She's apparently able to manipulate people as easily as Ben on Lost.  We're all just puppets. ;-)

    I just I should clarify that this is sarcasm. :-) Since someone discussed Hillary as Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction on NPR the other day, I'm now of the belief that CDS is being spread through the water and/or food supply. Add space aliens to this theory as needed.

    h/t to Shakesville.

    Parent

    I bet after a couple more weeks of this (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    Obama will be willing to say he IS a Muslim.

    LOL (none / 0) (#147)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    That's funny. That would be bad indeed if that would be a better alternative (in this crazy day and age) than saying he was at any time aligned with Wright.

    Parent
    Trying to divine why Obama chose (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:28:50 AM EST
     Trinity, or developed a relationship with Wright, or stayed for 20 years, and so on, is an interesting exercise, but in the end, all we have to go on is what Obama says about why, what Wright says about his relationship with Obama, what those close to both men share about what they know - and then it is up to us to decide if it makes sense, if we believe it, if we approve or agree with it - and act accordingly.

    Like everyone else, I have my own opinions about what I've heard and read, and where I am with all of it is that Obama has entangled himself in a morass of contradictory accounts; he is where he is because of the choices he's made and he is - unfortunately - having to deal with the consequences on a national stage.

    Obama is a Story that he is constantly editing; he isn't just trying to write his own ending, he is trying to write his own beginning and middle to conform with what he wants the ending to be.  It's why people are so confused: was Wright his spiritual mentor/guide, or not?  Was Wright like a family member or not?  Can someone help you come to faith without ever expressing his or her own philosophy about it?  Can you be connected to a church and not know what your pastor is preaching?  Does Trinity have a "what happens at Trinity stays at Trinity" policy, such that if you miss a sermon, no one ever talks about it outside the church?

    I feel like we are trapped in a really bad movie, forced to re-live someone else's life on a daily basis, never knowing from day-to-day whether the version we heard yesterday or last week or last month, or read in a book, is the same version we are hearing about today.

    Who the heck is this guy?  Does he even know?  I don't think so.

    Why did he join Trinity?  Depends on what day it is - which is not a good thing for people to be thinking or feeling.


    I'm at the point (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    where I have no idea why Obama chose Wright and why he stayed with him, why he defended him and now "divorces" him, etc.  After all, the man went and defended the positions and words from his earlier sermons.  Before yesterday, those positions were somehow okay.  Yesterday, all of a sudden, they're not okay, because he turned against Obama.

    I understand completely why Obama disowned him yesterday.  The man attacked him and worked to undermine him.  But what I can't understand is why the same words Wright has preached for years are no longer acceptable to Obama today.

    judgement (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    OK, too many comments for me on this topic, but one last before I shut up. The Wright topic is still legitimate for at least that one reason, it does go to Obama's judgement. For people that think Wright's beliefs are crazy, then it's about does Obama believe them, and of not what sort of judgement in people does he have. And for the people that either think the Wright issues aren't a problem, or are indifferent and think Obama being there is all politics, then it's still about judgement, but in this case political judgements about choosing poorly or handling things poorly. And since Obama put out the meme that this election should all be about judgement, his choices are of paramount importance by his own standards.

    Care to explain how you got from intellectualism.. (none / 0) (#1)
    by CLancy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:22:14 AM EST
    ... to "intellectual elitism?" What's your reasoning? Which isn't clear here. I hope it was more than an easy attempt to get a cheap shot in.

    By the comparison to other black churches (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:31:47 AM EST
    "socially conservative" and not as challenging intellectually. I suggest you reread the passage from Mendell's book. It is clear as day. But play the ostrich if you like.

    Parent
    The quotes came from Scheiber, not Mendell (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by CLancy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:01:05 AM EST
    I read the passage you provided from Mendell, and the contrast between intellectualism and intellectual elitism came from Scheiber and you . . . so I see little that rereading Mendell can do to enlighten me. And, it hardly seems like I'm playing the ostrich to ask about it.

    You've certainly an agenda to push and of late that seems to pick out some form of idealized form of the authentic against which you can define Obama as elitist, but to define someone as an "intellectual elitist" because they are a progressive Christian who rejected "socially conservative" ministries is disturbing.

    Parent

    That, or maybe the church was conveniently (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:28:10 AM EST
    located (i.e., close to where he was living), the services fit his/their schedules, and/or was  welcoming toward people of color.

    Not all congregations of mainstream churches are as welcoming as others, you know.

    Welcoming (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:42:58 AM EST
    to people of color?  For crying out loud, it's a black church. There's no dearth of black churches in Chicago.

    Parent
    Not that close (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    at least to where he's living now.  Obama's in Hyde Park and Wright's church is on 95th Street, a good 40 blocks away - and those are long Chicago blocks.  It's not like Trinity was his neighborhood church.

    If he picked Trinity for convenience, it was political convenience, not geographical convenience.

    Parent

    way to keep Wright out of the news (none / 0) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM EST
    Yes, with friends like these indeed.

    This is all very silly. Many people understand Wright's sentiments about the US with respect to black americans, and even here many people side with him. It seems clear that Obama feels mostly the same. This is all about Wright's ego in wanting to defend himself and telling everyone (the truth) about how Obama believes it too but is now just being a politician and pretending he doesn't. Of course Wright hasn't changed since two weeks ago. That's a silly meme. The problem of course is Wright is a political hot potato. Obama and his campaign should have figured out a way to keep Wright quiet and happy about being quiet until November. They blew it.

    I think Wright will come out and speak again about all of this. After all, it was his hurt feelings about what Obama said in his Philly speech that prompted last weekend.  I personally think the Obama campaign really blew it politically with the approach they took yesterday. Because if Wright comes back and keeps talking, and makes it clear he hasn't changed, then the whole narrative of the personality change falls apart. Maybe they'll buy him off. Hey they could promise him the VP slot like they did to Richardson. They won't give it to either, so no harm. Snark.

    Timelines & Schedules & Reality (none / 0) (#31)
    by wurman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM EST
    Big Tent there is another thread to this who chose whom, when, for what reasons.

    Not one commenter, pundit, or poobah has noticed that the Rev. Dr. Wright was scheduled, long in advance, to appear on Moyers, at the NAACP Convention & before the Nat'l Press Club.  These are not random events that simply & instantly developed out of the general availability of Wright to speak his mind to important audiences after a dust-up with the senator over doctrines of liberation theology.

    I would contend that the Obama campaign arranged these several months ago as "set pieces" to showcase the senator's spiritual advisor.  Wright's well coordinated sequence of major venues is/was not happenstance.  Sen. Obama had intended for the reverend doctor's appearances to coincide with the North Carolina primary and function as a form of "roll out" for his faith, his "good works" at Trinity & his continued worship of an "awesome God" in blue states.

    Backfired.

    The lame-stream media have all dealt with this as if Obama ticked off the reverend who then made a couple of phone calls & went to the media for his 4 hours of fame.  Hogwash.

    Obama's choices have been calculated all along.  It was a carefully chosen series of events that went wrong because the senator betrayed the reverend, in public, to a national audience.  Mr. Obama made some very poor affiliations in his past, offended & "disrespected" people with his soft-soap denials & created a "dirty dozens" get-even response (which Wright described in his jeremiads).

    Paybacks are painful.

    I find your contention (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    absurd.

    Parent
    Hunh? (none / 0) (#50)
    by wurman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:50:25 AM EST
    You think it's absurd that those appearances were scheduled months ago??!

    Parent
    You "contended" (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:51:45 AM EST
    I would contend that the Obama campaign arranged these several months ago as "set pieces" to showcase the senator's spiritual advisor.  Wright's well coordinated sequence of major venues is/was not happenstance.  Sen. Obama had intended for the reverend doctor's appearances to coincide with the North Carolina primary and function as a form of "roll out" for his faith, his "good works" at Trinity & his continued worship of an "awesome God" in blue states.


    Parent
    The contention is false then? (none / 0) (#102)
    by wurman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    OK.

    Somebody scheduled Rev. Wright for 2 major public appearances & a PBS TV gig--perhaps the reverend, himself, even though he was not a well-known public figure of national prominence & in demand for such events.

    These 3 things are closely coordinated in a very tight time sequence, which is not likely to be a random happenstance.

    They occur immediately before the North Carolina primary, or more generally toward the wrap-up of the Democratic primary season.

    Wright was a member of Sen. Obama's "spiritual advisory" committee and had been noticed as a mentor to the senator.

    Perhaps some speculation(s) might be warranted, perhaps even by me.

    Parent

    They would have been canceled (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM EST
    Even if all the Wright appearances had been set up months ago by Obama's team they would have been canceled the minute the sermon tapes exploded on the public scene.

    Parent
    Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    might have tried to cancel them in such a case...but that does not mean that Rev. Wright or the venues would have agreed to any such  cancellation.

    Unlikely the campaign could have controlled a situation which became newsworthy with a built-in audience for those venues lucky enough to have Wright signed up already.

    Timing!  It's not everything but it's a lot in managing the noose...

    Parent

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:09:57 AM EST
    I think this was an effort to redefine Wright to white america. Wright's old image was too damaging to Obama and would have killed him in the general and maybe even in the primary. So, I think the plan was to have him go on with soft-spoken Bill Moyers, then the NAACP, and then National Press Club. But, Wright let his ego get in the way and went horribly off script.

    Parent
    This is very simple: (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that is modern black academia is a very cloistered one, fed by a huge amount of paranoia and entrenched victimology. In my experience it is this class, not the much larger black working class, that drives what passes for African American politics today.

    (In my opinion Wright is a member of black academia, not a true clergyman. I believe he is a charlatan.)

    These black academics like Wright and the Obamas are comparatively few, they are steeped in old-school radical, borderline Marxist politics, and they are drawn to one another inexorably because no one else, least of all working class African Americans, wants anything to do with them.

    They ARE out of touch, not only with America but with the vast majority of black citizens, who are much more pragmatic and culturally conservative.

    This is not true (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:50:34 AM EST
    Please do not smear black academia in this way.

    Your comment is foolish imo.


    Parent

    Yeah, it's the kind of discourse (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    that turns every black pol and academic into Cynthia McKinney. Not useful or correct.

    Parent
    Well. . . (none / 0) (#125)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:24 AM EST
    I think there are factual errors in Jim's statement -- I've seen Cornell West walking down the street in New York and he's like a rock star.

    And I think that black academia is not as monolithic as presented.  There are right wing black academics and I think there's also a strong feeling that African Americans need to be more independent, party-wise, in their voting habits in order to attract more attention once people are elected to office.

    But it is also true that there remains (or perhaps is actively developing) a strain in black academia where really out there conspiracy theories are common currency.  Wright obviously belongs to that -- his AIDS theory, for instance, is pernicious in the extreme.  This movement legitimizes the insane theories of Louis Farrakhan.

    I also think Jim is wrong in imagining that academic left-wing is necessarily alienated from the broader black electorate.

    Parent

    I'd feel (none / 0) (#175)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM EST
    more comfortable with American politics if more white people voted Dem and more black people vote GOP.  It's completely out of wack right now.  There's no way that 90% of black voters are left of center.  Obama's tap dance around Gay issues, trade policy, indicates black voters are more conservative than pary affiliation indicates.
    And there's no way that up to 65% of whites are right of center.  National polling indicates wider support for UHC and universal benefits than the 50/50 elections.

    it's a voting pattern that exists nowhere else in the post industrial world.

    Parent

    Are any of you black academics? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM EST
    Then why the attempt to stifle opinions?

    It's not a "smear," it's my hard-earned experience with this particular subset. I have plenty of other negative experiences with other groups if you really want to share experiences.

    Critical thinking is undermined when entire subjects are declared off-limits from debate. This is the problem with political correctness, which by the way is another gift from the academic world we could all do without.

    Whatever, ban me, threaten me, delete me, do what you will. I won't be intimidated into swallowing my opinions lest I commit a phantom "offense" against people with no stake in the issue either way.

    Parent

    what are you smoking (n/t) (none / 0) (#56)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:52:45 AM EST
    Sigh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:53:02 AM EST
    When we start pressing McCain about his pastor, then we'll be accomplishing something.  Eating our own at this point serves no one's purpose but the Republican opposition.  

    We press McCain on John Hagee (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    Did you not read the NYTimes today?

    Parent
    I've never seen a thread (none / 0) (#178)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    here devoted to John Haggee. But then, all he does is have face-to-face meetings with people like McCain and Lieberman to discuss the importance of expediting Armageddon.

    Rev Wright on the other hand, said mean, unAmerican things. Plus, he's militant and black.

    Parent

    Ever since Judy Miller (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST
    I stopped thinking about "we" in reference to NYT.

    Parent
    not for the faint of heart (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:01:11 AM EST
    Politics is a rough game. There is nothing wrong with a rough primary in my opinion. I think our party can be strong enough and good enough to have this be a good thing, and pull to gather and stomp the repugs in the ground.

    When did americans get so soft anyway? This is really a mild fight, and I just don't see the problem. Ding ding ding, bring the fighters back in the ring. Let's have debates. And if not moderated, or properly moderated, that is the best way to get the issues back up front. I'm looking at you Obama.

    Parent

    Why did he choose him as pastor? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:19 AM EST
    Why did this nation choose Bush as President?  Why did Hillary stay with a man who cheated on her continually?  Why did McCain choose to murder innocent people in a country that did nothing to him or America?  Why did Mother Theresa apparently give up on her faith entirely?  Why do the vast majority of us oppose this war but do NOTHING to stop it?  Why are we human and fallible?

    Next.

    Parent

    Answers would be welcome (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:57:17 AM EST
    I suggest if you do not like to discuss American politics, you not read my posts.

    Parent
    Dramatic much? (none / 0) (#116)
    by miguelito on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:17:35 AM EST
    Will Wright respond on TV today or this week? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:55:13 AM EST


    how he responds (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:59:52 AM EST
    or not will tell us a lot about how much of a setup this was meant to be.


    Parent
    Explain setup? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    IMO (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    if Wright shuts up at this point this was more or less a staged event.  however hamhandedly staged it was.
    if he does not he really is off the reservation.

    of course Wright will be under tremendous pressure to shut up.
    all the AA press and the MSM who have been making excuses for him will throw him under the you know what if he doesnt.  he doesnt seem like a guy who is easily intimidated.

    Parent

    His conversion story (none / 0) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    or he can come out and apologize to Obama, explain he was distressed about retiring and how wonderful Obama is and what an asset he will be to the country.  Can Obama demonstrate he can get a someone to experience a shift in personal growth because of the focus on how important the future it to the next generation..... What do you think, would it work?  :)

    Parent
    would it work? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    if I was Obama I would lock him in a padded room.
    but that just me.

    Parent
    What about Michelle? (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    What church did she go to?  Why did she follow Obama to Wright's church instead of vice-versa?

    JMM and Schreiber (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    are pretty much confirming that this issue is not dead no matter how much Obama supporters might like it to be. I guess they are trying to get out in front of the inevitable next discussion about Obama but, like you say BTD, they are not helping and are really hurting Obama. I guess Obama's no longer the one shooting himself in the foot, his supporters have now joined the firing squad.

    Take time to ponder is Rev Wright right. (none / 0) (#109)
    by skannath on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    Senator Obama has support from cross section of society and from whites and different ethnic groups and this election has seen as never before. I have to been  to Redeemed Christian Church, which is from Nigeria, and black churches in India, none of them supports Rev Wright's views which many feel is motivated for some reason. Senator Obama has rightly disassociated from such a person and has greater  economic and social issues in his agenda, which is what many should know will help U.S and the world and not what Rev Wright wants world to believe.  

    Much of what Wright says or espouses (none / 0) (#111)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    is my position.  I like the following:

    "He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights,

    "Faith...is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life. That's far more important than beating someone over the head with Scripture that says women shouldn't wear pants or if you drink, you're going to hell."

    OTH, I am white, so I don't hear black liberation orations, nor are the churches I have attended prone to pulpit theatrics.  Honestly, finding a church that allows members to think outside the box (Bible?) is not easy.  But Wright has somewhere lost his way and become a demogogue--"a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power."
    I think he fails his own test for being a Christian: "It's what you do with your life, how you live your life."


    I agree completely (none / 0) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    and thank you for showing the complexity of all this.

    There is much for progressives to agree with in what Wright says, as the examples you give show. He also speaks truth sometimes about people in this country - I particularly like the thing he said the other day about Arabic being a language, not a religion.

    But then there is the nasty side, which is very difficult to explain or accept. Not only do I strenuously object to the racial and cultural divisiveness Wright has shown in some of his sermons, I now find him to be the worst kind of hypocritical phony. In front of the wider public (as in the Moyers interview), he portrays himself as an open-minded intellectual; inside the safety of his church, he sings a completely different tune sometimes. What's his goal? I don't get it.

    He confuses me, much as Obama does sometimes.

    Parent

    Here's a thought: (none / 0) (#123)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    Why not let Obama answer that question as opposed to pundits and surrogates?

    Far be it from a man who is running for the highest office in the land to plead his own case or validate his judgements/decisions.

    Just more coddling/excuse making IMO.

    Would (none / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    he tell the truth if you asked?

    Parent
    I doubt it (none / 0) (#155)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    But I would rather be able to pin a lie on him than on one of his supporters.  I am so SICK of all the excuses and WORM's made for this feeble candidate.  

    This is why Democrats get the wimp label so often.  I am SO glad Hillary is strong and represents the fighting spirit of the party...not some intellectual, diminishing and reactive candidate.

    Parent

    These blogs are reducing Obama's drama (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:35:00 AM EST
    to the latest pitiful celebrity tabloid story now that Britney is on her meds and Anna is dead and buried.  And just like Britney seeking adoring fans as popularity wanes Obama is back on TV today talking Wright with the wife...

    Maybe Oprah can call in Dr. Phil.  Move On its the Party thats being Caricatured..

    Picked this up at Politico

    The majority of superdelegates I've talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "They're just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day."

    Obama currently holds an 18-13 lead among committed superdelegates in the Senate, while Clinton holds a 77-74 lead in the House. Asked which way the committed-but-unannounced superdelegates are leaning, McCaskill -- who has endorsed Obama -- said: "James Brown would say, `I Feel Good.'"

    Not so fast, said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

    This would be a mistake IMO hopefully McCaskill is wrong as usual.


    With firends like these (none / 0) (#170)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    who needs enemy's? Do the Boyz honestly believe they're helping Obama with this sort rational? See, they say, he's not really a kook, he's a crass politician just like Hillary, but he's really cool and stuff, so vote for him anyway.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah