-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/trinity-uccs-palm-sunday-statement/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I don't know that this is an indictment of Senator Obama as much as it is against the forces that turned it into the political sideshow that it has been.
They are defending Rev Wright, their church and the ministry and I think they should.
I don't think Rev. Wright should be a casualty of this election process.
I'm fearful though that it will be viewed as a slight against Obama and will set off a firestorm of critics coming out against Senator Obama for distancing himself from Rev. Wright's statements.
You mean, like TAVIS SMILEY?
Oh yeah, Tavis is Back.
From Prometheus 6:
I was reporting at an event tonight (yeesh, it's late ... revise that to Saturday night...) where Tavis was receiving an honorary doctorate from Florida Memorial Univesity, a South Florida HBCU. Well... let's just say Tavis went off on Barack Obama for, in his words, "throwing Rev. Jeremiah Wright under the bus."
He had a lot to say, but you'll have to wait for my South Florida Times article to get the full skinny.
Tavis' SILENCE as Billary Race-baited Obama is well noticed. His SILENCE said it all. So, he can get off his posturing ass, because if he meant well, then his Black ass would have been on the air DEFENDING DR. WRIGHT. Where was he? Nowhere to be found, so he can STFU.
Going on a war path and invoking MLK in this context is just asking for more trouble and scrutiny...Gosh!! If Obama ends up losing because of this, many black aspiring politicians will shy away from these kind of churches ..and for good reason too. God exists in many places other than charismatic firebrand ministries.
-----------------------------------
Agreed!
As the spokeswoman for the church noted, they are separate from the Obama campaign. Its not their job to help get him elected. I totally get why Senator Obama did what he did, but the church has the right to defend itself and their former minister.
"If I were a member of their Board..."
Keep your unsolicited advice and off-based, off-centered bs to yourself. That way you won't overstate your importance while showing your mental limitations and weaknesses even as you parade them as strengths or honorable qualities.
RULE #2:
"War path"
Stop exposing yourself with your hyperboles. This church, let alone their founding pastor, has been maligned in the media and on the internet for over a year. They issue a statement and you call that a "war path."
Your flair for the hysterically dramatic does not flatter you. Again, it exposes you.
RULE #3:
God exists in many places other than charismatic firebrand ministries.
Great. Now explain what that has to do with Trinity UCC and their statement.
Oh, the rule: whatever you choose to say, say something that makes sense. Take this for instance:
"...many black aspiring politicians will shy away from these kind of churches"
First, what kind of "churches" are "these"? Again, this church has been maligned for over a year with people forming their ideas about the church based on slanted things put out there in the media.
And finally... THE GOLDEN ROD RULE
(spare the rod, spoil the child)
Graduate from the school of child-like emotional appeals (to consequences) and spare all the lame, fallacious reasoning.
It's like going to a talentless child's first music recital. It's hard to be nice when the noise is so loud and off-key.
WHY CAN'T YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND - WHAT THE MEDIA DID WAS NOT JUST AN ATTACK ON SENATOR OBAMA, BUT AN ATTACK ON AAs AND THE BLACK CHURCH IN GENERAL.
I DIDN'T SEE YOU ON THIS BLOG WARNING OF THE DANGERS TO MCCAIN CAMPAIGN WHEN HIS ASSOCIATE CLERGY WERE EXPOSED. I DIDN'T READ WHERE OR SEE ANYWHERE THE PEOPLE OF THOSE CONGREGATIONS BEING DEPICTED IN THE MANNER AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE!
While I support Senator Obama wholeheartedly, I also support Trinity and Rev. Moss' right to speak out against the way that the church and African Americans in general have been portrayed in an effort to demonize and ghettoize Senator Obama.
Senator Obama is a big boy with a lot of big boys behind him and they can protect themselves.
Reverend Moss should speak out against what the media has done and he should also fight to protect his congregation.
As Rikyrah would say: Period.
In every War there is a time to speak and time to remain silent. Some of our public figures (Brotha Minister, Tavis, Pastor Wright, etc.)need to keep their eyes on the prize and THEIR MOUTHS SHUT !!
Yet another ERROR. This was Trinity UCC and where they "are going right now." On what basis do you put tie this to or make this synonymous with Obama?
And where do you get the US vs. THEM, Black vs. White stuff from? Another ERROR.
Trinity response to the "attacks" against their church and now they're the ones causing the problem.
Keep your scripts and PROJECTION out of this.
First, why are you framing this as a WAR?
Second, okay, let's here it: when are the times to speak when it comes to this "war", as you call it? What will be said at that time? You know, when the WAR is still going on.
Obama not only needs to pray that God save him from his enemies, but more so from so called defenders like you! With folks like you talking like this, he will barely get reelected to the Senate let alone become President. You will turn off lots of people with talk like that. Get a grip!
No worry. You're kicking his ass & he has nothing else to contribute!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are clearly here for a fight.
Please understand that Wrights statements and Trinity's defense of him and the church as it was portrayed before the world and their right to speak out is to them a clearly separate issue from Senator Obama's campaign.
N-Qest is speaking directly to your assinine statements that you are attempting to embed in a conversation about what's right for the Obama campaign.
Per Ms. Martin: McCain is not even a religious man and any and has only a tangential attachment to any of those kook pastors. Bob Jones ain't Bush's church and Pat Robertson, Falwell etc are not Bush's spiritual guides included in his bestseller. The relationship btw Obama and Wright is much closer and that is why it is more controversial...there is no media witch hunt against AAs or Obama...let's stop acting like we are in the 1950s and conspiracy theorists. If there was he would not be anywhere near where he is today. He does not run his campaign like this and folks should stop injecting crap like this out there...it only makes matters worse. heck even the McCain was the one batting down any supporter who said "Hussein". Geez enough already!!!
That said... our "vocal" leaders have a responsibilty to preserve and not tarnish or sabotage our hope for America's First Black President.
Don't give the opposition ammunition.
I support Trinity, I support Obama and I denounce and repudiate you.
This isn't my blog, but I suggest if you're not here for meaningful thought provoking exchange that you should spend your time on a blog where your point of view (and yours alone-which is what you would like) is acceptable.
We don't need you to tell us what's wrong with Trinity and Wright and the effect it might have on the Obama Campaign; we understand all too well how forces turn us on and against one another. This might not be a conversation you're wired to participate in.
I wonder if we will see this level of investigative analysis with John "Straight Talk" McCain, his ties to lobbyists and his alignment with religious personages (Hagee, Parsley)?
Of course not.
Lexus: I looked at the post and I do know of that man and some of the things he said back in those days. I think it is a somewhat of a good counterbalance to Wright but who knows how much play it will get.
I don't know if Obama will survive this politically (but I know folks like quest are not helping his case barking like angry pitbulls). I think he could (nothing is impossible) but boy its going to be very rough!
One does not have to agree with or be accepting of the statements to realize that the church has a right to defend itself against the way it was portrayed.
These are two separate issues, why can't you see that.
I wish things were as well as you seem to think they are. IF they were, you wouldn't be afraid of Mr. Obama been judged by what you believe are other peoples ignorant beliefs and statements.
You had your chance and FAILED!!!
You claimed Wright's statements were "unpatriotic" but UPON INSPECTION they clearly were not... BY YOUR STANDARD.
So, if there's anything I've lost (besides my time entertaining myself with someone who is not in my league)... it's my shoe lodge firmly in your virtual azz.
"you are not doing Obama any favors"
I'm under no obligation to do any favors for Obama. Again, say something that makes sense and leave the child-like emotional appeals alone. They only EXPOSE you.
But go ahead, tell me what's that about.
you are off your rocker and you are an angry, bitter and poisonous person.
Please quote my "angry", "bitter" "poisonous" comments <<< HERE >>>
With folks like you talking like this, he will barely get reelected to the Senate let alone become President.
What have I "talked like"?
You will turn off lots of people with talk like that.
Again, "talk like" what? Also, where does it state that Nquest is tasked with "turning people on"? Again, I'm not under any obligation as far as Barack Obama's campaign is concerned.
I'm embarrassed for anon (whomever he is) because Nquest has put some lumps on his @ss!
He's gasping for air now!
ahahahahahahahahaha
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html?view=print
"Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero"
"Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American."
"Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies."
"Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:
"If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable."
And this:
"In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union...."
Then this:
"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation..."
"Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop)."
"Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements."
"Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."
folks like quest are not helping his case barking like angry pitbulls
Quote my "angry" statements, etc. <<< HERE >>>
Again, where is it stated that Nquest has an obligation to "help" Obama's case? But let's deal directly with your recurring issue: what have I said that would "turn" people "off"??
Here is your opportunity to do more than make bs accusations like the one about Wright's "patriotism" that your own words, your own standard did you in. So that would make you "angry", "bitter" and "poisonous" to yourself.
What exactly is the prize?
The pastor asked the congregation to simply stay silent and he would issue
a statement to them. Apparently this is the statement. Also, the church
has been receiving threats since last
week so security guards were present
to search all who entered.
Second, this statement is just fine. The good work of the church needs to be defended, and I am glad that the church makes it known that Obama and the church are 2 separate entities.
Third, the Republicans have for decades pandered to far right religious leaders like Falwell, Robertson, etc...who have made many crazy statements. Yet the public and the media has not held them so accountable. We need to always point that out.
Fourth, let us remember that Jesus said some pretty controversial things during his time on earth. So did St. Augustine, so did a lot of religious leaders. We need to always point that out.
There is no doubt that Obama is being held to a higher standard by both the right wing smear machine and the do-anything Hillary smear machine, but we will overcome. And victory will be all the more sweeter.
<<< HERE >>>
Is that all you have? Is that your only response to Nqest pointing out that your arguments are senseless and not founded in fact?
You are the first ever to make comments like this on this blog since I've been here. You're dirtying up the place.
When it comes to the bad statements of Rev. Wright, like when he says that AIDS was invented by white people to infect black people, well what can anyone do except say that's crazy, and move on? Like Mike Huckabee's offensive remarks about the confederate flag, there's no way to make lemonade out of those lemons. Obama did the right thing when he said he denounces that crap.
Have you ever heard of the Tuskeegee Experiment?
Oh no you didn't.
You did NOT just use the word gangrape on this blog!
You're getting me close to believing that anonymous comments shouldn't be allowed.
Ms. Martin...
It's interesting how folks just want to claim people are 'paranoid', and when confronted with Tuskegee, and READ the book MEDICAL APARTHEID and tell me how 'paranoid' Black folk are.
I guess they think if they just keep saying it aint so then it won't be.
These mofos are driving me crazy!
Nquest gave anon a big fat @ss beat down! A straight-up uppercut to the jaw! Bam!
ahahahahahahahahaha
-----------------------------------
Like government cheese!
ahahahahahahahahaha
Below is the title page to the book rikyrah mentioned. I'm going to read it and I suggest you get a copy too!
Medical Apartheid
The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present
8:38pm "folks like quest are not helping his case barking like angry pitbulls"
________________________________
Huh?
What gave you that impression? Where have you read defense of Obama? You have read that poster's defense of anything that is actually or is mistakenly (like your post about the UTCC memo) construed as hurtful to Obama. Get the distinction. I haven't gotten that pro-Obama impression at all from your antagonist's posts here.
There are some Blacks who want to hurt Obama's chances and some others who lack the intellectual capacity to tell the difference. The slave masters usually had a fox in the hen house so to speak, a spy that had to talk out of both sides of the mouth to get the job done. They still exist today. After his/her post on the "On my faith and church" thread, I laugh at those still thinking otherwise. However, some of the blogs here have been more than suspect, so I'm not surprised when less direct but equally absurd attacks on Obama are welcomed here.
I think that unless a poster wrote "I hate Obama" or "I don't want Obama elected president", a few here would miss the obvious fact that the poster is not pro-Obama. Not all Blacks are supporting an Obama presidency and not all posters to this blog are Black. Disagreement is expected and required but you, anonymous, are presupposing a false assumption that some embraced here are pro-Obama.
As to the Rev Moss' release, there are no problems with it. Dr. Wright is a brilliant man who continues to fully support Senator Obama as the best choice for the presidency. Everything can't be spelled out in the news for us.
OOO
I looked at the Medical Apartheid book on amazon.com. It's very interesting, and I just ordered a copy.
About the Rev. Wright, when he says "AIDS was invented by white people," I don't see how that helps anything. If the Rev. Wright would talk about the Tuskeegee Experiment, that would be helpful.
I'll go ahead and ask: what's the difference?
There is a problem I think, with churches being in bed with government via tax exempt status, then attempting to be a critic of, or influence on that same government. I think this is where the true debate lies and not in these opportunistic issues of patriotism or race.
..and Tavis is asking for a rendezvous with some duct tape and a locked closet.
Obama is walking a tightrope here.
He is a left-wing, liberal Democrat. He belongs to a church that preaches liberation theology and black nationalism. He and his wife have embraced this church, its controversial pastor and his sermons. Evidence of the influence can be seen in their statements and writings. They have supported the church financially.
These are the facts. But these facts now, may not get him elected President. So what does he do, he acts like every other politician...
Conventional wisdom says, that in order to become president, one must appeal to those in the center of the political spectrum. But walking that tightrope, straight down the center is tricky indeed.
As Lincoln famously said, "You cannot please all of the people, all of the time."
So why not just be true to oneself, and let the chips fall where they may. Obama is who he is, and if that's too radical, too left-wing, to be President...
You live and you learn.
Everyone makes choices they have to live with.
Also, Rev. Wright did talk about the Tuskegee Experiment. So, by your logic, because he "talked about" that was "helpful."
Seriously, why do such uninformed (and unskilled) people come here talking sh*t.
And here we have another person who conveniently makes THE GOVERNMENT synonymous with WHITE PEOPLE. Who are you, George Bush?
Obama did credit one of Wright's sermons with inspiring his book, The Audacity of Hope.
So you're both right and WRONG at the same time.
_____________________________________
What? Believe it or not, many people find Wrights comments abhorent and they are not unjustified in feeling that way. Many, in fact, may agree with his statements, and that's cool too.
Obama made the choice to associate himself with this pastor, this theology, and this church.
And now he must choose between the presidency and his conscience.
Clearly, the majority of today's media managers are white, female, and young. Hence the offensive references to Black churches and pastors as freaks and sideshow acts. But just as a few Black men and women stepped up when Don Imus needed to be fired, there are some who can step up and bring pressure to bear where it's most needed right now.
We can no longer afford to surrender our power of self-definition. If someone has a direct or indirect connection to Oprah, see what you can do. If Bryant Gumbel has any juice with CBS and it's cable affiliates, perhaps he can wage a battle or two.
If Barry Obama is going to change the way politics works, then that's necessarily going to bring a change in the way media operates. Clearly, neither politics nor media wants to see things change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZROa0rlMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9_LQKlLSBo
1. "Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color."
2. "Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car..."
3. "Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was."
4. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country... controlled by rich white people."
* Well, one would be hard-pressed to turn a statement (#1) that's about the indignities faced when African-Americans simply attempt to use cabs like other citizens into "hostile" or "bigoted" feelings towards White Americans. The issue is about being left on the curb due to racial stigma which may or may not involve a White American cab driver.
* One would also be hard pressed to tilt statements about the humiliating stigma at play in racial profiling (#2) as "bigoted"/"hostile" feelings towards White Americans when it's the racial profiling situation that's clearly being highlighted.
* And it would be very difficult to show how the statement about being a black boy, raised by a single parent (#3) is somehow "bigoted"/"hostile" feelings towards White Americans.
* Not only that but even the statements about "rich white people" controlling the country (do you dispute that?) can hardly be confused as having "bigoted"/"hostile" feelings towards White America because a chord runs through every one of the 4 statements and that's the "feelings" about the circumstances African Americans are in. Whatever it "means to be a black man" in America has to do with living with that stigma and the challenges, obstacles and, yes, injustices that exist as a fact of Black life.
Given that, people who find Wright's words "abhorrent" in the way that you suggest have a difficult time justifying the kind of accusations/characterizations they make about what's supposed to be "abhorrent."
Those who took exception to Wright's statements had little to say about the essence of what Wright talked about as outlined above. And that's my response to someone who could not justify his claims about Wright's "abhorrent" statements. The person who made the UNJUSTIFIED claim picked out the passage, the points I used (1 thru 4), to emphasize the subject matter and substance of Wright's remarks.
It seems that everyone here is missing the point: elections are won or lost on soundbytes.
The soundbytes relating to Pastor Wright are, taken out of context, without any understanding of history, inflammatory and shocking and deeply troubling to many Americans.
You can debate the why of it all day long. The fact is that this is a campaign, an election process, and these soundbytes from Wright are going to kill Obama's candidacy.
He cannot get past this, there isn't any way. He can go on the cable news networks and write all of the explanations he wants to, he cannot combat the power of those words from Wright's mouth.
I AM NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT. It's just a fact. There was no truth to the bullshit that killed Kerry. There was no truth to the crap they spun about Al Gore.
They'll pull these statements out and make a 30 second commercial of this and Obama's "just words" and get a picture of him with Wright and that will be that.
The message won't be hitting people like you or me come October. It will be hitting people who are casually interested in politics, who vote, certainly, who are proud Americans, and who will be HORRIFIED and OUTRAGED and ANGRY about Wright's statements.
It's the end of Obama. It is a tragedy. And frankly, I'm pretty pissed about it in part because Obama should have known better. He knew this shit was out there and he did nothing. Now he's all we've got in the Democratic party, and not only that, this awakens those old complaints about Democrats, that we're radicals and left wing commie zealots and all of that.
Welcome President John Fucking McCain. God help us.
"Obama made the choice to associate himself with this pastor, this theology, and this church.
And now he must choose between the presidency and his conscience."
What is his conscience telling him?
I think you're missing the point WHAT WRIGHT MEANT DOES MATTER.
Especially if you believe the soundbytes are going to cause people to vote against Obama.
Government is the representative of the people and is not synonymous with any ethnic group to the exclusion of any other.
There is a sense by some Americans however, that AA's are outsiders and not part of that representation. Don't you think the preaching of HIV as Govt. plot against AA's encourages the view that Govt. is synonymous with white? Doesn't it reinforce the view that AA's are outsiders? From the point of view of the congregation, doesn't this encourage fear and suspicion of the "enemy" Govt. while giving a feeling of only being able to count on the "group" or church to survive? Doesn't the group then benefit from promoting fear in order to more strongly bond it's members?
This is part of what is behind Tavis' resentment. Barack is not bound to the group. Tavis, Sharpton etc, or the church cannot "control" him; he is a wild card and moves easily between both "worlds". Barack flouts that black leadership hierarchy and appeals directly to people..black and white. In this sense he is "dangerous" to the survival of the group..and I can see why some might not want him to succeed.
Obama needs to choose between lying and telling the truth.
Some speculate that Obama originally joined the TUCC to make himself 'more authentically black' to the Chicago neighborhood where he chose to launch his political career. True or false?
Some ask, "Does he, on the whole, or in part, really believe in liberation theology and black nationalism?" Yes or no.
He must choose between becoming 'just another politician who will say anything to get elected' or someone promising 'a new kind of politics.'
Tell the truth. For better or worse.
The truth may cost him the Presidency, or it may deliver it to him.
Where else are you posting?
When Katrina hit, Jesse Jackson lamented that this country has a high tolerance for black pain. Ain't that the truth.
Things like this Wright controversy tell me that my pain does not matter. Why? Because it never has anything to do with what I say . . . no, it has everything to do with how I say it.
Issues like the Wright controversy send the warning that I better keep my place . . . watch my tone. Becaus black anger is never afforded the opportunity at discussion and/or redemption.
As a black man, I don't have the right to get angry or show emotion. And if I should make a mistake and say something untoward, then I'm not allowed the opportunity to simply apologize. For some reason my fate must be far worse than that given to everyone else.
It proves that my struggles and frustrations must be silenced if it makes mainstream ("white") america uncomfortable.
I, and many other black folk, have NEVER been so privileged so as to think that we could dictate policy or control someone else's life based on how comfortable or uncomfortable something made us feel. Sometimes we get lucky and white guilt throws us a bone. But even that usually comes after some tragedy in the black community.
We know the drill. We're uncomfortable almost every day. It's just that we've learned to live with it and move on.
But now . . . despite everything Obama has done to make white folk feel as comfortable as possible. After an entire year of denying a part of himself and distancing himself from anything remotely "black" just to make white america comfortable . . . you've got the media trying to kill his chances at being president.
NOT because of anything that Obama said. NOT because Obama is an "angry black man." But solely because he has a relationship with a black man whom the media can portray in such a stereotype!!
Let me be honest. Barack Obama is about as "safe" a black man as you're going to see. I've watched in amazement as I've seen him deflect attacks from all sides. . . to have his blackness questioned one day and then be accused of being TOO black the next . . . to avoid race like the plague just to give white america the chance to vote for a black person without being made to feel guilty for the transgressions of past generations. Even now, Obama still speaks of unity and understanding.
As I said before, it's not the comment so much as the IMAGE that makes people uncomfortable. The IMAGE of a defiant, strong black preacher dressed in foreign african robes leading a congregation of equally defiant passionate black people. That's scary to a lot of white america.
THAT is a fear of black agression and black power. And it don't matter whether your as fiery as Jeremiah Wright or as accomodating as Barack Obama. You ain't gonna get anywhere unless you master the ability to make white america comfortable. And now people say they can't vote for him because they're UNcomfortable.
You know what, black folk have been uncomfortable for over 400 years. There's not a day that goes by where black folk don't bite their tongue and grit their teeth just to keep the peace.
WHEN are we gonna ask white folk to be a little uncomforable for a change? I don't mean that in a racist way. I'm just asking.
Is that not the definition of a pluralistic society? Let me check out Webster's dictionary . ..
"pluralism" - "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."
If we are truly a pluralistic society, then we must allow everyone, INCLUDING black folk, the opportunity and right of self-definition and self-determination (props to ronnie b for pointing that out).
All I know is this . . . White politicians go to the black community all the time and ask for our trust, tolerance and understanding. We always give it to them.
Blacks vote for a white candidate every four years - regardless of his shortcomings; despite OUR OWN DOUBTS AND QUESTIONS (that never get answered); despite OUR OWN DISCOMFORT, we trust that everything's gonna be alright and we'll make it through somehow.
Well, this black man is asking white america to return the favor for once. I don't want to dismiss your concerns. I know it's different. I know we've never seen this before. I know white america has it's questions.
But Barack has done all he can to ask for white america's trust and understanding. He deserves to be judged as being self-autonomous. He derseves to be judged by his own reputation.
He deserves the same chance black folk have been giving white politicians ever since we got the right to vote.
Apparently, you project based on your own flexible moral center and the inane talking points of the sensational media. Senator Obama doesn't need to choose between the presidency and his conscience. Where do you guys get some of this ish?!
He has been true to himself, his former pastor Dr. Wright, his church, his values and his platform. If that is lost on everyone, maybe time would be better invested reading & listening more and over-dramatizing less.
There is no conflict between conscience and the actions of the candidate, which were the predilections of Dr. Wright.
OOO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
"Religious Right leader Frank Schaeffer denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr".
There is a double standard for a black Jeremiah Wright comments, which by comparison are mild.
All is okay if a white Religious leader speaks about the nation's sins & he is rewarded for it but let it come from a black Jeremiah Wright, he is condemned!
God help us!
The problem is that we don't hear things in the same way.
What he heard may not have been as offensive to him as a group of guilt-ridden gatekeepers who are afraid the prisoners might rise up and turn on them.
You seem to think you know the "truth" already and no matter what he says it is only true if it is what you think. In other words, it is the same trap that the media and talk radio are laying for Senator Obama. It has to be what you think it is or it is a lie, so it is a contradictory argument that he can't win.
OOO
------------------------------------
Since liberalism is not based upon natural justice but willfulness, it never fails to devour its supposed beneficiaries. Paternalistic liberalism is at the root of the Democrat Party. Its "victims" should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set up by the liberal establishment.
We'll let you know, Barack, when it is your time to win -- that's been the tacit theme of the Clinton campaign all along. Black power brokers, the establishment of the AA community, have not fully endorsed, or are willing to defend Obama now. They will sidle up to whoever will keep them in power with the politics of 'victimization.' As long as blacks continue to believe that all whites are against them, that the system is rigged, they 'need' the establishment.
The Democrat Party establishment and black preachers like Wright survive, and thrive off of division.
OOO
______________________________________
Untrue. I don't know what the truth is. And guess what, not everyone will be pleased with the truth. But with the truth, a voter can make an informed decision. If Obama tells the truth, he can define himself, and not let the media do it.
His credibility is only called into question when he falls into the trap of trying to please everyone, and making contradictory statements.
His credibility is only called into question when he falls into the trap of trying to please everyone, and making contradictory statements."
_____________
He told the truth and you apparently didn't like it. So you keep calling for "truth" until you hear what you have already decided. He has answered these trumped up charges in both print and television on Friday. If you missed it, it is because you weren't willing to receive or accept it.
OOO
While all these sentences are factually correct, the problem is that Rev. Wright used Hillary & Barack as the subject of each sentence. He wasn't speaking generally about prejudice...he was comparing these two specific people. It was ill-advised to speak specifically about them. It was ill-advised to use their first names rather than addressing them as Senator Clinton or Senator Barack. It was ill-advised to use them as an object lesson in a sermon about racial prejudice...ill-advised and unfortunate.
Rev. Wright was in a position of authority making a public address and should have followed a certain protocol with regard to presidential candidates. This is different than if he was talking about them privately.
It's the same criticism I have of Hillary in that she didn't observe respectful protocol by congratulating Barack on his wins or publicly speaking to, and of him in a respectful manner ("Shame on you Barack..". It was irresponsible of Hillary and her team to inflame the electorate with racist rhetoric.
_____________________________________
That's the problem, why did he feel that he needed to make himself 'acceptable' to whites. In order to get elected? Isn't that what every other politician does?
I find it interesting that Obama's
'distancing himself from 'anything remotely black' was a choice that he made. Now that the consequences of his actions are being revealed, it is somehow the 'white media's' fault! It's his own fault.
Actually that is true but it is equally true that millions of non-Blacks also attend church and synagogues and hear venomous talk, and would never leave and have not left. There are many admitting this all over the country now but many of us knew as much already. From Falwell and Robertson having said that America brought the wrath of G-d on itself on 9/11 (I guess you missed this bit of news) to garden variety southern baptists preachers telling congregations that race-mixing is a sin and they should not marry or cohort with mongrels (the black ones to be sure).
OOO
You seem to find lies interesting. I find them interesting too but I still have the common sense to know the difference between pure speculation, personal opinion, lies, and facts.
OOO
My posts are signed, so if you are dizzy, truthseeker, that isn't something I have control over. Nonetheless, I don't care whether others sign or not. Truthfully, some people who are logged in should be too embarrassed to sign a name to some of their posts, they just don't know it. YMMV
OOO
Obama distanced himself for the same reasons Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton never stood a chance to win. The first black president will not be a "race man." White america will not vote for a black man who carries the baggage of resentment from racial oppression. He must defy the stereotype to get crossover support.
Just like the first female president will not be a "dove" on foreign policy.
Proof of media culpability is the fact that it will not allow Obama to escape this "box," wherein it tries to hold him accountable for words he never said.
He distanced himself for the very fact that we're having this conversation now. He distanced himself because this controversy proves that he can't even KNOW an "angry black man," without being labeled the same.
You speak of the consequences of Obama's actions. What act did Obama ever commit? Really, what has he done? There is no "act" with which to be accountable for. And what would the appropriate consequence be for said "actions."
would it kill to to take 2 minutes to create an account?
It will be 5 years in Iraq....almost 4000 dead heros, thanks to Hill, Bush and McCain....where's Hillary's tax return....why does she keep saying she won Florida and Michigan (is she unstable)....where's the secret contributors list....what's going to happen in her on-going voter fraud trial in L.A. with Pa. Gov. Rendell, is she a true Democrat or a closet GOP? She cares nothing about the Dem Party....even endorsed McCain.....there are SOOOOOOO many questions that the media needs to be asking.....DEMAND THE FACTS.....CONTACT THE MEDIA !!!!
Visit: http://www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization)
Reverend Wright’s toxic comments may help us better understand the remarks by Michelle Obama that she is proud of America for the first time in her adult life only now that her husband is running for president and that she considers America to be a “outright mean” nation.
If someone admires Reverend Wright as much as Michelle Obama seems to — and she has spoken very well of him in the past — then it’s reasonable to assume that they share some common values. People who attend the same church for a quarter century often share key attitudes and outlooks of their minister. That’s not always the case — but it’s more often the case than not. And it is very rare that people who attend a church for more than 25 years hold views that are fundamentally at odds with their pastor.
I think America is really out of time. I think America is out of options, but doesn't have the good sense to know it. This Iraqi war I believe was a turning point in your fortunes.
Bush Jr came along and you embraced him while he lied to you. You have a sense of comfort with the liars. Barack makes himself available to serve and answer all your probing, inappropriate questions and you use it to destroy him...he just doesn't make you feel comfortable.
There is no more time to choose! Do you know those signs on the highway..the ones that say "50 miles to next exit"? I think this is where you are...at a crossroads, choose now or be damned! And if this man doesn't become President then there might be no hope left for America.
Yes, most intelligent people will understand that he is trying desperately not to draw attention to his blackness as some people who either consciously or subconsciously worry whether he will try to seek revenge upon white people for all the ills that have been visited against black folks. That is the way a lot of them think because they have been the entitled group for so long, it would not take much for many who are walking that fine line to turn against Obama for any indication no matter how minute it might be that he is a black man and walks comfortably in it.
For him to have to distance himself from a Pastor who is speaking truth to power worries me about what he is willing to say and do to get elected. What will he do IF elected and we have issues of fairness regarding Black concerns, will he confront them honestly or acquiesce to white folks for fear of alienating them?
For the writer of that post asking if Senator Obama approved the church's message is too much for me to comprehend. How in the hell or when in the hell, did a Black church have to get permission from a politician other than the one's who for years have looked the other way as they took handouts for the pastors, have to have their sermons approved?
When that day arrives, we will truly have sunk to the levels of the posperity preachers, the sell-out politicans, and all hope for Black folks will truly be gone.
Obama, beware. Don't put yourself in a box, or paint yourself in the proverbial corner where you have to choose between telling the truth in spite of, or selling your soul.
We are watching and waiting for your next move. This past one leaves a lot of us scratching our heads at how far you will go.
Thanks, Trinity. Big help there, dimwits.
Speak the truth and shame the devil!
Oh, hell I forgot, we will make somebody uncomfortable if we do that.
Oh, well, speak the truth anyway!
Is it possible to take a man at his word? Especially when Obama hasn't even said or done anything remotely controversial?
America doesn't have to like Wright's comments. But for argument's sake . . .
Is America so narrow-minded to miss the fact that from adversity and frustration springs hope and enlightenment?
Once again, I don't see Wright's comments as the worst thing in the world. I don't see a church of hate, no matter how much Fox News would like me to.
I never said Obama was living a lie. But I do think he's been very considerate of the fact that this country prefers baby steps when it comes to big changes like electing the first black president. Thus, he's campaigned accordingly.
I think the tolerance level for black anger is extremely low. And I see NO reason for that. Anger (even black anger) is an inescapable part of political discourse. Rather than dismiss Wright, I've yet to see the media truly engage his comments for what they're worth.
I don't think Obama is pretending to be anything. I choose to judge him on his own merits.
You're full of shit. That is not Michelle's exact quote and not even close to her meaning. People like you are the true enemies of America. Michelle is an American but you are not proud of her. You would falsely vilify her, twist her words and deny her the American dream. YOU are the traitor.
Why do you think her family had to be protected by the secret service almost from the outset? Why do you think they had to increase their SS detail? Was it Militant Muslims threatening their lives? No, it's their fellow Americans...ignorant low-lives who have accomplished nothing and serve no one but themselves. How dare you judge her words without having even the integrity to reproduce them accurately?
Who the fuck are you anyway? What have you contributed to America other than strife and lies?
fuck off
Does it matter so much to the words posted? Would it kill for those who want an account to have one and not spend their days and nights worrying about those who don't? You say you value the posts but in the previous breathe intimate that they are lessened because they don't fit your signing preference.
OOO
Read this:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/obamas-pastor-by-diana-butler.html
Typically, people who post repeatedly but do not have an account are here to misinform. They are clumsily manipulative and their purpose here is suspect; and, I am not worried.
I think your posts should be henceforth ignored.
A lot of people understand it. Those who did not support Obama are just using it to try and discredit him.
Typically, people who post repeatedly but do not have an account are here to misinform. They are clumsily manipulative and their purpose here is suspect; and, I am not worried.
I think your posts should be henceforth ignored."
-----------------
Your quickly changing-with-every-post reasoning for wanting others to create accounts betrays your lack of intellectual integrity on the issue. If you are too slow or too blind to recognize that my posts are signed, then no amount of account creations is going to change that. I have enough accounts in my life. A useless one to please you would definitely be one too many. Others choose for themselves as well.
Folks should worry less about my clearly signed posts and more about those who post to their blogs with multiple accounts. That is where you and your manipulation, misinformation, and suspect purposes rest.
Psychobabble. I needed that laugh. I appreciate you. You just made my day!
OOO
Word. and co-sign.
I would expect that people who are forced to deal with blogs sift out nonsense and don't have time to feed absurdity into their campaigns; the media does enough of that.
OOO
Please give it a rest, will you?
Haven't you noticed by now that most people on this blog are not falling for that old conservative trick that if you keep repeating it enough, it will eventually sink in as truth. That's what George Bush as said regarding the "propoganda" that so many illiterate, uninformed, and careless people did when following behind someone like him, who has to be told time and time again what he is supposed to read, let alone trying to express himself without a script.
Now, this will be my last response to you, and hopefully others on this post will ignore you as well. My friend, you are not getting through, no one believes your bile.
Obama is not following the old "tried and tired" strategies of the DLC but I am sure that somebody because they want to know how the everyday people feel about his policies and how he is explaining them to the public shapes his opinions and views.
Again, please give it a rest. Go back to that trollworld you escaped, and let them know that like George Bush, your mission was not accomplished.
"I would expect that people who are forced to deal with blogs sift out nonsense and don't have time to feed absurdity into their campaigns; the media does enough of that."
Are you talking about yourself?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/roundtable_discusses_reverend.html
Word...Peace out
1. After reading this and Obama's post online, this is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.
2. If you really want to make it a dead issue for the rest of the election season....stop talking about it. Let it die. The longer you discuss it, the more you open it up to opposing viewpoints.
Huh? I presume you were responding to me at 9:23 because 23:00 has not occurred yet, unless you see the future. Accept my apology if that presumption is inaccurate. Wasn't your "last" post also your first one in response to me ...at least as "squarepeg" ...so I am not understanding the implied multiple responses. Are you confusing yourself with truthseeker and if so, why?
You may need a break. You seem to have lost your marbles, just because I sign my posts at the bottom. Who knew your sanity depended on it; had you asked nicely and explained this before you would have probably gotten better results.
OOO
Sorry you are so distraught over others not signing in but I hope you can survive such a minor distraction.
Peace,
OOO
What bile exactly? Please provide direct quotes. I like to stick to truth, facts and common sense in my posts. So, please avoid projection.
OOO
Unfortunately this issue will not go away in this era of 'gotcha politics.' Obama's credibility is at stake. There is blood in the water and the sharks are circling.
Obama is trying to introduce himself to the American people and many want to know, "Who’s the real Obama, the guy who shrugs at Wright’s sermons because he needs the racial credibility Wright gives him or the guy who casts Wright out of his virtual house lest the project of healing be impeded?
Rev. Wright is a man Obama chose to be associated with when it was advantageous to him and he exploited it. But when he decided to run for president, he tried to distance himself from Wright. Wright has acknowledged that Obama knew he would be a problem for him and that he may someday distance himself from Wright?
All of this speaks to Obama's character and his judgment. Wright's 'liberation theology' and 'black nationalism' runs contrary to Obama's narrative of hope and change.
Right now it seems to many that Obama is not truly standing astride racial polarization, but playing a game. Using it to his advantage one minute, then disavowing it the next, when it is convenient.
People want to know who he is. And in this case, many don't know.
"Rev. Wright is a man Obama chose to be associated with when it was advantageous to him and he exploited it. But when he decided to run for president, he tried to distance himself from Wright."
Then you provide this evidence of illiteracy because it was Dr. Wright who initiated that discussion and warned Senator Obama that he may have to, not the other way around (which would actually reinforce Senator Obama's point that he wasn't aware of the specific statements the media is exploiting but he knew his preacher was firey):
"Obama knew he would be a problem for him and that he may someday distance himself from Wright? "
Do you think you could at least feign intellectual integrity sometimes just for fun, maybe?
OOO
You know, I kinda brought into that before; that it was a bad judgement call on Obama's part. That it said something about his character.
And then my mom reminded me over the weekend that this same Rev. Wright had been to my home church when I was growing up. I had to honestly ask: if I was running for office, would I want someone using Rev. Wright's words to question my beliefs on my country?
Yes, there's probably still some vetting of Obama to be done. I think (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong!) that even his most ardent supporters may agree with that.
As far as this issue goes, Obama has said that he rejects the statements, and that they don't mesh with the platform he's running on. Fair enough; I'll accept that. If he is playing a game, then that makes him no different than any other politician-and I don't mean that as a negative.
1. After reading this and Obama's post online, this is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.
2. If you really want to make it a dead issue for the rest of the election season....stop talking about it. Let it die. The longer you discuss it, the more you open it up to opposing viewpoints.
Not that I don't disagree with you, D ...
but if this were such a non-issue, then Sean Hannity and the rest of the right wing talking heads wouldn't have spent several weeks preparing it to be one.
I know. Damn right wingers. ;)
I guess my thing is that people who can see through the BS are probably smart enough to let it die.
You are correct there, ronnieb and they will keep it going for as long as possible with week long series on Fox News, editorials, comments, talk radio but with that comes a certain level of desensitizing. No one can predict what the final fallout will be but we can still hope;)
You know that they launched Obama Watch on Fox this weekend, right? They plan to milk this cow till the utters wear off.
OOO
FYI, I pretty much dismiss rhetorical questions out-of-hand. It should be rather clear that I objected to the idea of viewing the gov't and White people as one in the same so your question-rationale does not compute.
As such, my answer to your question is: no I do not think "the preaching of HIV as Govt. plot against AA's encourages the view that Govt. is synonymous with white."
State your position how you think it does and be done with it and don't try to use my statements as a backhanded way to lecture about some idea of yours that has nothing to do with anything I said.
You also posted this in response to the wrong person:
Government is the representative of the people and is not synonymous with any ethnic group to the exclusion of any other.
It really makes no sense including that in a response you direct to me when I'm the one who insisted on making that point.
But go ahead and explain why that "group bond" and "group control" bs was posted in your response to me.
Obama is planning a speech tomorrow, perhaps he can put his issue in a larger context.
When you want to comment on something I've said, make sure your comments are in the proper context.
My comments were a response to the Anon post from 05:33, the person who used the term ABHORRENT. Yappin' about "ill-advised" and "unfortunate" is OUT OF CONTEXT.
People have said that Obama's whole campaign (his "lack of experience") is "ill-advised" so spare me the vague and nebulous ideas. When you say stuff like this:
It was ill-advised to use their first names rather than addressing them as Senator Clinton or Senator Barack.
It's clear you have no conversation for me and, as such, should have no audience with me. Of course you say X, Y and Z are "ill-advised" but don't advise why. Hell, people have said Obama's whole campaign is "ill-advised" given his time in Washington, etc.
So, you've got the wrong person to throw out catch-phrases and claims that you don't support, desperately reaching (and not making sense) in the process.
I mean, after all that talk about "using their first name" that's exactly what you turned around and did. I also reject superficial reasoning out-of-hand, as well.
FYI...
Now when you want to argue whether Rev. Wright's statements were "abhorrent" or "hostile to White Americans" or "bigoted" then and only then should you post:
@ nquest
... as far as that particular subject matter is concerned.
And now we see that Obama's church declares, "God d*** America." That the 9/11 attacks were chickens coming home to roost. That the U.S. government created the AIDS virus. The award to Farrakhan, the trip to Libya to meet Khadafi...
And many Americans (and more than a few Democrats) are now asking, "who is this guy?" Why are we learning that there's another side to the candidate that completely contradicts the healing, uniting image?
Now isn't this rich... You have posted misinformation, aspersions and innuendo all morning and now you stop to ask questions. That says everything about you and your posts.
OOO
Don't you get tired of playing Sybil around here...
OOO
People give a rats ass about this. They're worried about the economy. It's not an issue. I'm even conflicted about whether Obama should give a major speech on this. I think it may be stupid, as it just prolongs the media shit fest.
The media still hasn't run this video of McCain's spiritual guide.
This was going to happen. The media is full of a bunch of rich people who laugh at the gridiron dinner. They are clueless as to the struggles of the real American. People are worried about the economy, depressed that they can't take a vacation because of gas prices, upset that they're having to skip meals because of food inflation, and worried that their job is going overseas. Further, they're heart broken by seeing the kid they coached in Little League come back from Iraq without any legs.
Overall, the media is totally out of touch. This issue is completely overblown. I'm in the heart of the Four State region, which includes South Central PA, and I've seen absolutely no evidence of the Wright thing being an issue. Obama has low support here, but for other reasons mainly he's "just another socialist Democrat."
In the meantime, please people; get e-mails out to Eugene Robinson of the Wash Post, Michelle Norris of NPR and Roland Martin of CNN to not only denounce the parties responsible for flaming this issue, but the media who continue to poor gasoline on it.
Obama Plans Speech on Race
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/obama_plans_speech_on_race.html
FYI I just saw this. Don't know how to feel about it. Because part of me hopes -- despite trying to be cynical, knowing how deep rooted racism/white supremacy is in the dynamics of this country -- still part of me hopes this will be able to help move and ground the public discussion in truth and sanity about what is really going on.
I kind of hate that I can't just sigh and go with cynical 100%. But I have difficulty doing that when it comes to Senator Obama. I am not entirely convinced this is a good thing but can't seem to shake it.
Here, we are speaking informally; therefore, we use whatever name we want. If I was making a public speech from a position of authority, I would observe protocol.
I caught Michelle Norris and Roland Martin on Meet the Press and CNN respectively over the weekend, and it's clear that Negroes are more concerned about their day gigs and being invited back.
It took White Republican to call out the double standard bull shit of all of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/o...>
I love Roland! Although, I don't believe I caught these 2 shows, he normally tells it like it is- at least as far as he can go. We can do our part in making sure they are invited back. I DID! I called CNN @ 212-275-7800. You are correct, they are not asked back UNLESS we ask for them. That will make it easier to voice their views. If we are not behind them, you can bet they will NOT be asked back!
I ordered a copy of Medical Apartheid from amazon.com, and I look forward to reading it. I'm sure we've all experienced prejudice, and of course it's always a terrible thing.
But let's face it: any guy who sounds like Rev. Wright (or Mike Huckabee, or Jerry Falwell, etc. etc.) is NOT A HEALER. He's a "divider" like George W. Bush.
Many of you may disagree with me, and I admit I haven't experienced the exact kind of prejudice that many of you have. But I really believe it's a mistake to think that Obama can "move past" the Rev. Wright soundbytes. Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid this is a very big deal, and I hope Obama gets very proactive about this and says OVER AND OVER AGAIN that he is a uniter, not a divider.
Babyming, I understand your frustration and fear. None of us can predict the fallout, if any. However, in your post you make your own key point that counters your angst.
Are any of the people you named in the quote above currently running for president or in the running for president? Are any of the people in that list named Barack Obama? Have you ever heard Senator Obama say anything like the people you named in your list or anything that would make you question his sincere approach to unity, patriotism, or love for all Americans? If you can honestly answer yes to even ONE of these questions, then you may have cause to worry yourself sick but if not maybe you can rest easy knowing that you are on the right side with the best team. It's difficult but tomorrow is another day and we fight on!
OOO
When Geraldine Ferraro lost her mind by saying that Obama is only where he is because he's Black, and Hillary Clinton was asked about it she said simply, "I didn't say it". End of conversation.
John McCain says that "when he (Hagee) endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes in". He has addressed this situation on multiple occasions, but at the end of his conversation, this is the point to which he returns.
Why can't Senator Obama be afforded the same luxury?
I have belonged to the same church since 1981 with a minimum of 4 pastors on the roster at any given time. Each pastor, by design, has their own style, and each 'speaks' to a different subset of the congregation. Do I embrace everything that each pastor ascribes to? Do I faithfully fall in line with their teachings without any cognitive effort on my own to discern truth and practical application? Absolutely not. I go to church on Sundays, not cult meetings.
Everyone at my church, leadership included, has an opinion on any given subject, but their opinion is not necessarily mine. There's a reason Bible class at a Black church can end with an argument just as quickly as it can with a prayer. Even with disagreement, our church is very active in the community, and agressive in its committment to the upliftment and empowerment of the Black family. We provide our own scholarships, conduct our own fundraisers and take care of our community in various ways, including environmental activism, and foreign missionary boards. I can understand why the Obama's remain at their church, and don't see a problem. I know others will, but hopefully more won't, or at the least, attempt an understanding.
I genuinely feel that for those who were not going to vote for Senator Obama, this issue serves as justification, and for those who were unsure, this may also serve as a final push toward the other side. For those, like me, who truly feel that Senator Obama will serve this country well as president, then this is just another drop in the cesspool of political attacks that I sincerely hope he survives. Hopefully, a large enough population of the electorate will not let their fears and prejudices rule the day as they have most recently, much to the detriment of the country. (see George W. Bush)
I take Senator Obama at his word that he and Rev. Wright do not share identical views on all things. His time serving in the state and US senate fall into his time at the church and its obvious from his votes that he does not lean toward radical action/thought when handling the people's business. Isn't that what really matters?
The last thing you can talk about is following protocol. Even in this "informal" setting you've violated "protocol" in the very ways I indicated. So it's not like you have respect for protocol, it's just a phony issue you think you can raise when nothing else will do.
I agree with you completely. It is quite obvious that Obama is exactly who he says he is. I am sure the speech tomorrow on race and religion
will confirm this.
Excellent point that his Senate voting does not reflect any radical thinking.
I think it's safe to say the same about his position Iraq clears up any doubt about radical thinking.
It's radical to think that we need to be there 100 years.
Check out http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09...>