The Wright thing - how much effect will it have on Obama 08?

Obama has removed all mention of his 'mentor' from his website

I think it's bad AND good.

The bad part is kind of obvious.

The good part -- he's responding to it well and it will be hard to say Obama is a muslim while simultaneously trying to tie him to the radical comments of his Christian pastor of 20 years.

FreeDuck wrote:

I do think that it will have some negative effect and here's why. The people who care about this stuff aren't voting in the Democratic primary and probably won't vote for a Democrat anyway. But Democrats might look at that and think that it will hurt him badly enough in the general that it's too risky to give him the nomination. I hope not, but there it is.

Why in god's name am I still awake?

Shrug. It's possible. But he is far enough ahead that he would have to lose massively in order to lose the nomination.

Cycloptichorn

I'm a conservative Republican who has only voted for two Democrats ever--Jimmy Carter and Eliot Spitzer--both of which I regretted. Still, I think Obama is OK here, unless we see video of him cheering while Wright espouses hate, bigotry and idiocy.

We all have friends and relatives who say outrageous things from time to time. I won't throw any of my friends under the bus and I don't expect Obama or any other politician to do so, either. If they aren't on your staff, then just tell me you don't agree with their position or statements and show me that you don't agree by your actions, and as far as I'm concerned the issue is over.

If I disassociated myself from every friend and relative who is a bit crazy, I'd be a lonely, lonely, man.

FreeDuck wrote:

I think it's bad AND good.

The bad part is kind of obvious.

The good part -- he's responding to it well and it will be hard to say Obama is a muslim while simultaneously trying to tie him to the radical comments of his Christian pastor of 20 years.

On this specific aspect...

I think you are working on a presumption that is false. Your apparent presumtion here is that the general electorate will resist emotion-based appeals if they conflict with rationality. I don't think that is true and the research of people like Drew Weston is pretty persuasive that it isn't true.

Both notions forwarded (he's a Muslim AND his christian pastor is a radical who hates america and while speaking like a black panther) are designed to produce strong emotional responses triggering fear and distrust. The logical conflict you mention can't be counted on to cancel out either perceived negative.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

I do think that it will have some negative effect and here's why. The people who care about this stuff aren't voting in the Democratic primary and probably won't vote for a Democrat anyway. But Democrats might look at that and think that it will hurt him badly enough in the general that it's too risky to give him the nomination. I hope not, but there it is.

Why in god's name am I still awake?

Shrug. It's possible. But he is far enough ahead that he would have to lose massively in order to lose the nomination.

Cycloptichorn

This republican attack is directed towards the general election.

I think people should raise legitimate concerns about it. And the fact that he's retiring, and we've got a young pastor, Otis Moss, coming in, means that people should understand the context of this relationship. That this is an aging pastor who's about to retire and that I have made and will make some very clear statements about how profoundly I disagree with these statements. I don't think they are reflective of the church.

They're certainly not reflective of my views. I do think there is an overlap in the sense that there is a generational shift that is taking place and has constantly taken pace in our society. And Rev. Wright is somebody who came of age in the 60s. And so like a lot of African-American men of fierce intelligence coming up in the '60s he has a lot of the language and the memories and the baggage of those times. And I represent a different generation with just a different set of life experiences, and so see race relations in just a different set of terms than he does, as does Otis Moss, who is slightly younger than me. And so the question then for me becomes what's my relationship to that past?

You know, I can completely just disown it and say I don't understand it, but I do understand it. I understand the context with which he developed his views but also can still reject unequivocally. . .

I'm a conservative Republican who has only voted for two Democrats ever--Jimmy Carter and Eliot Spitzer--both of which I regretted.

Nappy.

Quote:

Obama has removed all mention of his 'mentor' from his website

.

That is like a child closijng his eyes so as not to see sometthing that scares him. It won't wash.

Maybe he can erase his dealings with Rezco while he is at it.

blatham wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

I think it's bad AND good.

The bad part is kind of obvious.

The good part -- he's responding to it well and it will be hard to say Obama is a muslim while simultaneously trying to tie him to the radical comments of his Christian pastor of 20 years.

On this specific aspect...

I think you are working on a presumption that is false. Your apparent presumtion here is that the general electorate will resist emotion-based appeals if they conflict with rationality. I don't think that is true and the research of people like Drew Weston is pretty persuasive that it isn't true.

Both notions forwarded (he's a Muslim AND his christian pastor is a radical who hates america and while speaking like a black panther) are designed to produce strong emotional responses triggering fear and distrust. The logical conflict you mention can't be counted on to cancel out either perceived negative.

After reading this, I think I am working on two presumptions that you would think are false. The first you have described accurately. The second is that the starkness of the contradiction would prevent people from attempting both smears at once, but that of course assumes that there is some sense of shame among the kind of people we're discussing.

You may be right. But maybe not.

Do you not think that there is a certain degree of eagerness on behalf of certain segments of the electorate to "expose" Obama as a some kind of fraud?....to make insignificant things like the Rezko and Wright issues more of an issue than they are?

No one is talking about gaps or holes in his policy, or about the passion or vision he has for America....they want, as Bernie has pointed out, to make dishonest emotional appeals to the already skeptical voter.

No one is talking about gaps or holes in his policy, or about the passion or vision he has for America....they want, as Bernie has pointed out, to make dishonest emotional appeals to the already skeptical voter.

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

've been contemplating why I'm more disturbed by James Hagee's diatribes ...

Is "James" a form of "John"?

That's odd. I wasn't sure of his first name so I Googled "James Hagee" and came up with enough results to convince me that his name was James. Looks like plenty of others made the same mistake. Or else John Hagee has an evil twin out there.

I mean an eviler twin.

Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, the continual repeating of the phrase, "God damn America!", is obviously just a black man expressing his anger and frustration. Re 9/11: "America's chickens are coming home to roost" -- yep, just racial frustration.

Well, I suppose I could just take the typical GOP approach and say that he's a traitor and that he's helping the terrorists and that he's probably hiding WMDs in his vestments. But then I'm not retarded, so I won't.

Ticomaya wrote:

Ah, yes ... I'm sure only one of these two religious figures actually believes the New Testament. The other one is just in the racket so he can spew his racist agenda.

I haven't heard Wright's take on the Book of Revelation. I assume that he accepts that book as divinely inspired, as do most Christians. But so far I know he hasn't urged the country to join Israel in a preemptive strike against Iran in order to speed up the Second Coming. I guess given the alternative, I'd rather have a racist-spewing charlatan in the pulpit.

Ticomaya wrote:

And that suspicion and fear is based on what? Some bizarre notion in your head that "Republican spiritual advisors have a tendency to become political advisors, while Democrats tend to call in the clerics only when they need cover for their extra-political indiscretions." That's ridiculous, and on par with something I'd expect to hear from the likes of Roxxxxanne..

That's a pretty feeble, unsupported assertion, and on par with something I'd expect to hear from ... well, from you.

Ticomaya wrote:

What is the connection between Hagee and McCain? Hagee endorsed McCain, and McCain accepted the endorsement. That's it ... there is no relationship between the two.

Well, McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement and made only a half-hearted attempt to reject the anti-Catholic part of Hagee's agenda (as for the anti-gay, anti-Moslem, and anti-a lot of other things parts, McCain remained silent). Of course, if Obama had actively sought the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, and made only a half-hearted attempt to reject the anti-white part of Farrakhan's agenda, I'm sure that you'd accept that with the same equanimity that you accept Hagee's endorsement of McCain.

Ticomaya wrote:

What is the connection between Wright and Obama? Let's see ... a 20 year relationship ... Wright is the pastor of Obama's church. Wright married Obama and his wife, and baptized their children. Obama considers Wright to be "a spiritual mentor and a role model." Obama has said that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated. Wright is the man who inspired the 2004 keynote speech that put Obama into the national spotlight. Apparently, Obama checks with his pastor before making any bold political moves. Wright had an honorary position on Obama's campaign.

Or, in other words, not much.

Ticomaya wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure you're right ... clearly Hagee will have more influence on McCain than Wright would have on Obama.

I'm glad we agree on that point.