Obama '08?

Would you have respect for me if I spouted off the nonsense uttered by Rev. Wright?

Foxfyre wrote:

Those already in love with Obama or leaning that way were probably soothed and affirmed. I doubt it was persuasive to many others.

And those who've got their minds made up against him come hell or high water are probably digging in and clinging to their beliefs as well.

Those already in love with Obama or leaning that way were probably soothed and affirmed. I doubt it was persuasive to many others.

fter Sen. Barack Obama's third major primary loss and endless media coverage dedicated to dissecting the apparent weaknesses of his candidacy, one of the most striking elements of his campaign this week was what's missing: any hint of internal upheaval.

At Obama headquarters in Chicago, hundreds of miles removed from the Beltway bubble, advisers held steadfast in their adherence to The Plan, a blueprint devised 15 months ago by the same inner circle that runs the campaign today, supported by the candidate and carried out by a tight-knit staff.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's operation could not be more dissimilar. Her campaign, ensconced in a Washington suburb, has experienced two major staff shakeups fueled by high-level staff rivalries, shifting strategies and an unusual degree of finger-pointing.

The contrast raises the question: How has the Obama campaign managed to maintain an island of comparative calm?

A winning record undoubtedly aids the cohesion, Obama advisers and unaffiliated Democratic strategists said, but so do other key dynamics: a candidate intolerant of infighting, a clear line of authority and a healthy distance from the city they want to take over.

Unlike Clinton's team, the Obama campaign did not start with pre-existing rivalries. Axelrod and campaign manager David Plouffe were business partners, while Plouffe and Robert Gibbs, the communications director, share season tickets to the Washington Nationals. The staff, many of whom left family and lives behind to work in Chicago, have only each other to rely on in a place far from home.

"We would go to a basketball or baseball game together if we weren't doing this right now," Gibbs said. "We are all both friends and colleagues, and I think that is important. We feel we are a cohesive type of unit, not a group of individuals."

Well I think those who have been offended by Jeremiah Wright's more offensive message are not less likely to resist it based on that interview. He simply did not provide much that is credible to change their minds.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those already in love with Obama or leaning that way were probably soothed and affirmed. I doubt it was persuasive to many others.

To my knowledge; those already in love with Obama and most of those leaning that way didn't give a rat's ass in the first place. Check the polls and bets thread, or Intrade.com for confirmation if you need it.

The rhetorical excesses in Wright's remarks are rather faithfully duplicated in the exaggerations implicit in the manner in which his critics have portrayed them.

However, he did provide a context in which the remarks can be better understood. In that context there is still (in my view) much that is worthy of criticism in Wright's remarks - and even in the underlying religious/social theories that rationalize them. However, that is far short of the image of the rabble-rousing hater of all things American that his critics would have us accept in this matter.

The rhetorical excesses in Wright's remarks are rather faithfully duplicated in the exaggerations implicit in the manner in which his critics have portrayed them.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I think those who have been offended by Jeremiah Wright's more offensive message are not less likely to resist it based on that interview. He simply did not provide much that is credible to change their minds.

I agree. However, he did provide a context in which the remarks can be better understood. In that context there is still (in my view) much that is worthy of criticism in Wright's remarks - and even in the underlying religious/social theories that rationalize them. However, that is far short of the image of the rabble-rousing hater of all things American that his critics would have us accept in this matter.

The rhetorical excesses in Wright's remarks are rather faithfully duplicated in the exaggerations implicit in the manner in which his critics have portrayed them.

okie wrote:

revel wrote:

nimh; at this point I am just so disgusted in general with this whole democratic primary that I am finding it hard to summon up any interest. But you would think that Americans after falling for the swift boats and anti-gay marriage stuff in 2004 would see all this stuff being slung at Obama for the crap it is. ....

As long as anyone, anyone, is running for president, they will be examined. They deserve it. Some of you here act as though Obama should be too holy to be criticized. Sorry, it aint going to happen. And as long as his former pastor is running around spewing more nonsense, as he continues to do, it will keep the fires burning. And even nice old John McCain has to admit some of the pastor's statements are mighty bizarre. If Obama would simply throw Wright overboard like he did his grandmother, all of this would be over with, but until that happens, I think he will have alot more explainin to do. Either that, or he can just quit debating and talking to any of the press he doesn't like, which he may be close to doing.

The latest statements of Wright, he compares himself to Jesus, he is being crucified. And people are just taking his old statements out of context, he really didn't mean all that stuff. Also, he says things as a pastor, and Obama says things as a politician. Interpretation, Obama is just a politician and that is why he can't be totally frank about things, or say really what he may believe, or agree with Wright publically as a politician, even though he may agree privately.

Democrats, do you actually agree with this guy and his buddy, Obama, or is this all a joke? I keep hoping I will wake up from a dream and none of this is true.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/wright-discusses-public-crucifixio
n-at-sunday-services/

Okie:
I agree, but to a certain extent. I don't believe in "fabricating or swift-boating" of anyone, of any party. If we could look past party affiliation, it's one thing, but if a candidate has a decided record of voting on issues as McCain has, as Hillary has, or Obama, who is virtually an unknown, they should be examined. I don't abide "making up" something on a candidate to discredit an otherwise decent person, though.

The Jerimiah Wright crucifixion, is just that. Play the whole sermon instead of taking one line from one sermon and editing it with a line from another, giving the appearance of something else, when it is a downright lie! Let's call it what it is! You have Hillary running around doing to Obama what the republicans are known for; running someone into the ground! It's just like the press when they think Martin Luther King's reputation is based on one speech, when Blacks know otherwise! He also gave a famous speech against the Viet-Nam War, which the mainstream media NEVER plays! He sounds too much like Jeremiah Wright!

So go on and crucify whoever you wish. In the end, you'll get 8 more years of Bush, because that's what you'll get; someone who doesn't have your best interest. McCain flies around in his rich wife's jet, for almost nothing, because he can! He voted against civil rights but knows he'll lose because Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat and why not? Hillary has split the Democratic Party in two with her race-baiting remarks, the belittlling of an unknown, who she CAN'T beat, unless she does what she's doing! Talk to me in December, after the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, as usual! They can kiss my fat A$$, for all I care!

Yup, and tried very hard to do so with an open mind too. I thought you said you hadn't watched it yet. So how are you so sure the eye roll is justified?

georgeob1 wrote:

The rhetorical excesses in Wright's remarks are rather faithfully duplicated in the exaggerations implicit in the manner in which his critics have portrayed them.

Nicely stated!

sozobe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

The rhetorical excesses in Wright's remarks are rather faithfully duplicated in the exaggerations implicit in the manner in which his critics have portrayed them.

Nicely stated!

Very!

"Have you heard the whole sermon?" he asked a questioner about his infamous post-9/11 sermon in which he seemed to blame the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania as blowback from U.S. foreign policy, saying "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright said he was quoting a previous U.S. Ambassador to Iraq -- in a quote that none of his supporters has been able to find -- and relaying Biblical proverbs, "whatever you sow, that is what you shall reap," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"You cannot do terrorism on other people and not expect it to come back on you," Wright said.

The truth is the Democratic Party has messed up big time in pushing Obama for president, and I think a huge case of buyers remorse is setting in, at least by a significant portion of the party, and probably among alot of Democrats that have not yet admitted it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yup, and tried very hard to do so with an open mind too. I thought you said you hadn't watched it yet. So how are you so sure the eye roll is justified?

Hmmm, I'll have to check back on that but I have watched it. Yesterday. Twice.