FreeDuck
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 07:21 am
Mame wrote:

I'm having a little trouble with his distancing himself from the Pastor the way he has. I think Obama could have spent some time explaining where Wright was coming from. A friend would have done that. A loyal parishoner would have done that.


I'm not too crazy about it either, but it would have bothered me more if he'd distanced himself right away when the controversy first started. In fact, Obama's race speech WAS an explanation of where Wright was coming from. The stuff Wright said about Obama over the last few days really didn't leave him much choice but to say what he said, and it certainly didn't look easy or politically expedient. Does anyone really think that distancing himself from Wright will make any difference? The people who started this smear are still harping on "20 years" and would never have been assuaged by Obama rejecting Wright.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 07:59 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Mame wrote:

I'm having a little trouble with his distancing himself from the Pastor the way he has. I think Obama could have spent some time explaining where Wright was coming from. A friend would have done that. A loyal parishoner would have done that.


I'm not too crazy about it either, but it would have bothered me more if he'd distanced himself right away when the controversy first started. In fact, Obama's race speech WAS an explanation of where Wright was coming from. The stuff Wright said about Obama over the last few days really didn't leave him much choice but to say what he said, and it certainly didn't look easy or politically expedient. Does anyone really think that distancing himself from Wright will make any difference? The people who started this smear are still harping on "20 years" and would never have been assuaged by Obama rejecting Wright.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:34 am
If the American people were that upset about the whole Wright thing then no matter when the media reported it; Obama would have been done. But the fact is enough people believe in Obama and do not buy into the distortions of newsmax so he has been able to weather this storm and stay in the race. If he makes into the general and then makes it the presidency; just blame it on the media. I for one will be celebrating once I get over the shock.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:45 am
maporsche wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
I on the other hand, don't find this to be relavant at all. This evening Cobert made an interesting point about this whole nonsense. If we are to judge Obama for staying in the church for 20 years, are we then going to judge the large population of catholics who stayed in the church, scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal...etc. Of course not. Are Rev Wright's statements anymore extreme or inflamitory than the new Pope's reversal on other denominations followers going to heaven? Or condeming the Beatles (yes the band. yes really)?


You obviously don't spend much time in the religion forum. We do this all the time. I personally don't understand why anyone would want to stay in a religion or trust the bible or the church when you consider all the crap that has taken place.


I spend plenty of time on the S&R forum. I don't think this is the same. In short because I don't want to make a gigantic post again, we would not be asking those same questions had Obama been catholic.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:45 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Did something you had for dinner cause a little trouble for you??

No, your repeated answers to Diest, in which you mixed abstract generalities that avoided the point of the question with haughty personal dismissals of the questioner caused a little trouble for me.

I kept out of the conversation until I got really fed up, and enough was enough.

georgeob1 wrote:
Diest's question was certainly written in large enough print and was certainly clear in its demand for a very specific answer. However it was meaningless, and, if taken literally, has no answer - as I very clearly demonstrated.

You did no such thing. I take your word for it that you think you did, though, but it's not been very convincing to most anyone but your fellow conservatives in this thread.

georgeob1 wrote:
If you will take the trouble to look you will find that I have never bashed Obama on the Wright matter, and rather clearly pointed out that none of us can really know what influence any advisor like Wright might have or not have exercised on any candidate on any specific issue.

I know you never bashed Obama on the Wright matter, which is why I didnt blame you for any such thing in my post. My post concerned your second sentence here, which I think you have "rather clearly" contended, yes, but which has left me mostly incredulous. If Wright's black militant views which Fox, Tico, Okie etc assert might very well influence Obama's politics as President did indeed exercise an influence on Obama's views, surely there must be any kind of example from throughout his decade or so of public service to illustrate it?

That is hardly an impossible or hypothetical or nonsensical question. It's merely a longer version of, "where's the beef"?

georgeob1 wrote:
Get over it (actually the immortal words of Vice President Dick Cheny to Senator Richard Leahy of Vermont on the Senate floor a month or so ago come to mind here.)

Likewise.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:47 am
revel wrote:
If the American people were that upset about the whole Wright thing then no matter when the media reported it; Obama would have been done. But the fact is enough people believe in Obama and do not buy into the distortions of newsmax so he has been able to weather this storm and stay in the race. If he makes into the general and then makes it the presidency; just blame it on the media. I for one will be celebrating once I get over the shock.


Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. We have yet to see the fallout from the current events.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 08:59 am
au1929 wrote:
revel wrote:
If the American people were that upset about the whole Wright thing then no matter when the media reported it; Obama would have been done. But the fact is enough people believe in Obama and do not buy into the distortions of newsmax so he has been able to weather this storm and stay in the race. If he makes into the general and then makes it the presidency; just blame it on the media. I for one will be celebrating once I get over the shock.


Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. We have yet to see the fallout from the current events.


Which is why I said "if"

Anyway; if you read the transcripts of the interview with Wallace and the race speech of Obama, you would see that he wasn't talking about Wright's personal situation exactly but more of a time in a generation in which Wright grew up in. Whether Wright was more fortunate does not mean he didn't see how it was back then for most blacks at that time in history and it is those experiences which were different than for those who have grown up in the age after the civil rights movement and afffimative action.

'A more perfect union'

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:03 am
Mame wrote:
nimh, question for you:

What do you personally think of a man who abandons someone for the sake of his aspirations? Do you feel he consigned The Good Reverend to the fates with his denials of listening to him in church, agreeing with his views, etc., yet remaining in his parish for 20 years as a 'loyal' parishoner?

I'm having a little trouble with his distancing himself from the Pastor the way he has. I think Obama could have spent some time explaining where Wright was coming from. A friend would have done that. A loyal parishoner would have done that.

Hi Mame,

Well I myself would rather have seen Obama stick with a more nuanced answer. One that would repeat that "no, I do not agree with much of anything that Rev. Wright said at the Press Club, and I want to emphasise that both as President and as candidate now, my political philosophy, actions and policies are guided by principles that are starkly the opposite from those Wright has expressed" -- well, the whole thing he did say, now -- "but I do object to how Wright has been reduced and baited into a caricature of the man I have known and listened to for many years, and I do think it's important for Americans to realise the wellsprings of his anger; because for a man of his generation especially, but to any black man still today, there is plenty of cause for anger, however it ends up being expressed."

<nods> Yeah, something like that would be my perfect answer. But there's three problems with it: A), most importantly, I am more radical than Obama is; the last bit especially is just not very "Obama". B) It is the answer of an outside observer like me, whereas Obama must have been extremely angry. C) Yes, it would have been political suicide.

I do think it deserves pointing out, however, that Obama did do exactly what you say. He did, at length, explain where Wright was coming from, defend Wright's perspective as a logical/natural one for a man like him, and did emphasise that he had learnt much in Wright's congregation, and valued his experiences there. He did all that in his big race speech.

So it's not like he just threw the man under the bus (gack, I hate that expression by now) as soon as he meant political trouble. Obama took as principled a position on this as I've seen any politician take on a matter like this (compare that with the cowardly "I did not inhale"!). When Wright then went on a national speaking tour, however, feeding a continuous media frenzy, of course the political pressure grew. But I think it was more than that which caused Obama to unambiguously condemn him.

It was, for one, Wright saying that all this stuff that Obama had said in his race speech? Thats just what a politician has to say. Suggesting Obama was lying or obfuscating or just being opportunistic. That must really have stung. I think Obama was rightly just plain angry about that, even wholly aside from the destructive effect Wright's claims was threatening to have on his campaign, and that it made him want to set the record straight once and for all. I can easily see that.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:12 am
nimh, how about Obama just telling the truth? But no, this is all about political spin and manipulation, and what should be said when to manipulate public perception, isn't it? I thought Obama was a new kind of politician immune to engaging in that?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:15 am
okie wrote:
nimh, how about Obama just telling the truth? But no, this is all about political spin and manipulation, and what should be said when to manipulate public perception, isn't it? I thought Obama was a new kind of politician immune to engaging in that?


That he is a secret muslim or BLT?
K
O
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:18 am
okie wrote:
nimh, how about Obama just telling the truth? But no, this is all about political spin and manipulation, and what should be said when to manipulate public perception, isn't it? I thought Obama was a new kind of politician immune to engaging in that?


A politician who tells the truth would be out of character.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:28 am
mysteryman wrote:
I've been reading all of the silliness about Obama and Rev Wright, and I have this to say.

Rev Wright is a preacher, nothing more.
He said some things that were silly, ridiculous, and maybe even inflammatory, and he is trying to milk his 15 minutes.

Does that mean what he said should affect Obama?
Not to me it doesnt.
Obama is to smart to allow someone like Rev Wright to set policy, or to influence his decision making.
It may be possible that Obama will seek his advice and his opinin, but that in itself isnt a bad thing.
All of us seek opinions and advice from other people, even when we dont agree with all of what that other person says.


Right on, Mysteryman. At last a conservative voice of sanity. Good on you. May others, who are more likely to listen to you than to me, hear your words.

mysteryman wrote:
My only concern is that it was just a few weeks ago that Obama said something about he couldnt thow Rev Wright under the bus anymore then he could his white grandmother, and now for political expediency he has done exactly that.

He seems to have abandoned his principles about that quickly, and thats what concerns me.


Yes, I can see that concern. I laid out how I think it worked in my answer to Mame above. On the basis of the sequence of the events and the things Wright was implying about Obama, I understand why Obama felt the need for an angry retort to make his position in this clear once and for all, even if it meant breaking with the congregation more clearly. But yeah, especially if you didnt follow the "he said, she said" of the whole sequence of events on a day to day basis - and it all happened rather quickly too - it's easy to feel that he just threw the man under the bus.

I would, in addition to what I feel fed Obama's anger, ask for a little pragmatic understanding though, a little sympathy maybe. I mean, he was damned if he did, damned if he didnt now. If he had stood by his man even now, Mame and you would have thought better about him, and I'm sure there are many others like you. But the crescendo of indignant protests, the drumbeat of perpetual insinuations that he must then just be some kind of black militant radical himself, the whole damn freakshow would have reached a new screech altogether. I mean, even on the Democratic side, there was just hysteria after Wright's Press Club performance. A2K was nothing; I was reading the comments to blog items on the New Republic, and there was just hysteria. So there was no way to win for him, really; whatever he did he would be f*cked in the eyes of many. I mean, that's just a bit of background I think deserves some sympathy.

In the end, I think, faced with a situation where he was damned either way, he spoke up for himself and spoke his mind. There's something to be said for that as well.

mysteryman wrote:
Rev Wright himself is nothing more then an amusing subplot to the whole campaign, and will be forgotten as soon as everyone stops talking about him and starts ignoring him.

Yeah, but that's a pipe dream isnt it? This is politics after all, and it is in the interest of both the other two presidential camps and the sensation-hungry media to hang on to this story and ride it to its very last breath. Looks to me right now like that could be Nov. 4. Kind of like Kerry and the Swiftboaters.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:28 am
nimh, thank you. I obviously haven't been following closely enough. I am gratified to learn that he did defend or try to explain Wright and his comments/position to the media. As for getting fed up at the end, I don't blame him given that provocation.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:36 am
No problem, Mame, and do come to the Politics threads more often!

okie wrote:
nimh, how about Obama just telling the truth?

I think he did. But to be honest, I dont think you would believe him no matter what he'd say. And I cant blame you really, considering your strong political feelings; I had the same with George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:43 am
The folks of Kentucky, it seems, aren't afraid to say the truth - they don't want to vote a black guy into office. I suspect that this is the true reason behind quite a few people's objection to Obama and focus upon Wright. They're just more circumspect about it.

Quote:
What's The Matter With Kentucky?

George Packer, who's blogging now at The New Yorker website, has a post this week about Kentucky -- Inez, Kentucky, specifically, the small town where Lyndon Johnson announced the War on Poverty more than 40 years ago and where John McCain made a campaign stop last week. Packer's point is how Democrats can and cannot appeal to the working class and rural white voters we've been discussing so much for the last two months. But the background of the piece is just how readily many white Kentuckians admit that they simply won't vote for a black man for president.

"I've talked to people--a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn't vote for a black man," J.K. Patrick told Packer. And he won't either. "I really don't want an African-American as President ... I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That's my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did ... There's a lot of white people that just wouldn't vote for a colored person. Especially older people."

With frankness like this, it was probably no accident that it was Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) who got in trouble two weeks ago for calling Obama "that boy" at a GOP party dinner in his home district -- a comment for which he later apologized.

And the pattern Packer is as observable statistically as it is anecdotally, where I've been noting it for a month or more. SurveyUSA has conducted three polls of the primary race in Kentucky over the last month. In each Hillary Clinton beats Obama by roughly a 2-1 margin. That in itself I do not think tells us that much on the topic of racialized voting. Each candidate has states where they greatly outpoll the other, though that is a steep margin. Where the contrast becomes stark is in the match ups against McCain.

Again, we need to rely exclusively on polls from SurveyUSA. Each sounding shows Clinton losing to John McCain. That's not surprising since Kentucky is a strongly Republican state, though in mid-April, the most recent poll, she was in a statistical tie with him -- 48%-46%. But while Clinton is competitive, McCain beats Obama by a 2 to 1 margins -- 63% to 29% in the poll taken last week. I don't know any state where either Democrat runs that much better than the other. And I think the conclusion that race is the primary factor in the difference is inescapable.

Kentucky itself isn't that big a deal since it will almost certainly go Republican in November. But it will be a big win for Clinton later this month. And you only need to look at a map to see that Kentucky makes up the southern border of Ohio and Indiana.

--Josh Marshall


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192341.php
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:44 am
I've been busy, checked in shortly after Mame's question yesterday and wanted to answer it and didn't have time, just got caught up and I see there's nothing to add -- really nice responses from nimh, engineer and FreeDuck especially (not just them tho). Just thought I'd say so instead of privately nodding and going on to other things...
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:46 am
Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
nimh, how about Obama just telling the truth? But no, this is all about political spin and manipulation, and what should be said when to manipulate public perception, isn't it? I thought Obama was a new kind of politician immune to engaging in that?


That he is a secret muslim or BLT?
K
O


Obama is a secret sandwich?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 09:46 am
Ooh have to say revel too though, thanks for bringing the "More Perfect Union" transcript, recommended reading for anyone who isn't already familiar with it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 10:32 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The folks of Kentucky, it seems, aren't afraid to say the truth - they don't want to vote a black guy into office. I suspect that this is the true reason behind quite a few people's objection to Obama and focus upon Wright. They're just more circumspect about it.

Quote:
What's The Matter With Kentucky?

George Packer, who's blogging now at The New Yorker website, has a post this week about Kentucky -- Inez, Kentucky, specifically, the small town where Lyndon Johnson announced the War on Poverty more than 40 years ago and where John McCain made a campaign stop last week. Packer's point is how Democrats can and cannot appeal to the working class and rural white voters we've been discussing so much for the last two months. But the background of the piece is just how readily many white Kentuckians admit that they simply won't vote for a black man for president.

"I've talked to people--a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn't vote for a black man," J.K. Patrick told Packer. And he won't either. "I really don't want an African-American as President ... I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That's my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did ... There's a lot of white people that just wouldn't vote for a colored person. Especially older people."

With frankness like this, it was probably no accident that it was Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) who got in trouble two weeks ago for calling Obama "that boy" at a GOP party dinner in his home district -- a comment for which he later apologized.

And the pattern Packer is as observable statistically as it is anecdotally, where I've been noting it for a month or more. SurveyUSA has conducted three polls of the primary race in Kentucky over the last month. In each Hillary Clinton beats Obama by roughly a 2-1 margin. That in itself I do not think tells us that much on the topic of racialized voting. Each candidate has states where they greatly outpoll the other, though that is a steep margin. Where the contrast becomes stark is in the match ups against McCain.

Again, we need to rely exclusively on polls from SurveyUSA. Each sounding shows Clinton losing to John McCain. That's not surprising since Kentucky is a strongly Republican state, though in mid-April, the most recent poll, she was in a statistical tie with him -- 48%-46%. But while Clinton is competitive, McCain beats Obama by a 2 to 1 margins -- 63% to 29% in the poll taken last week. I don't know any state where either Democrat runs that much better than the other. And I think the conclusion that race is the primary factor in the difference is inescapable.

Kentucky itself isn't that big a deal since it will almost certainly go Republican in November. But it will be a big win for Clinton later this month. And you only need to look at a map to see that Kentucky makes up the southern border of Ohio and Indiana.

--Josh Marshall


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192341.php


That whole article seems to be trying to extrapolate what all of Ky will do based on one town.
Thats not fair, nor is it even accurate.

Many of the people in Union County Ky, where I live, do support Obama.
And this is a rural, mostly white, county.

So, to say how all of Ky will vote based on one town,especially a town of 466 people (as of the 2000 census), is ridiculous.
Union County has 16,000 people in it, and nobody has asked any of us how we are going to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_County,_KY
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 1 May, 2008 10:57 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...they don't want to vote a black guy into office. I suspect that this is the true reason behind quite a few people's objection to Obama and focus upon Wright. They're just more circumspect about it.



How many is "quite a few"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 806
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 05:04:43