Politics – Sensing no issue has threatened his campaign more than the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill
Not a member? Sign-up today!
darwinm701977
asolious
daviant701973
elliotthicks1965
popperous
inplacenews.
slashup67
ccolec
sterlingburt19681962
romeohoover1968
maneetion
jorgepratt19711962
adrielh791966
hyooo25
getbackerzoo
yarrkz24
whodey08
HappyLittleTree
ChasityBowman
Artofid
alamala
Lurch
jw.olinger
BenManning
weeeileen
Eagle Eye
mamasan
aust
nightschase
Anatoliks
jeremytoday
maninthemiddle
questionseverything
MrsAnn2008
shead
Dobes_Rule
HotaMaMa
jaspersneed
Ousama
mccormack_clairem
SouthernLadyX
Dixie2008
OhLaLa
stephhicks
OhDear
DearHunter
spkguy
foxyladi14
503)
Wise move. Obama cannot afford the divisiveness this man causes among potential voters.
Yes, it was very wise of Obama to sit and think of this for a period of time, say, 20 years, and then make a swift decision. Hats off to Obama for being able to survey a situation, read it's implications, and act swiftly to rectify it. Good Lord, 20 years.
If this doesn't show everyone that Obama is just another politician among all the other politicians, nothing will.
he was all for Wright, until Wright became a burden to the campaign. All of a sudden, Obama is using "strong words" to distance himself from the messages of Rev. Wright. But why did Obama not distance himself when there was no nomination in the balance? Because, down deep, Obama does agree with Wright. it is just a political move to not agree with him at this point in time. Which shows Obama to be the same type as all the rest. So much for "change"...
I think it's a stretch to say that Rev Wright has been preaching divisive messages for 20 years. As far as I can tell Rev Wright is an ego-maniac who has been trying to steal the limelight once Obama began his candidacy. His latest tirades called into question Obama's motives which incidentally you picked up on. It was appropriate for Obama to say, "enough already" at this time. Some of us will see an artier motive and yes, that's part of it but it is not the prime mover here. Wright had to be put in his place, he was ruining Obama's chances. Too late??, hope not! We'll be stuck w/ Hillary.
Obama owned Cons.
Period.
Now we can finally move on.
Do Cons have any real issues they would like to address, like how we're going to pay off the debt the tax break to Paris Hilton so amply stimulated?
"Obama owned Cons."
Im sorry, I thought it was Hillary Clinton he is trying to beat right now? SO she has fallen so far in the eyes of the extremist left that she is now a "con"?
Laughable.
Now, as for moving on....YOU WISH!! This will continue to be an issue and rightfully so. The real issue at this point is do you BELIEVE Obama! Wright himself said he didnt mind Obama refuting his comments as he knew Obama was just "doing what a politician had to do" and he insinuated he knew Obama really didnt believe what he was being forced to say. I AGREE!!
Obama is now proving what a POLITICS AS USUAL FRAUD he really is!!!
"This will continue to be an issue and rightfully so."
You're assuming it was ever an issue for anyone educated enough to read about Black Liberation Theology and the tactics used by preachers from that tradition. I know that doesn't include your average NeoCON with their third grade education, but it does include quite a few people sitting on the fence.
More than that, though, I find it interesting that no matter what he does, he cannot win. Calls by the CONs to have him denounce Wright's statements were answered. So now it becomes another criticism because of the way you twist it? Pathetic.
That noise you hear is the sound of goal posts being moved.
I believe Obama a lot more than Clinton and McCain that's for sure.
Clinton has 2.3 billion (the most of all senators) in pork for 2009 - sounds like she's paying off those big donors.
McCain claims he's for the troops but then repetadly votes against their interestes like the GI bill, increase in pay and extended leave.
Getting Federal Dollars for your State is the Job of the senator.
Most of the money is to fund security in the state of New York. She's doing her job, what the people of New York elected her to do.
How does that translate to whether you can "believe" someone?
the clintons gave us nafta which opened the door for the wto ...which has changed our economy from a producing economy to a consumer economy...which isnt good for 97 percent of us
the bosnia lie is good example of why we cant believe her
her vote for the neo con bankrupcty law is another good reason not to trust her
her statement about starting a war with anyone that attacked any friendly country in the ME should make ur skin crawl
97% huh? A bit of an exagerator. NAFTA may not be good for Ohio, but it is good for Texas, Califoria, New Mexico and Arizona.
She's a Politician, the same as Obama. They embelish all the time. Take Obama's Lobbyist reform bill, the only thing it changed that it only barred gifts and dinners to sitting politicians. No connection to William Ayers, then we learned about the fundraiser that Obama attended. He also lied about his Rezko connection.
And what of Obama's votes? Consistantly voting to fund the war up until the time it came to run for president. His vote on the energy bill. His vote not to minimize or at least do someting on the credit card interest fee regulations. His present votes in the Illinois Congress.
With Iran escuating it's hostility, towards Israel and the American troops in Iraq, it was the right move. "We'll talk about it." Doesnt send a message that we mean business.
the 97 percent refers to those of us that dont benefit from losing our blue collar jobs...losing manufacturing jobs and becoming a consumer economy is so basic that if u dont understand that there is really no point in debating u
obamas lobbyist reform bill limited donations to 2300 bucks which makes the "big money peops" less powerful
what u r saying about obama votes r misrepresentation at best lies at worst
about those present votes? thats how we work out compromises in illinois whr obamas leadership lead to every child in illinois having healthcare (kidcare)
There is a Black pastor from Houston who has been interviewed on TV twice. He has known Wright for 25 years. When asked about Wright's appearance at the National Press Club and if he was surprised by Wright's statemets and behavior, he said "No". He noted that Wright has preached about these views for years and that this was "Wright's style"
Obama has known Wright for 20 years and Wright's views and behavior surprised him
The pastor from Houston has known Wright for 25 years and found nothing new in Wright's answers and behavior at the National Press Club
They both can't both be correct, can they?
I have a question.
The excerpts drawn from the pulpit damning Wright are only from two or three sermons, right?
So if Wright was preaching the same message of "racism" every Sunday for the past two decades, should there not be more material to use from the "The Best of Jeremiah Wright" DVDs?
Who knows?
Wright certainly expanded on the same themes at the National Press Club as the "snippets" Obama said were taken out of context
As the pastor from Houston noted, Wright has been speaking all across the US and in many countries of the world for years. He was at a loss to explain why Wright's sermons came as a surprise to anyone
But we've only hear two or three of the sermons. I get the BLT angle, but the parts that people zoom in on as controversial seem few and far between.
This cannot be a very intelligent question. Who would want to sit through over a thousand sermon of the same thing (assuming they are all recorded)? There is something called sampling.
The more important question to ask is:
If Obama's message is change for America, then why is it that he can not change one person in 20 years?
There is also a thing called "cherry-picking!"
To cherry pick, there must be cherries.
Sorry fella? but by cherry picking I was referring to taking things out of context and then hyping them to the max. Something you neoclowns are particularly good at doing.
Then why did Obama condmen Wright in that press conferfence yesterday after Wright expanded on those themes?
A Black minister, Rev Eugene Rivers, said today that Wright was stuck in a time 45 years ago when Black Nationalism was in vogue.
Rivers said that Wright is not representative of Black churches today
Also, don't forget the Black pastor from Houston who has known Wright for 25 years. He was at a loss to explain why Wright's statements would surprise anyone. He contends that Wright has been preaching about these and similar topics since he has known him
I see Wrights' church is buying him a nice mansion in suburban Chicago paid for by the "poor" parishioners he allegedly was helping. He's laughing all the way to the bank. His Heavenly reward came early on the backs and sweat of the "poor downtrodden" in his black church.
Yeah Wright cherry-picked and spat out the same pits the other day as I watched. So he must still belive it with conviction.
and between Wright and Hagee, Wright is the positive one.
LOL said like a true lib,,,, Hagee denounced the Catholic Church, something the Left loves to do,,,,, Wright claims the US Government is a terrorist org that also created aids for the purpose of killing a race of people,,, something the left also loves to hear,,,,, Id think you'd embrace both and would if one wasn't white
''If Obama's message is change for America, then why is it that he can not change one person in 20 years?''
huh?
uhhhh, I don't think personality transplants was what he meant by 'change'
maybe he was talking bout other things
If your going to sit there and tell me that he has been preaching this for 20 years I would say that you should listen to see if you are telling me the truth or just spewing the lies that the right wing and Hillary want you to believe. It doesn't take much listening to find out that the sermons that have been cherry picked where for the most part preaching the exact opposite of what we are being lead to believe.
> If Obama's message is change for America, then why is it that he can not change one person in 20 years?
WTF. Obama never claimed responsibility for changing another person, never promised to change Wright. WTF are you spewing??
Bush I raised Dubya, and over 50 years has not been able to instill a drop of honesty or responsibility or morality or ethics into the boy. So is the Dad responsible for every word of Dubya. Of course not, Duyba is responsible for all his failures. Adults hold adults responsible for their own words and actions.
Speaking of, has McCain denounced and ended ties with that end-of-times hater and nutto Hagee yet?
Now that is some sick stuff. Wright doesn`t offend me. Hagee does, and McCain pursuing Hagee is absolutely disgusting.
"but the parts that people zoom in on as controversial seem few and far between."
So if somebody spends their entire life as a good person but the last 30 seconds of their life they spend raping a 12 year old, the rape doesn't really matter because it's "few and far between"
Putting how you defend Wright in any other context sounds absolutely absurd.
Again, get some intellectual honesty then get back to us.
If that is your only counter you really don't have one then do you?
Get some "intellectual honesty" of your own, be a man and admit Wrihgt was wrong, you were wrong for defending Wright and Obama should have done this months ago.
Wright has done nothing that compares to raping someone, so spare me your whining.
And one more time - go get some intellectual honesty then get back to us.
Did you hear his speech at the NAACP?
European and white children learn from their left brain. African American and African children learn from their right brain. They learn differently, but not deficient. Differently but equal.
He said that African-Americans speak their own language, as do French and other people. He compared African-Americans with foreigners, and people who speak all the right words, but do so with an accent. He sited JFK and Lyndon Johnson. (promoting ebonics)
Yes, I did and I actually mentioned that I was incredulous of the claim that the left/right brain styles broke so clearly on racial lines.
Where did you get ebonics out of the JFK/Johnson comparison? I took it to mean that blacks are considered deficient because they do not speak some idealized version of English as opposed to JFK/Johnson.
JFK/Johnson comparison:
They had regional accents and pronunciation
Wright was equating them to Black speech or ebonics = enunciation, pronunciation, composition, grammar and syntax
Your analogy falls FAR short of the reality of Wright's long career being marred by a few comments that, when taken out of context, offend a few.
If you haven't offended a few people by the time you finish your career, newbie, you will have had a NOTHING career.
Riiiiight. Keep defending trash that even Obama doesn't defend anymore, at least he's man enough to own up to it.
Even Obama admits to being outraged by some of Wrights comments, is he taking them out of context too? Is he one of those "few" you're talking about?
You're one of those ones who are not MAN ENOUGH to admit to being wrong about Wright.
I said:
---your analogy is flawed -------TRUE
---Wright has made blunders------TRUE
I also said that if your career has amounted to anything you have also made blunders. I guess that depends on your career.
---your analogy is flawed
---OPINION....
"I also said that if your career has amounted to anything you have also made blunders. I guess that depends on your career."
One time I messed up and made it so a small Indiana town couldn't dial seven digit calls, they had to dial everything eleven digits.
I never damned my country or blamed whitey for AIDS. I never made fun of Italians for garlic noeses either.
Why do you keep defending the guy when Obama himself has admitted the guys comments are disgraceful???
Again, you're just not man enough to admit to being wrong.
I know it can be hard, but I've done it myself here on netscape, just ask Walden.
> I never damned my country or blamed whitey for AIDS. I never made fun of Italians for garlic noeses either.
You voted for Bush, twice. That`s much more unforgivable than anything Wright ever did or said.
''Even Obama admits to being outraged by some of Wrights comments,''
so why believe him about that and disbelieve him about other things?
"so why believe him about that and disbelieve him about other things?"
Examples?
"other things" is rather vague....
well, if I remember correct when he said he never heard outrageous statements from Wright before [not even about his football team?] you were one of the 'sure, right' crowd
Is obama a liar?
of course he is. so are you and me and everyone else.
shocking?
not really
---
personally I don't think he's outraged like he says he is
he is a politician. lying is part of the game if you hope to win.
don't hate the player, hate the game
When did Rev Hagee rape the 12 year old?
Rev Wright's comments actually make sense when heard in context.
THe one he repeated that White men put AIDs out to kill the blacks? Please tell me the context that is need for that to make snese to you.
well, I think there's historical context, like the small pox blankets given to the native americans to conquer the continent.
(although I don't belive the AIDS conspiracy)
SO you compare what happened 150 years ago and that's your context?
I don't buy it, that could be used to justify or explain away most anything, since most everything has beed done to or by someone throughout history
Maybe you can google us with some more recent examples... maybe something like not curing Syphillis or using LSD?
It's a very approriate context - I don't get your illogical rejection (unless it's just a knee jerk - naaw).
This example shows a willingness by the US government to use disease to destroy a race.
It's happened in our nation's past and it could happen in the future.