Barack Obama's Controversial Pastor Puts Church (and possibly Barack) In Hot Water (1 Viewer)

[Pure Energy]

The standard of proof would have to be an unedited smooth camera sweep from Rev Wright making an inflammatory remark, to an Obama standing and cheering. He nods his head at every utterance, which implies listening, not agreement. That would be his explanation, I guarantee that.

No "reputable" news organization will run with a Newsmax story. As with the National Enquirer, which alone pursued the dissolving Charles-Diana marriage while others tut-tutted with displeasure, others have to carry the ball.

Apart from the usual outlets of Republican fealty, this story has been effectively tapped down by the Obama campaign. He picked up more superdelegates this weekend even in the teeth of controversy. His path is protected through November.

Voting for him is an act of atonement. Even some women writing in the current Newsweek on the greater import of Clinton's candidacy allowed that perhaps it was Obama's time to claim his reward as a symbolic vessel of accumulated national guilt. Sentimentality trumps rationality in the post-racial post-political world of Oprah. We are all culpable.

Just as it took the "Blue Dress" for Clinton supporters to conclude Bill's denials were steeped in semantics and misdirections (some may have even concluded he lied), it will take primary evidence for many Obama supporters to conclude Barack's statements concerning Rev. Wright are less than forthcoming. Even then, many will explain it away as the did for Bill--most men cheat on their wives; what he did wasn't really sex but rather sexual; is was no big deal, she was over 18; come on, the guy is married to Hillary; etc., etc., etc. We've a sampling of potential explanations in this thread; but I'd be very interested in both the mainstream media and his supporter's responses to an Obama "Blue Dress" moment.

 

[RebSaint]

Just as it took the "Blue Dress" for Clinton supporters to conclude Bill's denials were steeped in semantics and misdirections (some may have even concluded he lied), it will take primary evidence for many Obama supporters to conclude Barack's statements concerning Rev. Wright are less than forthcoming. Even then, many will explain it away as the did for Bill--most men cheat on their wives; what he did wasn't really sex but rather sexual; is was no big deal, she was over 18; come on, the guy is married to Hillary; etc., etc., etc. We've a sampling of potential explanations in this thread; but I'd be very interested in both the mainstream media and his supporter's responses to an Obama "Blue Dress" moment.

I really don't see your point, save for subtly asserting that Obama is lying about his condemnation of Wright's controversial statements.

Further, I fail to see any legitimate comparision to Obama/Wright and the sex scandal that rocked the Clinton White House.

 

[DMaestro]

I do think the whole affair rubs some of the shine off Obama. It's evident he's not above "politics as usual" and his exploitation of his relationship with Wright early on and his immediate distancing from him now smacks as political expediency.

On the contrary, he could've given Wright the boot as soon as he decided to run for president, when he says he first heard a few of the ridiculous remarks in question. His defense would've been locked and loaded. As soon as the video footage hit the scenes, he could've said "Yes I am aware that my former pastor made some unacceptable comments and I removed him from my campaign a year ago when I first heard of them." There would've been a bit of an outcry and some questioning, but nothing near the recent brouhaha.

Instead, Obama kept him around as long as he could, and when the **** hit the fan they "agreed" for Wright to take a "sabbatical." In the CNN interview, Obama refused to repudiate the "man" as opposed to the "message." It was as gentle a distancing as I've seen. In fact, I'd almost say it was loyalty to a fault.

 

[DavidM]

After listening to more and more of Rev. Wright's hate filled rhetoric, there is no doubt in my mind he is racist.

And we simply differ at this point.

I understand, even agree with, some of the critical observations of Wright. Inflammatory. Angry. Certainly that he's made some wild and insensitive claims.

But my view is different in that I already held beliefs that help serve me in trying to understand his anger and frustration. I was sympathetic coming into this debate. For those who might want to simply dismiss me as being opportunistic in my position on Wright and loyally-biased in my defense as it relates to Obama, I posted the following in May of last year on this board. Yes, very similar to comments I've made in this thread.

I think it's a valid consideration in understanding the sociological problems with the hope of ever reaching solutions.

But first, for the record, Austin has an hispanic population over 30%. and a total minority population over 40%.

I think the kneejerk response is for some to conclude a quick dismissal based on a race-based predisposition to violence. I think that's bunk. When dealing specifically with the black race in this country, we have to acknowledge an historic, generational disenfranchisement that only until just a few short decades ago, began to be lifted. But by then, whites (not as individuals but as a race), had garnered every conceivable advantage in "making it" in this country.

So, in the absence of positive opportunities and in the face of abject poverty, mistreatment, and governmentally-imposed inferior status, lack of opportunity manifests into crime. But even today, there seems to be a naive belief that some legislation and opening of doors leveled the playing field and made up for the past. Again, bunk.

Whites obtained the status, the wealth, and the power in this country while blacks rode on the backs of buses, kept their place, and were beaten like dogs for sport or hung from trees for being...black.

So it stands to reason that as a race, blacks are still disproportionately effected by poverty and in turn, still more effected by crime which shows up in the crime stats on a demographic consideration when comparing cities.

In a nutshell, I believe strongly that (generally speaking and with some consideration for anomalies) educational opportunities, poverty, and crime are indisputably linked -- not in judging on an individual basis -- but as a collective portrayal. Where you see underachieving schools, you'll see greater levels of poverty. Where you see a lot of poverty, you'll see a lot of crime. When you have a segment of a society that was, for so long, forbidden from owning land, voting, ascending the ladder, you'll see trends that run along racial lines.

The starter's pistol fired in this country well over 200 years ago. Blacks were allowed to start competing in the race about 40 years ago and with greater hurdles to clear. The math isn't hard to do.

http://saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=453059&highlight=black#post453059


I will agree that his words are divisive and this thread is certainly proof of that. People who might would be sympathetic to the matters he's angry about are turned-off. It's a shame and counterproductive. But at the same time, if not for radical figures like Wright angrily drawing attention to the plight some still face, would we have open dialogue about these things? I don't know. I was a registered Republican for 17 years and in my involvement and observations, I don't recall the lives of the poor or the status of minorities holding much promininence and as witnessed on a personal level, my involvement with campaigns and as a member of Young Republicans, did not find that those issues captivated the attention of the people I knew serving alongside in those capacities.

Instead, here, we end up with pages and pages of discussion about whether Wright is a racist or a loon, so I'll just piggyback on this discussion and ask of anybody who wants to reply, do you think there is any merit at all to the things he's said, or at least the basis for why he said them?

 

[jpcdolphan]

Instead, Obama kept him around as long as he could, and when the **** hit the fan they "agreed" for Wright to take a "sabbatical." In the CNN interview, Obama refused to repudiate the "man" as opposed to the "message." It was as gentle a distancing as I've seen. In fact, I'd almost say it was loyalty to a fault.

In addition, it was done with Wright's encouragement (noted on page 5 of this thread by Pure Energy). Wright himself told Obama that he would have to distance himself at some point.

Obama couldn't allow himself to be associated with some of the harsher points of Wright's message so I can't chalk this up to "political expediency" as much as Obama simply had to be practical about the matter.

And, as you noted, he repudiated the message and not the man so it wasn't like he was hanging Wright out to dry.

 

[Pasty]

More shocking sermon quotes!

"What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

READ MORE!

 

[keepoursaints]

There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

Really? There are no nations out there doing things worse than the U.S.?

When is the last time we beheaded a TV camerman on TV? When's the last time we cut off fingers of hostages to send as "proof" that they were still alive.

When is the last time we beheaded anyone and dumped their head and body on the side of a road?

Sure there are atrocities in the U.S., but I can promise you we aren't the only country in the world with blackeyes.

 

[RebSaint]

Really? There are no nations out there doing things worse than the U.S.?

When is the last time we beheaded a TV camerman on TV? When's the last time we cut off fingers of hostages to send as "proof" that they were still alive.

When is the last time we beheaded anyone and dumped their head and body on the side of a road?

Sure there are atrocities in the U.S., but I can promise you we aren't the only country in the world with blackeyes.

Did you bother to click the link and actually read who delivered that sermon and when?

 

[Saintman2884]

David, look Obama's pastor can claim he was taken out of context or misrepresented but does that still make his comments any less racially charged or make some white voters or independent voters weary of a presidential candidate who claims to be working for all Americans? You cannot have it both ways. Obama is working on a color blind issue-oriented campaign and now his pastor makes inflammatory borderline racist comments and tries to cover it up by using relativist logic. I think we can do better then this. Can some black people be racist or prejudiced? Probably and just as much as some Whites can be. Racism is not just a white Anglo Saxon thing. The thing we have to see to or come to grips too in this country is the admission part of being more honest about it. I remember all too well what happened last week with the Elliot spitzer scandal, politics has gotten too self righteous or too holier then thou to approach sensitive topics like race and gender.

It has to end in a large way and maybe its me a bit naive, but no party has all the right people and the moral superiority on everything. Thats the painful truth and one we as Republicans and Democrats don't face up too. I think Obama really liked this guy and maybe made some errors in judgement trusting whether or not he would not say something stupid. But I don't think it makes him a bigot, it just makes him guilty by association. Which maybe is unfair but in the world of politics is fair game. Look at Mccain and Hagee. Mccain probably hated Hagee for saying these things about the Catholic Church but the comments were Hagee's, Mccain did not say the Catholics were a great white hore, its guilt by association. Really if you add it all up thats what we have here

 

[Pure Energy]

I really don't see your point, save for subtly asserting that Obama is lying about his condemnation of Wright's controversial statements.

Further, I fail to see any legitimate comparision to Obama/Wright and the sex scandal that rocked the Clinton White House.

Point 1: Not the condemnation but rather Barrack's ignorance of Wright's potential to utter these types of statements. Obama has indicated he had no idea Rev. Wright said or thought those things about this country until recently.

Point 2: That's a hypotetical that would require the evidence in the post sited by SoonerJim for that scenario to potentially play out.

 

[keepoursaints]

Did you bother to click the link and actually read who delivered that sermon and when?

No, but I specifically made a comment based on the part he felt the need to post.

I figured me quoting his quote would suffice.

Edit: I did click the link based on your suggestion and I'm not a history major, minor or anything so I don't know what else was going on at the time. Again though I doubt even at that given time that other countries weren't doing bad things as well. Although slavery is about as low as you can go.

 

[Sabine]

I'd say given those two options, the latter.

Two points:
1) You assume it has to be one of those two options. When I was a Christian, I chose my church largely based on friendships and feeling at home, not because I needed connections, nor because of the pastor's sermons and how they fit with me. It's possible that's exactly what Obama did. Saying it's one or the other of your two options is overly simplifying it.
2) My point was not about Obama's opportunism really, it was about you decrying Obama as an opportunist yet you proudly support Clinton. To me, that's like someone who eats McDonalds every day calling Texas Roadhouse a dump.

1) No, I didn't assume there were only two option. I simply compared those two possibilities - "opportunist" because that was what you took issue with (I thought), and "bigot" because that's what many assume the association means.

2) Decrying? Really? It's not like I went out and defaced a national monument, though I'm not dismissing the very real possibility that overzealous Obama supporters might see it that way. As for as being a "proud" Clinton supporter, well... again I think you're reading more into than you should. Clinton is my pick of the candidates. I'm sure that's clear, but she's not my ideal candidate. I'd proudly dance nude in the street to get that.

Here's the deal re the Dems. There are plenty of people here to support Obama, more than enough. Not so much when it comes to Clinton, maybe 2 or 3. Considering the popular vote, this board is clearly not a representative sampling of US voters. That's fine. Those that think Clinton would make a better nominee and president could sit back quietly and not attempt to offer any opposing ideas or views. I wouldn't be surprised if some here prefer that, but IMO that would get boring quickly. So when joining in, shouldn't we assume that we would be free to express an opinion in the same manner as those coming from the opposing camp (meaning the ones that fall within the TOS)? I think so, and that's what you're seeing. Nothing more or less.

 

[Saintman2884]

Reb, Douglas was right about the USA in terms of the early to mid 19th century, it was a pretty bad racist place and certainly had a hypocritical view of itself. the problem was that to support keep's viewpoint, the rest of the world was not much better. The UK had severe discriminatory policies towards the Irish, in India with the Seboy Mutiny, and in Asia with the Chinese and the Opium Wars. If you take a look at the world of Europe at the time, Antisemitism was beginning its secular incarnation with Wagner in Germany calling Jews scum and many prominent Europeans having racist and very violent views towards well.. minorities of that time. so keep is right in a certain way, and Douglas is partially right at least about this country in the 1840's American time frame

 

[SaintJ]

No, but I specifically made a comment based on the part he felt the need to post.

I figured me quoting his quote would suffice.

Edit: I did click the link based on your suggestion and I'm not a history major, minor or anything so I don't know what else was going on at the time. Again though I doubt even at that given time that other countries weren't doing bad things as well. Although slavery is about as low as you can go.

While there were certainly economic and other injustices in the known world in 1841, suffice it to say that most of the world's developed countries, particularly the modern European societies from which our country was formed and had taken most of its intellecutal foundation, had long outlawed the actual ownership of other human beings.

Maybe you better stick to pulling practical jokes on attractive 20-year-old women at work for right now.

 

[keepoursaints]

While there were certainly economic and other injustices in the known world in 1841, suffice it to say that most of the world's developed countries, particularly the modern European societies from which our country was formed and had taken most of its intellecutal foundation, had long outlawed the actual ownership of other human beings.

Maybe you better stick to pulling practical jokes on attractive 20-year-old women at work for right now.

Did you not read my last sentence? Perhaps I was editing while you were replying, but I pretty much admitted to not knowing all that much about world history and said owning a person was pretty much one of the worst things possible?