Well, no, I suppose we wouldn’t, but I don’t see how that’s relevent or responsive to my question.
In what way was my post an ad hominem?
I suppose you could say mine was, although I think it’s pretty clear I directed it at what Kozmik typed, not Kozmik him/herself.
And just to make clear what others have alluded to, Kozmik, your OP is an ad hominem. You’re trying to deny the message (Audacity of Hope) by denying the messenger (Wright).
No.
Wright also led Obama to Christianity. Now that Obama has had to renounce Wright, has he lost his faith? Should he go back to being an atheist?
Holy crap, I wish.
Man, if he did, goodbye presidency. He’d get more votes if people thought he was Muslim.
How is Miller’s puissant post an ad hominem? It’s a very simply but elegantly laid out description of what you said and it relates directly to your OP. Can you answer it?
It tells me, logically, that you did not attend the 2004 Democratic National Convention. In fact it never occurred. Kerry was never nominated, Bush never ran against him and won! The sky opened! Celestial choirs sang! Thank you Reverend Wright! Sorry, got carried away there.
But you’re not saying that Obama is hurt forever by this, right? Just long enough to sit on the sidelines while your preferred candidate moves on to the general election. Then later on, Obama’s message will regrow, and he can run again in 2016. In fact you have stated the gestation period of Obama’s message at ten years, so you know a lot about how long it takes to regrow a message.
Hillary does not need as long, because she just grows a million different messages, like a big lawn of messages, and trims them all to suit her every once in a while.
Finally, someone who knows how to debate. I’d argue that John Edwards and Barack Obama, like I said, have similar messages. That’s not the issue.
Barack Obama said this about the speeches by Reverend Wright.
Why can’t he say this about Wright’s message of hope? Is it because Rev. Wright has been his pastor, mentor and father figure? Nope. None of that meant anything. Is it because he got the theme of his campaign from the Reverend Wright? Could be.
Well it’s just great. We went from the Democratic National Convention with the speech “Audacity of Hope” to a speech called A More Perfect Union. That’s just great. Thanks, Obama. You’re a wonderful politican. You can get inspiration for your first major speech from your life-long pastor. But, hey, when the going get’s tough, when your political future is on the line you can come up with a speech called “A More Perfect Union”. Or your speech writer’s can. What? Does that mean that your speech writers replace your dear pastor. Perfect. Great, just great.
At least we know that these politicans can come up with a new message on a dime.
No, stolichnaya, it takes a few days to regrow a message. From “Audacity of Hope” to “A More Perfect Union”.
I think this may be the most ridiculous debate I have ever voluntarily participated in, and I sometimes smoke weed.
That’s because you don’t know how to debate apparently…
I’m not seeing a debate here. The OP hasn’t addressed any of the points raised except those s/he apparently wants to discuss or that conform to his/her preconceptions. What’s the point in trying to ‘debate’ someone like that?
-XT
It tells me…
…that gooshe-shtepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.
What does John Edwards have to do with anything? Why do you keep bringing him up?
I’m having a heck of time figuring out what you’re trying to say here, but I think you’re asking why Obama can’t repudiate Wright’s earlier, “Message of Hope” sermons the same way he’s repudiated his later, “The government made AIDS!” sermons. But I don’t understand why he should have to, or want to, repudiate those earlier sermons, if they’re still ideas he agrees with.
I don’t understand this criticism at all. Because he took inspiration from one source for one speech, he can never, ever use a different source for inspiration after that? He can never disagree with that original source, even on completely unrelated matters? I’m genuinely confused by what you’re trying to say here, and by what your specific problem with Obama’s campaign is.
In what ways has Obama’s message substantially changed between these two speeches?
Can I have a cite for Barack Obama having become a Christian in 1988? I thought he had been a Christian all his life?
As for the rest of the OP about Reverend Wright, so what? Even if it were true that Wright had led Obama to Christianity, the faith is bigger than any individual. Obama could discover that Wright himself was a flawed human being without it affecting the beliefs that he discovered via Wright.
It’s not the beliefs that I have issue with - Obama can be a Christian even if he denounces the person who converted them. It’s not like he’s denouncing Christ.
Look, Rev. Wright inspired Barack Obama to Christianity. That’s one thing. But he also inspired Obama to a political message. Here is a cite. The article on Jermiah Wright and Obama is in today’s editon of the New York Times, which is not available.
Like a religious faith, a political message can be bigger than the individual spreading it. Reverent Wright could have inspired Barack Obama to embrace positive social values even if he lacked them himself.
Why should his political inspiration be treated differently (either by himself, or by the public in general) than his religious inspiration?
Ok. So we know Rev. Wright lacked these values - what does that mean? How can the message of Rev. Wright who lacked the values be the same message of Sen. Obama who does not lack the values. And, aside from the OP, how do you think Obama feels. Why denounce the man. Why not say, “I’ve been betrayed.”
This sounds like he is dissillusioned (I would probably be too). But why not re-affirm Audacity of HOPE. That’s why I argue Obama’s lost his message! Now I understand what I believe and feel. Instead of sticking to his guns, Obama didn’t re-affirm that message while denouncing the messanger. It seems he went from “Audacity of Hope” to “A More Perfect Union” (and maybe it was the same message, maybe it was not) but, as said in another thread by another poster - if he trancends this…
He lost his message because he didn’t re-affirm his message.