Who here has said that?
She doesn’t have to, she wrote a college thesis; isn’t that bad enough?
It was implied by the context of the post I was responding to.
-XT
How so? Are you sure you don’t mean “inferred from”? (Apologies for the hijack)
No, I meant implied…but perhaps inferred is a better term considering. Seemed fairly obvious to me…and I’d say based on DtC’s response it was obvious to him to, though in a different light obviously. Perhaps Glee simply meant it as stated, that while the 'Pubs will smear Obama the Dems will likewise smear McCain and things will be business as usual. I concede that this interpretation is…possible.
-XT
I do not believe Obama forcefully denounced Wright. He denounced the Reverend Wright’s religious message but he didn’t denounce the man’s political view and the only way he can do that is to re-affirm the political message that Wright and Obama once shared.
The reason I brought up John Edwards is easy to understand. Obama and Edwards both share the same political message. They are both young and John Edwards would make the perfect VP. (Although IMO Hillary, Al Gore, and Bill would be the Dream Team) Why didn’t Obama announce John Edwards as running mate while simulateously they both take on the politics of Wright.
Americans are looking for leadership. They’re looking not just for hope, but for audacity. Obama wants to be a uniter… so did George W. Bush. Obama wants to ‘let people know who he is’… so did John Kerry.
Kozmik - do you know John Edwards? I don’t see how he would make a good VP…not at all really. I do agree Obama will more than likely choose a white man to be his veep - but who remains to be seen. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around your argument that Obama needs to reaffirm anything. In terms of political blunders Obama has been Tiger Woods with his comebacks. People still really like Obama, ALOT, and that isn’t just going to fade to black as some Clintonites would like.
There are a few people who might disagree with this, among them Hillary, Al Gore, and Bill.
Try as I might, I still can’t really understand what you mean with regard to messages and Wright’s message and Obama. It feels as if this discussion has been run through one of those snoop-dog translators except instead of snoop dog the destination language is “Obama-ese”.
Can you try to make your case once more, as if I am really stupid today, which is totally possible?
Does John Edwards failure to denounce Jeremiah Wright mean that he’s lost his message, too?
I said the same thing Stoli…
You continue to exactly reverse what Obama said. He explicitly condemned the political mesage, with statements such as “Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.”
Why are you reversing his actual statements?
You can make a really odd claim to deabte, but only if you turn the whole issue inside out and look at it through the looking glass.
Yes! Obama is denoucing the the current political message of Wright. This is his message. But was it strong enough. Has Obama lost his message?
Barack Obama could have strengthened his message with John Edwards. Or he could have strengthened his message with Jeremiah Wright (by shaming him for losing his message) Or both.
Would it have been sufficient for you if he had said “I denounce that motherfucker strongly. In fact, I’d kill the fucking reverend if he was here. That’s how strongly I denounce him”, or something similar?
No.
So holding hands with Edwards while denouncing Wright would have been sufficient for you? Or would you have preferred the second method, where he puffs on a cigarrette while pointing mockingly at a naked, masturbating Wright, Lynndie England style?
Ah! I get it now. Obama’s message was fractured when Wright co-opted his message by repurposing “audacity”, thereby stealing Obama’s “Hope”. If Obama is to distance himself from Wright, he must repackage the repurposing for his own political interpretation of the personal message of Wright, making it his own- and then sending Wright’s political message down the dustbin of history.
Now I see why it will take ten years.
There is no evidence that Wright has lost either his political message or his religious message. They are separate.
Obama apparently embraced the religious message and not the political message twenty years ago. There is no reason to believe that Wright has changed either message. The only thing that has changed has been the desire of a few groups to play up Wright’s political message while ignoring his religious message, then (deliberately?) conflating the two messages and complaining that Obama has to “do something” about the separate message that he never embraced.
Now, it is true that Wright is a PR issue for Obama given the number of people who are frightened of angry black men and the fear that Obama might share some of Wright’s politics. However, that PR issue is simply election year games. The reality is that there is no reason to believe that Obama has ever shared Wright’s politics. There is no legitimate reason to confuse Wright’s politics with Wright’s theology. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama, embracing Wright’s theology and not Wright’s politics, has lost any message.
You know, tom, if the electorate as a whole were as rational and clear-sighted as you, this country would be in a helluva lot better shape.
And I say this as an Obama supporter who has no idea whether he’s your choice for President.
Yes!! I told you I’m not short-sighted and I know how to debate. But even though this is the first Great Debate I won, this wasn’t my debate to win.
Obama could have had victory on May Day! But, you’re right, he might have to wait ten years. Unless both Hillary and Obama make it to June 1st with a strong finish. They need it to be a photo finish in an election that will rival 2004 and 2000. Because… only a strong candidate that hits the ground running will win the marathon. That’s not to say that the Wright controversy will not hurt Obama if nominated. The Republicans will swift-boat him with Rev. Wright sermons and, worse, they won’t have any Obama speeches. He will just have to come up with response ads. It really comes down to the Obamamaniacs… and the Super Delegates.
Is this the Senator George Aiken defense? 
You have made cryptic and confused posts, repeatedly reversed the actual positions held by Senator Obama, misunderstood what has been said by Reverend Wright, and generally failed to make a coherent point. Now you are going to declare victory and go home? Fine with me. Can I close this silly thing, now?
ETA: BTW, whooooosh.
Please! It’s hurting my brain.
Oh and Kozmik - A wise sage once said: "If you need to declare victory, there was never a victory to declare…"
By whom?
Seems to me that Barack is back on message, if he was even ever off of it.