But does the good they’ve done outweigh the bad? That’s the question. Not to get into a hijack on those guys, but I’m just pointing out that you haven’t exactly invalidated my point.
Guilty until proven innocent? It’s not realistic to prove a negative like that, that’s why people deny. “I didn’t know.”
The evidence doesn’t say he’s guilty. The evidence suggests the possibility of guilt. You seem very eager to believe guilt, so you’re convinced. Once a person has made up their mind, unless they’re open to having their mind changed it’s not going to happen. Just don’t pretend you’re making a cogent argument beyond “I think he’s lying, so he is, and unless he can prove he’s telling the truth to my satisfaction, I will continue to think so.”
So, is your basic opinion that any blacks who express any paranoid or angry views as a response to the very real racial discrimination in which they grew up deserve nothing but to be completely ostracized no matter how small a part these expressions are relative to the full body of their words and deeds?
I just want to clearly understand your point-of-view.
Post #237 does not provide any answer to my question. I will ask again, what “bad” things has Reverend Wright done in his life that you think override the documented good?
No he doesn’t.
Well, that’s difficult to answer, as I am not aware of all the good they’ve done, nor all the bad. And I think that answer will vary as you ask… “has the good they’ve done outweigh the bad in order to what?” Allow the guy to play poker with you? Get into heaven? Be elected to high public office? Be appointed and confirmed to high public office? To be part of a politician’s inner circle? Etc. I think the answer as far as the last is “no”. YMMV.
Now I will direct you to Post #245, which should more directly answer you.
Be back later.
No, Obama knew Wright was passionate on this subject, but the recent stuff Wright said crossed a line he hadn’t crossed until he was ready to retire, and that’s when Obama couldn’t back him up.
Here you miss the point, and quite badly. Obama isn’t defending his choice of Wright as pastor and his grandmother as grandmother. He brought her up as an example that even good people can have bad sides.
From here. Warning - People for the American Way site - but the quotes are what count. (Half the Google results for “McCain religious right” have him attacking them, and the other half (the more recent) have him wooing them.
Remember, Hagee isn’t someone McCain goes back with for years, long before he was a contender. He is someone being asked for support today.
Come on, people reject their relatives all the time. Haven’t you ever read Dear Abby? As for mentorship, do you think Obama should have rejected him because of what he was going to say in 20 years?
I’ve had friends and relatives who have said nasty things. You can reject the words without rejecting the person. It is a poor version of friendship that requires political correctness on the part of the friend.
“Inner circle” is a little misleading. Wright’s role in the campaign was pretty minimal. To grab a random article, per the Seattle Times:
My milage does vary from yours – based partially on the size of the role Wright played. People try to speak him up as “part of the campaign” or “Obama’s advisor” as if Wright was developing foreign policy or health care. The guy was given a token role in a (policy-speaking) insignificant committee out of respect to his contribution to Obama’s past.
Just as an aside, I’m an atheist and I have no problem believing that people can take their own messages away from a sermon, and don’t neccesarily follow lockstep. It’s why I have no problem understanding that Obama doesn’t actually believe the things Wright said - nor McCain of the things Hagee said (of course, he’s not actually a part of his church, but still).
That, to me, is the core of the issue here. Does anyone actually believe that’s what Obama stands for?
My meeting got pushed back, so…
Regardless of the official roile wright might play or have played in his campaign, Obama referred to the man as his mentor. Someone he chose to look to for advice and guidance. You can’t get more personally involved than that.
Which is exactly what you do in post #238. Do you have evidence that Wright said stuff as far over the line 20 years ago? I’m lily-white, but I am old enough to know that someone Wright’s age, being a pastor of a church in a poor part of Chicago, might have some justifiable anger.
MLK is a secular saint today, but before he died he said some stuff about Vietnam which got the power structure very angry. Tsk tsk.
Have you ever had a mentor? I had one when I started to work 28 years ago. I’ll always call him my mentor, but I’ve grown past the point where he has influence on me. If Wright was a close adviser to Obama today, you’d have a point, but it has already been demonstrated that he does not. Someone who is an effective mentor for a community organizer may not be for a Senator or presidential candidate.
I think it is refreshing to see a candidate accept the past, rather than say things along the line of “we won’t talk about how or why we got into Iraq, that’s inoperative at the moment.”
Yes, and Obama is just so hate-filled to this day. Clearly Wright indoctrinated him with messages of Kill Whitey and Hate America to make him the statesman he is.
The question assumes that he hadn’t spewed his shit 20 years ago, as well. As much of his spew comes from the black liberation theology of the sixties (which Obama points out), I find that highly unlikely. As unlikely and disappointing as I find hearing Obama asking us to believe that a man who may very well be the next POTUS spent all this time with this man in church and in private and was unaware of his most incendiary beliefs. Sorry, that asks too much.
You’re right. And I don’t even think Wright necessarily needs to be rejected as someone’s friend. He is the product of a different time, and while he might have been viewed as extreme back then, those same beliefs today look even more out of whack with reality. The question is—especially given Obama’s own message of rejecting the divisive politics of the past—can a candidate for POTUS have such a man at his elbow. I say no. Simple as that.
I too think it’s great that he gave this speech, and that it’s one of the most logical, thoughtful pieces of writing I’ve seen by a politician in, maybe, ever, especially given the subject matter. I will just hope that others will see this and give it a chance.
But I confess to suspecting that the relationship with the Reverend could be very damaging to him in the general, given the machinery dedicated to running it up the flagpole. Expect a new video of Wright every week or so during the gap in voting.
It really seems lightweight, but so was the Swift Boat thing.
It seems to me that some would like to push us to the point that our selection of our leaders is based on nothing more than who can best reject and denounce others.
If you want a leader like that, you should support Ralph Nader. In my opinion, his career has been based on rejecting and denouncing.
I prefer leaders who hear such nonsense and come out to make a speech that leads us in a more productive, intelligent and rational direction, with some recognition that issues are complex and may be beyond the placating soundbite. I know it is a novelty to have a leader speak to us as if we are adults capable of hearing the message, as Jon Stewart said.
Please try hard to be that capable adult. The ability to reject and denounce might make for good middle management material, but we should aspire to greater qualities in our nations leaders.
I take it you’re running out of points. The problem is that it raises a question to what degree he agrees with Wright’s beliefs, your hyperbole aside. Personally, if he were my candidate (and if we didn’t have the threat of terrorism, he would be) this would undo it.
If Wright were at his elbow today I would agree. he does not appear to be a close adviser. I was very happy when Obama fired the woman who said Hillary was a monster - loyalty can go to far, as Shrub has amply demonstrated. However, you can’t fire your past.
I read much of this thread this morning, and even followed the links to articles. But at lunch, I watched the entire speech again, and found it to be the best explanation of itself and the controversies out there.
I’m gonna watch it again, right now