You really think "Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees.” is adequate? Keep in mind the standards that so many in this thread are applying to the other candidate before you answer.
Where the hell do you get “dictate” from? Is that the same sense in which Ferraro would “dictate” what Clinton would do? Please try to stay intellectually honest here, okay?
As for Wright’s significance to Obama, while comparing it to Ferraro’s, consider:
Yes, fairly or not (not that fairness has anything to do with this thread), it matters. Given his relationship with Wright, he needs a much better answer than “I disagree” to something like this:
So how comfortable are you that you’ve appropriately judged both situations?
Another fine example of projecting, like so many we’ve seen lately - a hate-filled rant claiming that the *target * of the rant is the real hater, and the hater (and its target audience) is actually loving.
I think that is a clear response and not one that took three days. Yes, I think that is adequate. Clinton has made no similarly clear response.
As to the rest. Y’know my Dad was a bit of a racist at times. But I still loved him and respected his opinions on a wide variety of other subjects. His advice was often helpful to me and I miss him. I’ve had Rabbis with political POVs that I strongly disagree with. There were still other things they’ve said that were of value. My brother and I often disagree (he’s a med-mal lawyer and I’m a doctor, he liked Clinton even!) These are relationships from which we can take what we consider worthwhile and politely ignore the rest. They are not my representatives. It is a difference of significance.
Hmmm. Clinton initially disagreed and later repudiated and deeply regretted that hateful comments by an official representative of her campaign were said.
Obama vehemently disagrees, strongly condemns, categorically denounces, and rejects outright the words of someone who does not represent him or his beliefs.
“Someone who does not represent him”, under the circumstances of Obama’s life, involves a bit of handwaving, especially if one wants Ferraro’s status as Clinton’s “official representative” (which takes quite a bit more handwaving) to be considered categorically more significant. Or, for that matter, if one needs Ferraro’s and Wright’s comments to be considered similarly hateful and ignorant.
But neither your opinion nor mine really matters. We only have 2 votes between us anyway. How do you think it compares out in the world of the presidential campaign? To the undecided or the persuadable, how does it look? Does Obama still look above such things? Does he look different from the usual politician? Does he look superior as a candidate in any meaningful way?
He looks a bit like the man I voted for on March 4th, and a little like the man I’ll see putting his hand on a bible whilst getting inaugurated.
Politician? Oh hell yes, a very good one. Superior? To who, Clinton? Yes, of course I think he is, thats why I am voting and campaigning for the man, that’s why more people are voting for him than they are voting for Clinton, that’s not about to change suddenly. This isn’t blind faith, people are going to see a lot in the next 5 weeks. From all points.
I think clinton put geraldine up to this. did I already post this in here? If so, I apologize… it’s just that it needs repeating. This was all the clinton camps doing.
According to this diary at Daily Kos there’s lots of good stuff already. Rezko, Wright, all the negatives that have cascaded over him – he’s turned them all around and, as the diarist asserts:
Good, solid response. I think he’s going to pull through this. This is far, far better handling of a political crisis than anything we saw from Gore or Kerry.
That’s because she doesn’t necessarily believe it’s race baiting.
What would be the non-race-baiting way of making the point that Obama’s popularity is due to his being a novelty act that uses race?
Not that you’d agree with that assertion, but if it is in fact a point that one wants to assert how is that supposed to be done?
The answer, it seems, is that the point can’t be made. That’s race baiting.
Which is really convenient for Obama if in fact that IS true since it can’t be said without being charged with racism. THAT setup is what’s race baiting.
Racism in Obama campaign: “As soon as anybody makes a point having anything to do with race, I’ll smear you as a racist and a race baiting candidate after tacitly acknowledging that you may have a point maybe if that’s what it takes to make me look reasonable as I proceed to speak out of all three sides of my mouth…<waiting breathlessly>”
Ferraro’s follow up interview, after all, explictly asserted that whenever anybody brings up any critiques racism is screeched. Was she wrong?
Crying wolf on race baiting is racist, cynical, and breathtakingly brazen (like, I don’t know, trying to channel MLK’s style).
