Yeah, if that were the case, we wouldn’t even have the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, given that Tom Coburn is the guy who thinks “the gay agenda. . . is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today,” and who “favor[s] the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life.” cite. I guess Obama should step down from his Senate seat, huh?
Utter rubbish. Hillary Clinton wasn’t guilty of Ferarro’s remarks by her association with her. She was guilty of hypocrisy and having a double-standard by setting herself up as superior to Barack Obama because she both renounced and rejected support of people who made racist remarks, and he “merely” renounced Farrakhan’s words of praise for him, when no support was ever offered and there was no relationship there.
But when it came time for her to live up to her own standards, she didn’t. It took her 3 days to even denounce the ugly remarks in any stronger terms than simply “we disagree”. And she never did separate herself from Ferarro’s support, as she demanded of Barack Obama, she simply stood by and waited for Ferraro to decide on her own to step down, which she only did so that she could continue to make her racist remarks without it hurting Hillary.
Let me repeat this for you; Hillary Clinton is not guilty of Ferarro’s words, she’s guilty of her own hypocrisy in not immediately rejecting her further support, which she called on her opponent to do.
Your nitpicking on my nitpicking doesn’t address the point I made about the inaccurate point you made that stated it was ‘one’ extreme thing. More deflection. You’re good at this Obamaspeak!
Not untrue. Sorry, neither you nor Obama gets to decide when something has ‘already been discussed and put away’ ROFL Much as he’d like to.
The media will continue to address these issues. Sorry, Obama, you don’t run things.
Come on, seriously. The fact that Obama claims to have not known that his pastor had made comments about 9/11, naughty White people, and naughty Bill Clinton beggars belief. He’s a Columbia-Harvard educated dude, which correlates to some modicum of intelligence. Even if he had not heard the specific comments on that specific day, you mean to tell me nobody said, “Man, Barack, did you hear the pastor go on about 9/11/Hillary/White people?”
If you purport to have superior judgment you have to exercise it. For Obama, it seems that the judgment comes into play only after someone calls him on examples of poor judgment. Donnie McClurkin was absolutely fine until someone pointed out that he was a homophobe. Rezko was a-ok until he got indicted, even when information had circulated that he might be a shady character. And of course, it was fine to have the retiring Reverend Wright in his campaign until someone pointed out he had some pretty extreme views. Am I holding him to a higher standard? Yes, because this campaign is rooted in this idea. I know Hillary has plenty examples of questionable judgment, but you know something? Anyone who works in politics for a time will have examples of such as well.
I also reject the idea that Wright made a few choice crazy comments over the 20 years Obama has known him. We’re castigating Ferraro (rightly) because we know she’s made at least two claims of Black male presidential candidates having a leg up. I certainly don’t fault Obama for finding a spiritual connection with Wright - that’s a very personal relationship that he’s had for some time and it seems to have done him good. But in the world of politics, you are known by the company you keep. It appears another person in the public eye knew that Wright was controversial and made efforts to distance herself from him - Obama’s friend Oprah. Why didn’t he do the same, or appeal to Wright to tone it down? You’d think he might say, “Pastor, I appreciate the support, but it really hurts my campaign when you speak about the Clintons/White people from the pulpit.”
We’ve heard plenty about his fiery pastor. One doesn’t get the tag “controversial” or “fiery” from saying a naughty word every now and then from the pulpit. But if you, on your own volition, have made many reference to the centrality of this person in your life, you need to take responsibility for knowing how they see the world. Nobody forced Obama to give Wright any position on his campaign. And further, if you’re asking me to vote for you based on your judgment, I’d say this isn’t the best example of it.
And I’m interested in what interests you, right? LOL Once again, you don’t run things. You can say go away, you can say it’s already been discussed, etc.
Tell you what. When you have something of substance to add that isn’t blatantly false (Wright said ‘one’ extreme thing), I for one would be interested.
I do think the better political move, however, would have been to quickly denounce and reject and throw her out. True enough. That’s a political play they fumbled.
Try responding to me rather than wrongly inferring attitudes I haven’t expressed and responding to them. It makes your comments relevant which is occasionally a good thing.
I have no axe to grind against Hillary. Realistically they both have their pluses and minuses. I’ve looked at both their characters and made my choice.
Once again, with this being your 3rd commandment/instruction to me on what to do, when to do it, and how to reply: no, thanks. I’ll speak for myself and you can speak for your Xerox man.
For those claiming that Wright’s statements are atypical of what is preached at this church, I would like a direct response to something I posted earlier:
If this was not an ideology of the church, I find it hard to believe that the congregation would have reacted the way it did to Wright’s statements. Beliefs that the government invented HIV or knew about Pearl Harbor are only held by extremely ignorant people and are only cheered by people deluded by ideology. Do you find it at all hard to believe that the congregation as a whole would cheer Wright’s statements on HIV and Pearl Harbor if there nothing about these beliefs that related to the ideology of the church? It is a hell of coincidence that such ignorant and deluded people ended up together if the church had nothing to do with beliefs of this nature.
Do you think it is just a coincidence that there were so people in the congregation willing cheer on ignorant statements about the government inventing HIV or to you think there is something about this church that is attracting these people?
I think it attracted Obama as a way to help assuage his deep psychological need to be ‘black enough’ by association. Ironic now that it comes out it’s going to be read as making him ‘too black’ right before going into the upcoming states that are at play.
The irony is that we are asking a man to answer for the history of another man while completely ignoring his own. Not to mention that it is a 30 year history we are trying to fit into a 15 second sound bite. Context, sense and reason people. Please. With the same tools and intentions, one could reduce Ghandi and King into Hitler and Stalin. Unfair editting does not make a complete reality.
This is nothing but a cherry picked and created conspiracy.
Besides that, I trust a rant based on history and facts of socioeconomic injustice a whole lot more than I would trust one based on xenophobic, metaphysical superstitions.
You have no idea, do you? I’ve read, and reread your posts from today and it appears you are only citing popular media and nothing of originality…You can say all you wish about Obama, no big deal, it’s what makes this country great. But uninformed answers and quips only tells me you are repeating and not even caring about who Barak Obama is. Your consistant disdain and non-grasping of the facts about him further says your uninformed responses barely deserve merit. Only the fact that it is political season and people behave irrationally gives me any pause on what quite a few people on these boards truly feel.
I am very serious. And relieved. I’ve completely made up my mind. Some one once told me that the time to take the full measure of a man was when he was down. This Wright controversy is the very worst moment for his campaign, and as I as I watched his response to Cooper as well as listened to Gergen and the newspaperman on CNN, I suddenly fully understood that he was the right man for the job.
Good Man! I welcomed your views at all times - it’s the best part of being on the SDMB for a while, people are people and we’re a great cross section of folks
