Candidates have always had to answer for those who are even remotely associated with them.
Seems like Obama’s preacher is a special case though. He’s chosen to follow him. The preacher didn’t chose Obama.
How often does Obama go to church? And he’s surprised by that kind of preaching!
Does he ever talk with his fellow parishioners? The ones who can be heard cheering and applauding in the background.
Boiling this down to one question though… don’t you think that apart from his wife, the preacher is the person he should answer for more than any other?
Do you go to church? Does your preacher speak for you? When I used to go to church I thought the priests were assholes and did not speak for me. Not at all.
He used one of Wright’s sermons to provide the title for it, does that help?
phlosphr, what the hell? Would Wright *be * Obama’s preacher if Obama didn’t listen to him, at least on the things he thought were important? Come on now. :dubious:
Of course, anything any supporter of Clnton might say is unquestionably her responsibility.
Your asking too many questions that aren’t debatable. Had you read either of his books you’d see how this whole preacher business is complete idiocy. Watch his Friday night press conferences and get informed then come back with something to debate. The reason this isn’t plastered all over everywhere is because of his press conferences. So I’d recommend watching them. I don’t mean to be snarky, I try to be a neutral as possible when in GD…but when people come in who have not read a stitch of material and are asking to be informed it get’s tough to debate because we are playing catch-up…
Candidates on either side aren’t responsible for the words of their supporters, staffers, preachers, fund raisers, house pets, house plants, house keepers, keymasters masters of the universe, or whatever else they mave have around them. They are only responsible for whatever words may come out of their own pieholes. This does include how they reject or denounce the public words of those who support them, and as I understand it Obama has already done both to the comments made by the dread Reverend Wright.
Of course, that only answers the title of the thread and not the “boiled down” question in the OP.
*I * don’t, although I’m willing to hear reasons why this should be the case.
Wright’s made some stupid mistakes, I and Obama do not contest that. However, Wright is not David Koresh, he’s a preacher for a large church who has some radical views. Obama isn’t a radical, never has been, doesn’t live his life by the views of Wright, and doesn’t intend too. Obama concentrates on unity and uniting communties and working for the good of a group. Wright did the same thing many eyars ago in nonviolent, community outreach ways. Obama is a community organizer and a damn good one. Wright was a preacher well liked by his community, his views are not shared by his entire congregation, they are often questioned…I’m not going to flip through his book for cites, and it’s not online AFAIK to quote it.
I do not think his preacher speaks for him. I can not imagine it would be so. Every decent size church has multiple priests. Do they all speak for you. I doubt they agree with each ot
No, I don’t. I think the candidates should answer for their own words, and possibly (depending on the situation) for the words of their surrogates and closest advisers. I know it’s lame to repeat Obama’s words on this topic, but the minister isn’t a political adviser and I don’t think his views in any way represent Obama’s on this topic.
Basically I don’t think a candidate needs to answer for the views of his supporters unless there is evidence the candidate shares those views. I don’t think Obama agrees with Wright on these statements. I don’t think Clinton has to answer for what Ferarro said. The list goes on, and these denouncement requirements waste time that could be spent talking about the candidates’ ideas - or who is crying where, or who has momentum, or other important things.
Nope. Never said that candidates should be responsible for the words of their followers. What I said regarding Ferraro was that Clinton should answer after she “famously held Obama’s feet to the fire over an unasked for endorsement by Farrakhan.” You see the difference. Her words that she is responsible for. If she hadn’t done the same for Ferraro, she would appear hypocritical. Then I said in this very thread (mmmm, rhymey)
Thusly we are covered. Now do stop trying to score points on me long enough to answer why Obama should answer more for his priest than anyone excepting his wife. Your certainly no good at the first and I’m curious how you feel about the second.
I’d also like to know how this question is pertinent to the thread.
I think “If that’s what this guy preaches then why are you still a member of that church?” is a realistic question. I also think anyone who has seen much of how the media handles politics should at least have some healthy skepticism about a few sounds bytes pulled out of a decades long career.
My take on it is that the select words we heard are a small part of what Wright preaches and not what’s stressed the most. From going to the site I gather that black liberation theology is about the message of Christ calling people to stand up for freedom and social justice for everyone but with a particular focus on being black in America.
Is it hard to understand how Obama might be attracted to that and appreciate the call to action? Given what I’ve read of his background it’s not for me.
I think any expectation for Obama to cease being friends with Wright and to stop going to that church are unfortunate and misguided. Then again , I’m politically naive.
I don’t mean to shut down the discussion, but how do you expect me to paraphrase chapters in a book.
Watching the news outlets this morning, I don’t see this thing getting anymore legs at all. Obama I see picked up a 15 more delegates over the weekend, looks like this is not effecting the either.
Yes he referred to the preacher in his book. He spoke of him as a community organizer, and a willing uniter of the AA community. A heritage speaker.
The Friday night spin? No that was not it at all. He spoke eloquently about the man and his ties to him, illustrating that he and Hillary are human beings not superheros, and that they both make mistakes.
Prediction: we’ll see both campaigns resting, chilling out, and licking their wounds for a couple weeks…then all bets are off again.
Actually I believe he said he knew that Wright said and preached some controversial things but he had never been there when these specific things were said. I think he difference matters.
So Obama goes to that church and he occasionally hears some controversial things from Wright that are a very small fraction of the overall message. These controversial things are a small fraction of Wright’s contribution to the church and people’s lives. What is it we think he ought to do? Never go again and never talk to Wright again? Why? Is that at all realistic? He decided to stay and continue to be friends with Wright because he thought the good outweighed the bad? Is that horrible judgment? Of course not.
He asked a notable black minister to serve on his campaign staff on his African American Religious Leadership Committee. Does that show bad judgment? No. Again, he felt the good outweighed the bad. We’re getting a false impression about this minister from the repetition of select sound clips. For crying out loud, we had a president who was getting BJs in the White house and then lied to us about it and we reelected him. Did that show bad judgment on his part?
It’s getting a bit ridiculous isn’t it?
More than a bit ridiculous. Bill Clinton this morning on GMA said the same thing…people get ridiculous in campaigns and that this campaign is mild compared to others. Probably referring to the controversy over Ms.Lewinsky.
Bill knows his wife is in trouble, and he knows both candidates are tired - Jeezus these are human beings we are talking about, not political androids.
