I've gone over the coverage on this issue and the responses from various parties involved and the thing I keep coming back to is that we may finally be able to have a national dialog about the harm that people like Rev. Wright do to the black community at large and their congregations in particular. Or maybe it will just be a giant political flamewar. Yeah, I'm gonna go with flamewar.

It's hard to muster up the usual spirited jab I take at you from time to time, CY, because if this is what you got out of that speech--that's a wound you you've sustained somewhere along the way that I couldn't pour salt in. Especially after hearing that speech.

Well there are several opportunities here, one of them being for the "jingo-ists" to think a little about the complexities of the American past AND present.

Well said, Mr. Lee, though rather incorrectly worded. I am one of those jingoists who completely agrees with you on the topic of Americans needing understanding those complexities.

For a better wording of your statement try: "Well there are several opportunities here, one of them for those "heritage"-Americans to think a little about the complexities of what it means to be first an American and second a "heritage".

I was raised to be color blind. To look at the substance of the individual instead of their color/creed/sex/etc. As such, I believe there is only one race of "human" and heritage (environment) tends to shape each individual's substance. The fact Mr. Obama has a much greater amount melanin in his epidural tissues matters not at all to me. However, the further fact he remained associated with a pastor and church that fosters such bigoted beliefs based upon heritage alone bothers me more than anything.

His speech today did nothing to assuage my concern over his substance.

I was stunned at the amount of media that used the same line as Obama to defend himself and that pastor.

"This is what commonly goes on Sundays at black churches?" I thought, "Gee golly wilikers!! is THAT a news story we should be seeing a bunch about!!"

That's an excuse?

Fascinating!!!

It's fascinating for why that is an excuse for the media elites...

....which is what I immediately figured when I first heard about this contreversy ---- that the media wouldn't have a problem with it....because it is what they believe ------ (and of course, most of the media is white....)

I noted somewhere in comments on this issue that I really wanted to see Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton as the nominees, because I have been feeling for a few years now, since 9/11, that our society needed a complete debate about our nation.

When Gingrich didn't run, and I saw that everyone was diving to the center and going to play nice --- I gave up on this election cycle digging up much of that debate....

Now, the door has flung wide open, and I just wonder if the media is going to be successful in slamming it shut again or not....???....

I suggest that anyone who listened to the speech also read the text of the speech (see Drudge) and see the thoughts that are strung together. Like those who heard Nixon on the radio in the 1960 debate they came away with a different opinion than those who watched it on tv. I think reading the speech gives one a completely different take on the speech.

Once you separate the oratorical skills from the content, I think you'll see a shallowness and attempt at excuse finding rather than dealing with the issue. The speech also pretty much devolved into a standard liberal stump speech with demonizing those natsy Reagan conservatives, talk radio programs, corporations, etc and calling for more government programs. Was any thought given to the horrible blowback this country is dealing with from 40+ years of those soul draining programs? Nah.

It seems that rather than dealing with the core issues at hand, Obama tried unsuccessfully to use deflection to try to move past this example of poor judgment on his part and the truly aberrant and abhorrant behavior of his spiritual advisor and friend.

"Obama tried unsuccessfully to use deflection to try to move past this example of poor judgment on his part"

It's not poor judgment.

This is one line I've heard from even critics in the media, and I think it is dead wrong headed, though it is debatable.

Given what his wife said about being proud of her nation for the first time in her adult life, and some of the statements from some of her (Ivy league) college days ---- I give it a strong bet that Obama stayed in that church for 20 years -- because he agrees with those "divisive" words he says he is just finding out about.

This is not poor judgment of friends and mentors here.

This is someone picking a mentor and sticking with him - for two decades.

This must be close to what is in the heart and mind of Obama.

You can't just dismiss away such an association by calling it poor judgment in friends, but that is what I hear even some conservative critics saying.

"It's not poor judgment."

Ok, perhaps poor judgment was too weak a word. Also please note that I have said many times that I think Obama id an idiot. But because this is the first evidence of misconduct (well regarding racism anyway, well up until now he was not depicted as such, nor do I believe him to be one, only of poor (scratch that, shitty judgment).

Lies are another story. BUT (equally deviant as ), or evidence hinting at misconduct, we can not label him an innocent. But we can label him an idiot for continuing with the sermons, and preachings of Wright. So that makes him "less than" presidential material.

Is Billery better presidential material? Only slightly.

Is McCain better yet? Yeah I guess so.

In this election, with those that we are given, we can only vote for the best of the good. Unfortunately we have not be given a best of the best (candidate for POTUS), but we have been given a good strong candidate that can lead.

Not one that falls all over himself to cover for past transgressions, not one that rides a spouses victories and hides from the failures, but one that meets both their failings, and wins with equal grace. And one that has been willing to admit to those failings (even though I admittedly disagree with some of those failings)

Now, I am sure I will get a number of new people to this blog that are the conspiracy idiots. Well feel free to contact me.

AND if you want to argue something in this post, then do so with substance.

If not then shut the frak up. You have nothing to offer here.

Bob, when you see a guy hit a home run, do you complain that he didn't simultaneously steal a base?

Seriously, Obama knocked this dopey little 'problem' of his out of the park. Just a classic speech. Like, you want to talk about race? Blam! Here ya go.

Even a couple of the Cornerites were impressed. I don't recall reading a single positive thing about John Kerry over there, just to put it into perspective.

But hold on to your delusion that John '100 Years In Iraq' McCain is going to beat this guy, while the economy goes into the tank and gas hits $4.50 thanks to the past eight years of ridiculously bad governance.

Best commentary by far on the Obama speech

When Osama threw his still living under the bus by comparing her to Wright Osama assumed the mantle of a truly sleazy individual. Not lacking in judgement but lacking in character. He made his judgement and lied and lied and lied, insulting all who saw this speech.

Are white Americans guilty of original sin because of slavery? Strange what nation in 1776 had abolished slavery? What other nation waged a war to end it and is still trying to end it around the world? Its sad that because the USA doesn't meet the utopian preferences of some that we are now the KKK-A. Although I note the people who refer to this nation as such never seem in a hurry to leave, although millions do attempt to enter this land of woe every year.

I look forward to seing more of those who tell us we do not understand black liberation theology. I think most of us saw the off Broadway previews of this show at Nuremburg.

"in-awe" I agree with you. I think Obama did a poor job in the speech. Like I said, it gets to the core issue of his dilemma. He wants to be a "safe" black man but secure the support of most of black america AND the radical left. How do you talk about the slaughter of Indians in westward expansion, slavery, syphillis experiments on african americans, the black codes, Watergate, My Lai, Agent Orange, Napalm, suspicions about the veracity of this administration et al...in good terms? America is a great country, in the schene of things it's nothing short of a miracle but "jingo-ism" and denial of instances of injustice and contradiction is not the answer.

Barack Hussein Obama is intentionally deceiving Americans on a number of fronts.

The only difference between Wright and Obama is truth. Wright admits his racist, anti-American views and Obama conceals them.

Obama really is the Manchurian Candidate.

"Strange what nation in 1776 had abolished slavery?"

Hungary, Sweden, Japan, Portugal, England, Wales, Scotland.

But not the US, which didn't abolish slavery until 1865, though some parts abolished it in a piecemeal fashion starting in 1777.

First off, I'd like to say I don't support or condone Rev Wright's words. However, its interesting to watch the "spin" CY tries to label the man with. Did he say outlandish things? Yes. Things I disagree with? Yep. Is he some lunatic fringe religious zealot? Nope, unfortunately he's a rather typical example of the religious leaders we have today. His audience is different so his rhetoric is nuanced to that effect, but the same type of statements are made by plenty of "religious" leaders in the US all the time.

"unable to control his anger" - Sounds like he leaps out of the pulpit and starts beating the crap out of someone in the first row...Has the Rev been accused of some act of violence? Seems pretty controlled to me if he can express himself once a week in front of 100's of people for the past 20 years. Seems to me he found a way to civilly and legal express his anger...you don't have to like what he says, but that doesn't mean he isn't able to control his anger...

"Anti-American" - What does this word mean? If you don't love who your country is or agree with what your country is doing or has done, are you AA? How about Pat Robertson calling for the nuclear bombing of the US state department or Jerry Falwell blaming abortions, feminists and lesbians for 9/11? Or their statements about Katrina and huricanes? I guess they are AA as well...

"Conspiracy-theorizing" - Duh! That's every single religious leader out there. Religion is based on faith. The idea that there is someone out there all powerful that you can't prove. Your soul is in constant peril. The devil is out there leading you into temptation. Satan can sneak into your home at any moment. Find me a preacher/pastor/minister that doesn't preach about the abuses of alcohol, tobacco, vice, drugs, music, porn, tv, movies, etc as tools of Satan conspiring to get your soul and I'll show you a man without a congregation. The fore-amentioned "religious" leaders all use conspiracy-theorizing on a daily basis. Rev Wright is no different...

This is not a criticism, but what is a deliberately diverse church? Are there quotas or something? How does a church deliberately diversify itself? Bus in church goers from other neighborhoods?

Christian congregations (like other religious congregations) focus on what their leaders believe to be important at the time. Most of the time its the word of God, other times it has been promoting wars, elections, politicians or other idealogic agendas. None of them are perfect...

We would not allow a republican candidate to continue if he had a KKK member as a mentor and trusted advisor. Obama is doing the equivalent; why should we ignore it? It's certainly safe to say that the media would not allow a republican to do such a thing.

Rafar,
check your dates. Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1830.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the question of whether BHO actually properly addressed the Wright issue, and even leave aside the dispute of whether BHO needed to address the Wright issue. How do people believe this speech said anything important at all about race or race-relations in America?

From this speech it seems BHO’s take on race in America is:

- Black people are angry and have a right to be angry;

- White people need to give black people more money and do more for black people.

- Corporations are bad and government is good.

This is hardly a thoughtful or realistic view of how to improve conditions in the black community in America or how to improve race relations.

Indeed, it is simply the same cliched b.s. that the left constantly states, over and over again, despite the demonstrative failures of such approaches.

How anything in BHO’s speech is considered “great” is beyond me. Yes, BHO speaks well and has great delivery. There were some great verbal fourishes.

But there was absolutely no substance in the speech - I defy any lefty reading this blog to quote something substantive from the speech in response.

The speech contained no new ideas, no new insights, no new policy proposals or solutions. No hard truths to the black community - just the same ol’, same ol’ (i.e., blacks are angry, whites need to do more).

How does this pass for “great” or “inspirational”?

How about Pat Robertson calling for the nuclear bombing of the US state department or Jerry Falwell blaming abortions, feminists and lesbians for 9/11? Or their statements about Katrina and huricanes?

But ... but ... Pat Robertson spreads his hate in dulcet, sonorous tones! Jerry Falwell had the cherubic face of a friendly, white fat man! There was nothing black and scary and loud about those guys. And therein lies the difference for CY.

From this speech it seems BHO’s take on race in America is:

- Black people are angry and have a right to be angry;

- White people need to give black people more money and do more for black people.

Can you link a transcript to 'this speech'? Clearly it must have been a different one than the one he made yesterday.

BHO has tried to play down the race issue and now he must face it. The majority of blacks in this country are not successful "crossovers", mass black culture is fundamentally dissonant with the norms of rational, disciplined, capitalist self seeking. Obama has to some how square his relationship with both paradigms.

But ... but ... Pat Robertson spreads his hate in dulcet, sonorous tones! Jerry Falwell had the cherubic face of a friendly, white fat man! There was nothing black and scary and loud about those guys. And therein lies the difference for CY.

What an utter load of crap.

Go back through my archives, if you dare, and find where I've ever condoned radical statements made by Falwell, Roberson, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, or any other minster you desire.

As I stated on the previous thread, I am a member of a church that features a black senior pastor and a congregation that is probably about 40% African-American or of mixed race.

Don't attempt to speak for me, as you only reveal your own ignorance.

This is an opportunity for BHO to display leadership. Don't think McCain would even address the matter. Didn't see Cheney do a follow up visit to New Orleans like he did Iraq.

Here, from the speech is the part that explains that Black are angry and justifies that anger:

We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

And here's the part where he explains the answer is for white people to give more money to black people:

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

You obvioulsy heard what you wanted to hear, not what he said.

I again restate my challenge -

Find me some substance in the speech that contains new ideas, new insights, new policy proposals or solutions, or hard truths to the black community - just the same ol’, same ol’ (i.e., blacks are angry, whites need to do more).

Indeed,

Find me one interesting new thought that hasn't been routinely stated over and over again by black politicians or liberals in the speech.

Great Banana- what's your default assumption that the appeal to invest in schools is directed at WHITES ONLY..it's addressed to ALL American's who can help, ALL Americans who NEED help.

Bob -- Like you I've been arguing that Obama's church and his pastor are aberrations among black Christian churches. I sure hope that's the case because I'm starting to wonder.

If Obama will only partially distance himself from Rev. Wright under the threat of his presidential candidacy imploding and there is no organized outcry from other black ministers that I've noticed (aside from those decrying the controversy itself), then perhaps things are worse than I thought.

Uhh, go to a reading comprehension class - the entire paragraph is about what white should do.

And, again, how does that change my point:

Here is BHO's belief as to race issues:

- Blacks are angry and have a right to be;
- the country as a whole, including whites, (I made this change just for you) has to give blacks more.

Again, same old liberal cliche b.s. Explain again how BHO just said something "brave" or "wonderful" or "unique"?

And, he still has not even addressed whether he believes that the U.S. created AIDs to kill blacks; whether we deserved what we go on 9/11; or any of the other vile, racist things Wright said.

Instead, BHO said "hey, look over there" and you lefties agree to look over there. While I don't care that you are going to still nominate this empty suit, b/c this stuff is going to be delicious in the general election, I wish you would at least use rational thought and consistency for a change.

For the sake of argument, I am willing to put aside whether BHO said that blacks are angry and whites need to give them more.

Instead, I offer this challenge to our lefty friends:

Quote me from the speech a new idea, new insights, new policy proposals or solution, or a hard truth to the black community. Point to me anything that makes this speech anything more than retread liberal talking points.

"It requires all ( ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL,ALL) Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."
Great Banana- I will see you in that reading comprehension class.

Man are you stupid.

Yes he did say all in that last sentance. Please read the sentance before where he addresses what Whites need to do for racial healing.

""In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations."

Please, be intellectually honest in this debate. Stop spinning and at least own up to what the guy stated.

Go back through my archives, if you dare, and find where I've ever condoned radical statements made by Falwell, Roberson, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, or any other minster you desire.

The question isn't whether you personally condone those popular pastors, Bob. The question is whether you've demanded that any politicians closely associated with them denounce them in the loudest possible terms or lose your support.

"The question isn't whether you personally condone those popular pastors, Bob. The question is whether you've demanded that any politicians closely associated with them denounce them in the loudest possible terms or lose your support."

When someone says something vile, people should repudiate it - I agree.

However, do you at least admit that there is a huge difference between a supporter stating an opinion, and someone who has been your personal minister for 20 years, has ministered to your children, is your mentor, is your "uncle", is a campaign advisor? Don't you agree that such a person saying something vile is much more troublesome than just a regular supporter saying something vile?

Or, in your mind, are the two things equal?

It seems to me that discoverying that a person who has advised a candidate and taught/mentored a candidate has a repulsive world view is much more troublesome than a regular supporter having that same vile view.

In other words, I think the actual relationship between the candidate and the person with the vile beliefs is very relevant. In this case, it seems reasonable to question what O'Bama's actual views and poltical philosophy is - considered that he has no record that we can look at to discover it and he has not been very forthcoming in explaining it. Thus, we are left with trying to discover it through such means as what influential people in his life believe. And, in the case of Wright, that is pretty damning.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/19/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The speech was a disaster for Obama. His weasley attempt to excuse and side step the anti-American bigotry and idiocy of his preacher of 20 years (the man who married him and baptized his kids, with whome he consulted before running for president and who provided the title for his biograph) failed miserably. His inability to directly addresse the charges hurt him more than saying nothing.

The question isn't whether you personally condone those popular pastors, Bob. The question is whether you've demanded that any politicians closely associated with them denounce them in the loudest possible terms or lose your support.

Ah, the sound of rhetorical goalposts shifting as you can't tar me as you'd like.

Find me a conservative politician that has spent two decades deeply involved in the congregation of a church with a racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-theory-espousing pastor. I'll denounce both the pol and the preacher, posthaste. But there aren't any conservative politicians out there like that, are there?

Sure, there are conservative politicians that pay lip service to influential pastors (especially during elections), but such shallow relationships exist in varying degrees on both sides of the aisle.

But I can't find one politician in either party that has the kind of decades-long intimate relationship Barack Obama has with a radical racist like Wright.

Now, let's skip the small talk and see how you redefine "closely associated" in order to extract yourself from this horrific relationship you would defend.

For instance,

I understand that candidates need to walk a fine line with some supporters. Kow-towing (sp?) to an influential, but troubling, "leader" like Robertson on the right, or Al Sharpton on the left, is understandable b/c they can bring votes. Simply doing a photo-op with such a person does not mean the candiate agrees with that person or necessarily even condones that person's opinion. I wish this were not the way it worked, and our candidates would repudiate more of the truly vile types (this goes for both sides of the aisle).

However, that is a completely different situation than being extremely close with the person over an extended period of time. And even more different when that person has an influential place in your life and in your campaign.

So, do I wish that McCain repudiated Hagee? Yes. Is his failure to do so the moral equivalent of the O'Bama/Wright relationship - I don't really see where any honest person can claim that it is.

GB..what's your beef? the guy has made it clear that he doesn't AGREE with certain statements, and he has been explicit on where he stands. what else do you want?

He is disengenous. In fact, he outright lied when he claimed a few days ago that he never heard Wright make vile statements and then yesterday admitted he had.

He also has a very strange moral compass. Equating the grandmother who raised him and feared crime by black men on the streets with the visciousness and hate of Wright is craven at best.

Moreover, he seems to be running on an implication that he can heal the racial divide. He did nothing in 20 years to do that w/ Wright. Nor did he do any work on doing so at any point in his life to now. Why should we suddenly believe him? Moreover, the fact that his wife spews the same kind of nonesense as Wright indicates that he actually holds similar views.

He claims to be a different kind of politician. His association with Wright for 20 years shows he is not. Instead, it shows him to either be cynical, (using Wright and that church for street cred) or that he has radical beliefs in line with that church.

Moreover, he does not really repudiate any specific statement of Wrights - he simply says that some "could be considered controversial."

That is cowardly. How about he explains which statements he thinks "could" be considered controverisal and which statements he believes actually are repugnant? How about he comes forth and states which beliefs of Wrights he actually repudiates.

My beaf is the hosannahs being heaped upon BHO for basically doing nothing. He did not actually repudiate anything specific. We still don't know whether he believes that the U.S. created AIDs to kill black people. We still don't know if he thinks 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost. We still don't know if he believes that "God Damn America" is in the bible.

In fact, we still don't actually know a single thing about what BHO believes. Yet, the left is claiming that he made some historic speech yesterday. If that is what passes for leadership on the left, that is pretty scary.

That is my beef.

GB..well apparently this incident has changed your "original" intention to vote for BHO. :)

No, I was never going to vote for him as he seems to be perhaps the leftmost viable candidate in American history.

But, I hate the dishonesty surrounding him and his campaign and how the left is willing to forgive any and all sins of any democrat. I don't really care whether he repudiates Wright ultimately, b/c I don't think it changes his worldview and philosophy, which is likely radical along the lines of Wright's.

I just wish the left would be more honest in these things and in these debates instead of pretending the guy actually did or said something he clearly did not do or say.

Do you wish the same standard applied to the current POTUS? and VPOTUS?

Bob - so now I'm shifting goalposts am I? My, my ... I'll just have to scramble to find a conservative politician-pastor relationship that fits precisely into the narrow band of circumstances that you find so conveniently objectionable in Barack Obama.

Or how about this? How about we try to figure out which politicians have, you know, done actual stuff at the behest of their respective religious supporters ... and not just hung out with them? Stuff like push for anti-gay Constitutional amendments or teaching Creationism in public schools or elevating a specific religious creed in the public square?

Deeds not words, after all.

But never mind all that. Clearly one guy's loudmouth preacher is more disturbing than the entire Christian Coalition political apparatus in terms of potential influence on policy.

Sorry, sorry ... shifting the goalposts again.

I want everyone to be honest. However, I have a feeling what you consider to be lies by POTUS or VPOTUS, are in fact not lies, but differences of opinions regarding policy and/or regarding intelligence.

Indeed, my guess is that you probably believe that Bush lied us into war by lying about the intelligence. The fact that the first Bush, Clinton, and tons of dem senators and reps came to the same conclusions (numerous times and on the record) as Bush did not phase you in the least from claiming he "lied" about the intelligence. So, you have a policy differnece as to what should have been done based on the intelligence, but for some reason, must turn it into a moral argument, i.e. Bush "lied".

Certainly, of the 2 potential dem nominees, Hillary is a proven liar and BHO has now proven himself to be the same. So, where does that leave us as to honest potential presidents?

However, when talking about honesty, I am talking about debating on various websites with liberals. At least when I am arguing with someone on one of these boards, it would be nice for some a) factual honesty and b) intellectual honesty. I find that very rare in a liberal.

"Or how about this? How about we try to figure out which politicians have, you know, done actual stuff at the behest of their respective religious supporters ... and not just hung out with them? Stuff like push for anti-gay Constitutional amendments or teaching Creationism in public schools or elevating a specific religious creed in the public square?"

2 points

1) O'Bama has no record to rely upon in determining his (as of yet undisclosed) beleifs, thus relying on what someone influential in his life believes seems reasonable.

2) you are claiming that the above is the same as saying "god damn america" and that the U.S. created aids to kill blacks, and that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost?

3) Most of the candidates running who are for those things cited above actually, you know, come out and campaign on such things. So comparing the vile things that Wright said and O'Bama is now attempting to divert attention from to actual campaign issues, is pretty idiotic.

OK, 3 points. Obviously math is not my strong suit.

Noun
Singular
palaver
Plural
uncountable

palaver (uncountable)

talk, unnecessary talk, fuss
a meeting at which there is much talk

[edit] Quotations
1899 — Stephen Crane, Active Service
knowing full well the right time and the wrong time for a palaver of regret and disavowal, this battalion struggled in the desperation of despair.
1899 — Stephen Crane, Active Service
but of course it could not be done without an almost endless amount of palaver.
1985 — Justin Richards, Option Lock, p 229
Not for the first time, he reflected that it was not so much the speeches that strained the nerves as the palaver that went with them.

I think the people on this board who NEVER would have considered voting for BHO in the first place are inflating this as a justification, I think those that have made up our mind to vote for him can make the distinction between his views and his pastor's.

"I think the people on this board who NEVER would have considered voting for BHO in the first place are inflating this as a justification, I think those that have made up our mind to vote for him can make the distinction between his views and his pastor's."

Interesting. Doesn't refute a single argument made, but is to be expected.

I suppose when one can't sustain a rational argument, belief is what must be relied upon, much like religious faith.

The arguments aren't "persuasive" just confirmations and elaborations on a pre-existing position.."See, THIS is why I don't like the guy. See TOLD YA he was _______! "

"Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1830."

England and Wales did. The practice in the Empire was indeed abolished much later.

---------------------------------------

I must say, this is fun. Just a few weeks ago the meme was "Barak HUSSEIN Obama, the covert Muslim!". Now it is "He's such a committed Christian that we can assume that he subscribes to whatever views his Pastor holds!".

Just trying to find some of the old magic that sticks, eh?

The gag is, of course, that BHO's whole schtick is that this sort of meme-driven gotcha-politicing is what got you here in the first place. The more it is thrown out the more he sidesteps it and just plain old ignores it, the stronger that message is.

Of course, it might not pay off, the old smear-and-slime methods might be victorious, but you have to admire the man for trying to step above it.

1) O'Bama has no record to rely upon in determining his (as of yet undisclosed) beleifs, thus relying on what someone influential in his life believes seems reasonable.

He's got a Senate record and a state legislator's record. We eagerly await your presentation of all the 'black liberation'-influenced policy advocacy he did in those offices.

But really, the 'Manchurian Candidate' angle is pretty weak. It's code for 'I can't pin anything on this guy so I'm going to make sh*t up about his real agenda'.

2) you are claiming that the above is the same as saying "god damn america" and that the U.S. created aids to kill blacks, and that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost?

Deeds not words. Even more to the point, deeds not others' rejected words.

3) Most of the candidates running who are for those things cited above actually, you know, come out and campaign on such things. So comparing the vile things that Wright said and O'Bama is now attempting to divert attention from to actual campaign issues, is pretty idiotic.

Wait, so comparing campaigning on hate to rejecting hate is pretty idiotic? Hey, I agree!

... now that I've stopped laughing ...

Damn, you folks just crack me up. If you were spinning any harder, you'd screw yourselves into the floor.

Obama repudiates some nasty comments from his pastor, & does it with such eloquence that even the less neuron-challenged CONSERVATIVES are applauding him ... & just look at these comments!

"Obama's speech is a disaster."
- LOL - yep, it's the apocalypse alright ... if you're rooting for McCain. The more anyone tries to smear him, the sweeter he smells. "OH NOES! HE GOT A GOOD DEAL ON A HOUSE! HIS PASTOR SAID BAD THINGS! WAAAAHHHH!" Too bad the GOP is now totally addicted to Rovian tactics; "100 Years in Iraq" just doesn't woo those undecided votes as an alternative - but that's exactly what's on the GOP menu.

"I challenge you to find anything of substance in Obama's speech"
- I can say exactly the same of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: not one policy detail, just pure boilerplate ... & many know it by heart more than a century later.

He's rolling over both Clinton & the GOP like a Tiger Tank, & staying civil while doing it. Best candidate America's seen since at least RFK. If all the Republicans have to counter with is "Manchurian Candidate" gibberish or "Barack Osama" snark, they're terminally boned.

Meanwhile, McCain shows the world he can't even tell Shia from Sunni, yet some dingdong above claims HE's the best of the bunch?

Wow - you really DO like that Kool-Aid, huh?

He has a (2 year) Senate Record.

Yes, as the most liberal senator in America. So, there is that.

He has a state senate record. Where he voted "present" on ever controversial bill.

Quite a guy.

"Deeds not words. Even more to the point, deeds not others' rejected words."

Please quote me where in the speech he directly rejected any specific thing Wright said. You are really either an idiot, or purposefully lying.

Plus, point me to any "deeds" buy Obama that support anything he said yesterday in his speech. I guess all he has is words after all. Imagine that.

"Wait, so comparing campaigning on hate to rejecting hate is pretty idiotic? Hey, I agree!"

So, you are boing to vote against Obama b/c he clearly supports hate? That is wonderful news.

Oh, I know, your definition of hate is NOT expanding entitlements and discrimination laws. Actually, you know, stating incredibly vile, racist, hateful things is perfectly o.k. as long as it is suppoted by a democrat.

Such honesty, such intelligence.

"I can say exactly the same of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: not one policy detail, just pure boilerplate ... & many know it by heart more than a century later."

so, you admit that absolutely nothing of substance was stated in Obama's speech. At least you are intellectually honest. The difference being, I seriously doubt yesterday's speech will be remembered in 6 months, let alone a century later. But you can always dream.

"The arguments aren't "persuasive" just confirmations and elaborations on a pre-existing position.."See, THIS is why I don't like the guy. See TOLD YA he was _______! ""

Hmm. You state the arguments aren't persuasive - therefore you don't have to answer them. that is an ingenious way of debating. The clear implication benig that you don't have a rational argument to make in response to my arguments.

You are a believer. You will believe regardless of evidence. I lay out arguments, you state you don't have to respond. Which is fine, I can't make you respond, but it does demonstrate the weakness of your position.

I admit I won't vote for Obama - that isn't what this debate is about. This debate is about what the speech actually stated. I quote from the speech and point out what it actually stated and why BHO is not such a great guy.

In return, you state that you aren't persuaded and believe the speech cured cancer. Therefore you win!

I love it.

I hope you don't use that logic in your everyday life.

It's becoming increasing clear that the Republicans are over-reaching with Pastor Wright. If they choose to make this the issue in the GE, they are unleashing a base that won't hesitate to go off the deep end. Limbaugh is whipping them up into a frenzy on a daily basis. It's only a matter time before it gets so ugly that the Republicans can kiss those suburban voters good-bye.

So, CY, republican politicians "pay lip service" to infuential pastors, especially during election years. How uplifting. No wonder you can't think of an example. The only time they show in the pews is for photo ops.

Deeds not words.

Don't tell me words don't matter. "I have a dream." Just words? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"—just words? Just speeches?

Oops. I might have plagiarized that.

"Don't tell me words don't matter. "I have a dream." Just words? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"—just words? Just speeches?"

Yes, but MLK lived his mission in life. I do not see any indication that Obama has lived anything but the regular politician's life.

Look what Obama did for his people as a community activist. Look what he did for his people as a state senator. Look what he did for his people as a federal senator. Then tell me whether his words translated into anything.

It seems to me as if the powers that be selected a well spoken blank canvas to prostitute their message. Unfortunately, the canvas was not as blank as they thought.