Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. I’m hoping that this conflation of the Hillary Clinton campaign with a notorious White Supremacy group is accidental, and not part of this “viral” campaign…

    • the diary title absolutely needs to be changed unless the writer wants to prime yet another accusation that obama supporters are race bating.  at the least, it shows that thie diarist is no better in the ‘tin ear’ department than other unfortunatese.

  2. if Obama had an issue with the Rev. he wouldn’t have given him an official spot on the campaign. Don’t tell me he had no idea about this, because that is BS.

    <

    p>btw, I personally don’t find what the Rev. said to be that offensive. It is not surprising or offensive that a black preacher in Chicago would talk about the marginalization of black people in America.

    <

    p>More to the point, Obama should not have to be in a position to apologize for the views of his Church, inasmuch it was unfair to put Romney in that position.  

    • I’ve seen the videos (who hasn’t?), but at the same time these were aired on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, I happened to have Black and Missing but not Forgotten up on my lappie.

      <

      p>So I’m sitting there going back and forth between the two, and now, I’ve taken note of the long spate of stories of young women who have gone missing, found (maybe) to be the victims of foul play. With one exception, they’ve all been white women. I am no way minimizing the huge problem of violence toward women of any color, but commenting on the media, and attitudes toward blacks.

      <

      p>As far as I’m concerned, because he’s black, the man gets to be angry at America. The double-whammy of American indifference toward the daily tragedies of being black in America (go ahead and take a good long look at that blog) and the manifold ways the lives of blacks can, and do, come crashing down for no good reason (I’m thinking of the scenario of a black man behind the wheel being stared down by a white cop as a for instance), then I’m ok with Wright’s remarks. Black people don’t get to stroll through their days in the carefree way I and everyone I know personally do.

      <

      p>I commented in this vein at dKos and rushed to work (and I was still late, dammit), so that was as far as I got on Friday. After a good sleep though, I woke up thinking about Wright on Saturday thinking that there was more to see in those videos than I’d realized.

      <

      p>So I went to YouTube, found the video and watched again. Sure enough, there it was…pride. What I see there is a man who’s proud of himself and his life, proud of his community and congregation, proud of being black. I don’t see how there’s any way he can stand up in public and say these things without pride at his core. And this makes all the difference to me. Not a hate-monger, he’s a man speaking in anger for a community under attack who are at best treated with indifference by those institutions who are reputedly there to help. Maybe I’m wrong, but maybe I took a few steps in the guy’s shoes and learned something.

      <

      p>The political reality, however, remains what it has ever been and that, it seems to me, is a sad comment on the rest of us.

    • since it seems Wright is something of a black nationalist, like Marcus Garvey, Farrakhan, Malcolm X before his pilgrimage, etc.

      <

      p>Garvey said, “I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying.”

      <

      p>Of course that was like 80 years ago, but things haven’t really changed all that much.  So it ought to be pretty acceptable for there to be a black empowerment movement, for blacks to help other blacks first, as Garvey said.  (from wiki on black nationalism:) “Black people, Garvey felt, should love and take care of other black people. The principles of Garveyism are race first, self-reliance and nationhood. Race first is the idea that blacks should support other black people first and foremost, self-reliance is the idea that black people should be politically and economically self-reliant (it was important to Garvey that blacks develop businesses owned and operated by blacks and that they patronize these businesses) and nationhood is the idea that blacks should create a United States of Africa which would safeguard the interests of black people worldwide.”

      <

      p>Except for the United States of Africa, that sounds like the mission of the Trinity Church, and Barack’s mission as a community organizer.

      <

      p>Before anyone here gets all censorious about how wrong it is, about how everyone should be colorblind, etc, you should know that’s how Sean Hannity obnoxiously dismissed Rev. Wright when he was on H&C last year.

      • here includes comments on the historical context of Wright’s speech. The relevant part comes after 4:30 in the video. It would be tremendously helpful if Obama continues to focus on this as well. Obviously there has been tremendous racial injustice in this country, and there is a great deal of healing yet to be done. This should not be swept under the rug because it might be uncomfortable to discuss during a presidential race.

  4. I picked the word “stormfront” because I thought that Obama was not merely addressing the issue of his pastor. My spidey sense tells me that Obama is fighting scandal with scandal. By pushing his response through e-mail and other viral media outlets, he is trying to chase away the ‘muslim’ smear.

    <

    p>Haters will gladly substitute one hate for another. If Obama can get the underground hate channels to start grinding on his “crazy CHRISTIAN” pastor, Obama can later dilute with referneces to Robertson, Falwell, et al.

    <

    p>Overcoming the ‘muslim’ smear will be hard to do without the aid of the haters themselves. Of course, they would likely be very stupid and not catch on.

    <

    p>Or I am wrong.

    <

    p>Sorry if I ruffled. I am more tuned into the polite haters, so have no clue about organized hate groups.

    • …to address the Muslim smear he talks passionately and openly about his church and the influence of his Pastor. When the MSM finally gets around to doing its job and it comes out his Pastor is a bit………off of the mainstream, BHO has to declare his abhorrence of those statements and that he was never in the sanctuary when they were occurring.

      <

      p>

      I never had sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski

      <

      p>Forgive me if the reference is crude and while I am certain he doesn’t hold those views, the sentiment of “I knew nothing” kind of fails the smell test.

      <

      p>I suggest re-watching the video and look closely into his eyes. What I saw was a bewildered look or a vasilating confidence in what is being said., similar to after the NH loss and in his lackluster address following the Texas and Ohio losses.

      <

      p>It leads me to speculate that I wonder if his run for the President was an attempt to raise his profile with the American People but him leading was not actually the expected out come.  

      • Yo,
        I can’t decide, insidious or insipid.

        <

        p>Your analysis is in that ballpark.

        <

        p>Don’t give up your day job herding lemmings.

        • … who blindly follow over the cliff without questioning why. Now who do you think has some campaign supporters that would fit that description best?

          <

          p>And just my opinion of course but I think my analysis might suggest life experience (ah no wonder it doesn’t register)

  5. Dear World Wide Webs,
    Please make this video go viral.
    Thank you,
    Barry

    <

    p>PS-Can you please send me 2 memes.

  6. This story did not bother me at first. However, after learning that this “Pastor” married Barrack and Michelle and baptized their kids, I am troubled. He should have cut this guy loose a long, long time ago.

    • is how Obama could supposedly have been unaware of this guy’s views before this.  Religious folks who I know usually have a sense of their pastor’s beliefs…it’s part of choosing the right church.

      • that he preached a social gospel, the gospel of the poor and oppressed (much more than is present in white churches). He probably meant that he hadn’t heard the particularly strident language that the pastor used. The themes are certainly not unfamiliar to Obama. Pointing out the failures of American morality and justice both domestically and internationally over the years should not be surprising to fair-minded people. This was certainly central to MLK’s message.

        • First of all, the comment, “he preached a social gospel, the gospel of the poor and oppressed (much more than is present in white churches)” is ridiculous. Ignoring your use of the words “white church” because I have no idea what that means and admitting that I have not been to every church in the country, any Christian church I have attended has preached the “gospel of the poor and the oppressed.”  Second, there is no excuse for the hatred expressed by Barack Obama’s preacher in the sermons that have been posted on youtube.  Comparing them to the message that MLK preached is just obscene.  Finally, if Barack Obama was a member of his church for twenty years and was as close to his preacher as he claimed to be before all this blew up in his face, there is no way Obama did not know about his preacher’s sermons.
           

          • …that Wright’s rhetoric is “hatred”, “racism”, and “anti-American”, but no one ever specifies what bothers them so much.  

      • I don’t blog here much, but sabutai, do you usually parrot FOX?

        <

        p>Yes, yes; I’ll concede that the questions are fair, but let’s shy away from overtly trying to catch Obama in a lie and maybe delve more deeply into wether Barack is “in tune” with the points raised by Marc Davidson.

        <

        p>As a working class, white guy; I am keenly aware of the “social gospel, the gospel of the poor and oppressed.” Can we speak of its merits without being branded as “playing the race card?”  

        • You’re not making any sense.  I’m not trying to catch anyone in a lie…it’s quite possible that Obama is so naive that he was unaware of the views of a man he called his “religious mentor” for years.  It’s quite possible that Obama is so naive that he could remain ignorant of such inflammatory views held by the man who presided at his marriage and blessed his house.  I’m not saying that Obama is a liar…there’s a good chance that he’s just plain ignorant.

          <

          p>PS:  Not once did I mention race…it was you who tried to make this a racial issue.

          • Obama’s not devious, just too incompetant to be president.

            <

            p>Sorry I bothered.

            • I know you hate it when people question Obama, but it’s part of what happens when the free ride ends.  Logically, we have these choices:

              <

              p>1 – A man for whom Obama repeatedly professed admiration and a close relationship had deeply held views of which Obama was utterly unaware;
              2 – Obama was aware of and agreed with those views until it was politically inconvenient, leaving open the question of the sincerity of this newfound disagreement.

              <

              p>If there is a third possibility out there, I’d like to hear it.

              • Just ask “unloaded” questions.

                <

                p>Watching Obama get shivved, under the guise of vetting, will not be tolerated by any so called supporter.

                • This is a bleedin’ Austrian waltz compared to what Obama is going to face if he’s the Democratic nominee.  I would suggest you learn to “tolerate” tough questions about the junior Senator for Illinois, and yes some unfair ones.

                  <

                  p>If Obama and his supporters can’t come up with a satisfactory explanation on this whole Rev. Wright thing — and you all obviously can’t — I don’t know how you’d expect to get to 270.

                • You won’t “tolerate” it?

                  <

                  p>Then check back out or move out of the country. This is the democratic process. Questions, even unpleasant ones, get to be asked. If doesn’t think they deserve an answer then he shouldn’t answer them. But telling the American people you won’t tolerate their questions is not a good way to win votes.

                  <

                  p>Your intolerance is noted and it is a joke. Grow up.

                • Maybe next time he does a video virus he can show his stab wound. I didn’t know you were literally suggesting he got stabbed with a prison-made blade.

                  <

                  p>You really aren’t doing this well. Some of your posts are really cringe-worthy.

                  <

                  p>And you’re embracing the politics of hope, you say?

                • Well, the next best thing to you believing in the politics of hope would be you posting about it. But that doesn’t seem to happen.

                  <

                  p>Bye for now.

              • 3 – Obama was aware of these views and disagreed with these views, but didn’t think it was a big deal.

                <

                p>I’m thinking of the minister of my church, who has baptized my children.  I generally like his sermons, but don’t agree with them 100% of the time.  Am I supposed to do something when he says something that I think is off the mark?

                <

                p>I’m also thinking of the Catholic priest who married my wife and myself (I’m not Catholic; it’s a long story).  I know I didn’t agree with a lot of this guy’s views (though I really like him as a person); am I compromised by his views?  Do I need to repudiate him?

                <

                p>What about my boss?  If I don’t like his political positions, do I need to quit?

                <

                p>What about the dude who redid my kitchen?  He listens to Rush Limbaugh (but is a fine contractor, and is actually interested in Obama).

                <

                p>Where does it end?

                • So Obama didn’t think it was a big deal.  I wonder what else is in his dossier that will hurt his campaign that he thinks isn’t a big deal.  I agree that this isn’t a major issue, the same way that some random guy who fought in Vietnam talking smack about Kerry wasn’t a big deal.  But like in the case of the Swift Boating, Obama’s camp hasn’t come up with a coherent  reply over the last week — the shifting confused explanations from his apologists on this board show that.  I earlier said that “silly season” was upon is…somebody forgot to tell Camp Obama.  There are few things more inimical to a successful campaign than a candidate who starts to believe his/her own hype.

                  <

                  p>

              • you wouldn’t present a false dilema as an areguement.

                <

                p>I know you hate it when people question Hillary too. That’s what happens when people realize there is a choice and running as the presumptive incumbant doesn’t give a ‘free ride’ past Super Tues.

                <

                p>Would you like to be known as the pot or the kettle?
                (How’s that for two logical choices?)

                • I questioned Hillary plenty and still do.  I recognize that her AUMF vote was wrong, and her votes on Iraq are still wrong.  Don’t forget that she was my fourth choice of the Democrats in the Iowa caucus.

                  <

                  p>I didn’t mean to present a false dilemma, and I’m happy to say  that I have been corrected about my misunderstanding…Obama wasn’t naive or dishonest about Rev. Wright; he just is unaware of how explosive certain issues can be in politics.

                • So now you’re suggesting that a black person in the public eye isn’t aware of how explosive racial issues can be in politics?

                  <

                  p>Don’t be rediculous. You’re better than that.

                • Strange how the only people who have mentioned race in this thread are backing Obama.  I don’t think that “God damn America” is a racial statement.

                  <

                  p>I think that “God damn America” is a politically explosive statement, regardless of the color of the speaker.    I think the risk of identifying closely with a man who makes available a tape of himself preaching “God damn America” is self-evident to any politician, regardless of color.

                  <

                  p>This isn’t an issue due to race.  Frankly, the entirety of Wright’s message isn’t much of an issue.  It’s an issue because of his explosive rhetorical style, and any half-decent graduate of townie politics — much less the US Senate — could see this coming.  Why didn’t Obama?

                • Wright’s inflammatory statements were in the past when the campaign started, whereas Ferraro’s were in the future.  I don’t fault Clinton for not knowing the future, but I do fault Obama of being ignorant of the past.

              • Wright’s remarks are but a small part of the man’s beliefs and ministry. Those remarks are part of a larger calling to reassure his congregation (see my comment above for why). And the import of those remarks has been greatly exagerrated.

                <

                p>How do I know this? Easy.

                <

                p>The good Reverend Jeremiah Wright is also the source and creator of the title of Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope.

                <

                p>Now that must have been some sermon.

      • the views, even if he didn’t hear the sermons 1st hand.

        <

        p>i am disappointed that obama repudiated anything in those sermons, as there was nothing anti-american about them at all.  in context, the ones i heard where right on target.  i think we have just witnessed obama selling a chunk of his own soul for the presidency.  they ALL throw friends and constituencies under the bus.  welcome to the big times, barack.  i bet you feel like crap about now.

        • he was right to repudiate any slanders against other candidates in those sermons.  but the criticisms of america – those were quite legit to raise.  i am disappointed that obama isn’t right there, raising needed criticisms too.  guess not.

          • he manages to keep a bit of it intact.  it is still 8 months to election day (if he gets that far).  can he prevent further erosion of his principals?  i hope so!  denying a friend can’t come easy to anyone, but especialy to someone who knows the new testament.  i bet he wishes he was catholic right now, so he could go and confess and get it off his chest.

        • Today what Sen. Obama is really feeling like crap about is that the media is finally covering him like a presidential candidate…I’m sure his regrets have to do with not having the judgment to sever ties the Reverend long ago…I’m sure he rues the day he invited him onto the campaign advisory team…I’m sure he wishes he had spoken out against the Reverend’s hate speech when he was first aware of it years ago instead of being pressured into doing so now to save his campaign and stop the poll numbers from dropping….I’m sure he today wishes that he had fully explained to the Chicago Editorial Boards long ago about his relationship with Tony Rezko, instead of being forced to do so in the midst of Rezko’s corruption trial…moreover, I bet he wishes he never dealt with Rezko or accepted over $250,000 in contributions from Tony and his friends…

          <

          p>and in addition to the other things that are making him feel crappy today, I bet having that new slogan card “Judgment to Lead” in every shot of him speaking (while the news reports these lapses in political and personal judgment) is regretable, too, because they fly in the face of the news being reported.

          <

          p>New slogan, new banners needed quick.

          • … that I am beginning to suspect he never expected to be in the position he is in the first time out. I am sure that being the focus of all those huge rallies and what his candidacy represents historically must be heady indeed but political reality is the microscope he, his life and everyone connected to that life is now under.

            <

            p>Fact is neither Kennedy with all his philandering nor Johnson with his record of devious back room good old boy stuff would have made it to the Whitehouse these days.

            • It all fell apart for Dean when he took the lead…Dean himself said that he never expected to be in that position, and at times questioned if he truly wanted to be president.

              <

              p>And yes, Kennedy and Johnson wouldn’t have made it to the White House.  Nor would have the rather indiscreet Jefferson, the clinically depressed Lincoln, or the handicapped FDR.

          • You’ve got all the GOP TPs down.

            <

            p>I can’t wait to watch the Hilbots come sucking up after the nom goes to Barack. I can hear them now, “oh, pardon. We were just being good progressives, running rough shod over Obama; ya’know “vetting” and all that. He is much better for the trouble.”

            <

            p>Let me tell you something, imho. The puss filled wound, that is a Clinton nomination, is prime for having the GOP rip off the scab that barely covers it. It is oozing as we blog.

            <

            p>You can bloody up Obama, real good, fellow progressives. I’ll take a battered Barack, gushing fresh blood over the scurvy ridden, putrified corspe, reanimated for 2008; that is the Clinton Campaign.

            <

            p>Are you so inert or synchopantic that you grasp so tightly to that which is Clinton/Penn/Clinton’s last straw.

            <

            p>Listen to the buzz. Do you hear Dodd, Pelosi, Brazile and the many others that warn of a protracted battle based on bottom feeding faux news rhetoric?

            <

            p>Or do you care so little of the Party? The very vehicle on which the progressive agenda is carried.

            <

            p>Twisting, distorting, lying and smearing are the only tools left in the Clinton tool bag of political conquest. Her path to ruin will certainly crush her standing in the party. The legend of Bill served the party once. There will be no need to cover for the perjuring power couple anymore.

            <

            p>Cut your losses. Renounce and reject Clintonism!

            <

            p>

            <

            p>Well, I certainly need to get that out of my system!

            • Tastes good!

              <

              p>Seriously, this is reading like a comedy hour. I almost think you really must be supporting Clinton with these ranting and raving posts. Keep ’em up, they’re still making me laugh.  

            • The Wright-Resko-Crown, etc. issues were certainly not Clinton’s doing..they are part of Sen. Obama’s unvetted resume…he created his own history and when you run for office that record, personal and professional gets vetted.

              <

              p>Until he was the frontrunner, the media gave him a skate, but now they can no longer do that and retain any measure of credibility. Sen. Obama is being held accountable for his own actions (in Resko and Crown cases) and inactions (in the Reverend’s case.) He is not to blame for what his minister says, but it is fair to question is judgment in remaining noncritical until now.

              <

              p>You may wish to blame Sen. Clinton for all of Sen. Obama’s problems or shortcomings…but, your blind eye does not make it so. At some point you will have to face up to the fact that every candidate has flaws….even Sen. Obama…

              <

              p>Sen. Obama’s problem now wouldn’t be so bad if he and his supporters hadn’t tried to advance him as holier-than-the-rest, purer than the rest, above human frailty candidate. That pride and arrogance are making the scrutiny harder to take.  

              • When will Clinton supporters, and the Senator herself, stop clawing at Obama in attempts to put him on the Clinton playing field.

                <

                p>The Clintons dropped the ball in the 1990’s. They made it out with faux respect and faux integrity. Why do they have to challenge the good will of the party by reaching for the presidency again?

                <

                p>Don’t you realize that the inside joke on the “clean up” imagery that HRC put forth, is that most of us know she is trying to clean up the mess the Clintons made in the 1990s.

                <

                p>Carville is wrong. There is one more Hara-kiri left in this campaign. Senator Hillary Clinton’s.

                • Why it is so wrong to seek explanations for a candidate’s errors in judgment.  That’s not clawing or making a mess…it’s the “eternal vigilance” that Jefferson names as the price for freedom.

                  <

                  p>While you’re at it, I’m curious why the historically unmatched prosperity of the 1990s — and the relative peace of the time — count as “dropping the ball”.

                • So you ignore the first half of my question.  On the second half, you tell me Bill Clinton was bad because Newt Gingrich said so.  

                • Unmatched prosperity? Those were prosperous times, but I’m not so sure they are unmatched. As for the peaceful part, that is just not true. Clinton bombed 4 different Muslim countries and deployed our military without UN approval (the same sin of the Bush administration). But since he is more “likable” it was OK.

                  <

                  p>No doubt the 90’s were good times but there’s reason to believe it was in spite of Bill Clinton and not because of him.

                  <

                  p>You sound like Republicans when they wax poetic about the Reagan years.  

                • In terms of GDP growth of the United States — the definition used most often to measure economic prosperity — Bill Clinton was president for the longest consecutive span of quarters that enjoyed GDP growth.  So using the most common definition, that period was unmatched.  

                  <

                  p>Secondly, in terms of limited peace, the most consistent American military engagement was in Kosovo, which had very small losses and stopped a genocide-in-progress.  Yes, he also launched missiles at what were thought to be al-Qaeda bases.

                  <

                  p>And I for one have no expectation that the United States needs permission from the UN to deploy its military.  The United States needs leaders with the experience and knowledge not to err when it deploys its military.

                • “And I for one have no expectation that the United States needs permission from the UN to deploy its military.” – Sabutai

                  <

                  p>Ok. I can relate to that. But then what do we make of international law (a popular subject with anti-war liberals)? Follow it when it’s convenient? Is it a buffet? And shouldn’t the same rules apply to other states as well?

                  <

                  p>Personally, I don’t think we need permission to defend ourselves or our allies either, but there is a pretty clear double-standard between democratic and republican presidents. When republicans deploy the military it’s all about the military-industrial complex and Halliburton, but when dems do it…it’s almost always courageous and presidential.

                  <

                  p>In addition, Kosovo had its fair share of “collateral damage” as well, no?

                • You’re comparing Kosovo’s military actions to… Iraq? Really? I don’t even know how to quite respond. While, yes, Kosovo didn’t have the UN’s approval, the entirety of NATO joined us and, even till this day, it’s been a complete joint effort. It was certainly done with a competence, too, that we haven’t seen for three days straight in Iraq.

                  <

                  p>Obviously, the 90s weren’t good times just because of Bill Clinton, but neither were they good times in spite of him. He made a difference and a contribution that we haven’t seen since, at least coming from a President (and I’d include blame on our do-nothing congress, as well). Compare that to the Bush administration, or the Reagan, or the GHWB admin, or even Jimmy Carter’s administration and there’s absolutely, positively no comparison in Bill Clinton’s ability to perform well as President in just about any economic decision. The fact is Clinton was a savvy politician and a smart one, and those traits were in great part responsible for our sensible economic policy during the 1990s that helped deliver nationwide prosperity that everyone felt, and helped weather the few economic hiccups during the 1990s – and even a few years into the 2000s.  

                • do you not get the entire point of a primary process? or what it means to “vet” candidates?

                  <

                  p>Believe me when I say this, it’s 1000x better that these issues pop up for Obama now than they do when he’s our nominee (as is likely to happen). If these things came out then, when there was really a candidate trying to smear him, then it could be enough to turn the next coming of Jesus, JFK a likely decent Democratic President into the next coming of George McGovern. Now that these things are coming out now, they’ll be old news by the time the primary process wraps up – so they won’t determine the race, thank the heavens.

                  <

                  p>But, please, for the love of all that is decent, stop pretending like all of these issues popping up are Senator Clinton’s fault, or acting as though Obama is purely innocent in all of these things. It’s not helping you, as a credible poster, it’s not helping Democrats to elect Democrats and it’s certainly not helping Obama. Obama’s getting a little more attention now, as he should have been all along, and sometimes people don’t like what they have to see. If he wins the nomination, I’ll be very, very happy – and be willing to volunteer for the campaign to get him elected… I can do that NOT drinking the kool-aid, or thinking he’s something that he’s not. In the end, he’s a politician – someone who will probably make a decent President, but he’s human, complete with flaws and a past.

            • who is trenbding around 50% of the vote in a party that got 48% of the popular vote in 2004.

              <

              p>Methinks, if Obama gets the nomination, it will not be the former Clinton supporters doing the begging, but rather the guy who cannot be elected without their support.

        • I’d think that “God damn America” is pretty anti-American.

          <

          p>I agree with Wright that our country has some real problems, not least of all that our wealth is too much in the hands of too few.  I disagree that the solution is to set Americans against each other and condemn the country as a whole.

          • The strident language in the sermon is what he has rejected. He’s not rejecting the criticism of America that is central to the sermon. Nor is he unfamiliar with this. Obama speaks to that at 4:30 of this interview on MSNBC. He should continue to focus on that aspect as well. Unfortunately it is missing in the posted address above.

          • God damn America…for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

            <

            p>I don’t think it’s controversial in context. I’m pretty sure the Christian God would be against all that stuff.

            <

            p>I’m with you on the Obama “Hey, I didn’t know Wright said that. My bad.” angle. But I don’t know what would he should have said in it’s place that would have been more politically prudent.  

      • There is more to a church than its Pastor, especially when the church has 6000 members as Trinity does.  A church is an extended family for many people and they are not going to walk out on a whim even if they do not always like what they hear from the pulpit.  Apparently the Trinity members themselves aren’t nearly as outraged as others or they would have fired him themselves, which is completely doable in the United Church of Christ.  The church I now attend is the one in which I grew up and I must say I don’t like the concept that should I decide to run for office I need to re-read all my Pastors’ sermons to make sure they never said anything that could prove embarrasing.

  7. Barack needs to take a little responsibility for what his supporters say and/or do.  Hillary has had to.

    <

    p>If we don’t vet this stuff, someone else will.

  8. Ryan said,
    The fact is Clinton was a savvy politician and a smart one, and those traits were in great part responsible for our sensible economic policy during the 1990s that helped deliver nationwide prosperity that everyone felt, and helped weather the few economic hiccups during the 1990s – and even a few years into the 2000s.  

    <

    p>”savvy politician”: Oh boy and you talk to me about drinking Kool Aid. Charisma is not savvy. Just because Bill makes me want to have his baby when he gazes sympathetically into my eyes, doesn’t mean he can put forth an agenda.

    <

    p>Losing the majority in Congress? DOMA? More -gates then you can shake a stick at? Omnibus Crime Bill? Telecom Reform Act? Telecommunications Act of 1996?  Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Elián González? Rwandan Genocide?

    <

    p>”nationwide prosperity that everyone felt”: Here is the kicker. Clinton certainly deserve credit for putting the gov’ts fiscal house in order. Big ups to Bill.
    BUT
    The “economy” that he is creditted for was a bubble, not unlike the one we are crashing from now. Bill and Hillary Clinton have a moral compass pointed straight at their wallets. Average Joes, like me, got to jostle for scraps.

    <

    p>Clinton lovers are confused by the “legend” created by the party to save face. The party was demoralized by the Clintons and Gore’s loss (thanks Bill). The Dems needed something to hand their hat on. Who? Carter? I love Carter, but his reputation as Prez is shaky. (Best post-Prez, imo) Who? Johnson? Vietnam.

    <

    p>The party had to cover for Bill. They HAD to!

    <

    p>It would be best for the Clintons to subdue their thirst for power. They just can’t deliver, that has been proven.

  9. Dudes,
    I have been screwing with your Clintonistas, just to watch how they “squirm.” Oy vey!

    <

    p>It was dickish of me and I apologize for diminishing the decorum.

  10. I’ve never, ever observed a Presidential Campaign that is so incredibly shot through with religion.  It’s a little scary, imo.

    <

    p>Also, while I’m  not crazy about Hillary, the Hillary-bashing has gone overboard.  

    • Obama’s got nothing on Bush, or even Carter.  However, Obama is carrying the cross higher than any Democrat who may end up on my ballot in my lifetime.

      <

      p>Dirty secret: I’m kind of glad about his recent talk of people “clinging” to religion.  Maybe he isn’t a holy roller after all.

Archives