I think in an era where Politicians are routinely being found to have directly committed adultery frequently, stolen public funds, betrayed the public trust, lied on critical issues of national security, had gay sex on the side...

All those things directly committed by politicians are a little more critical than guilt by association to a party who has spoken some nasty words.

If the bar were so high that only the most pristene candidate who had no nefarious qualities nor ties to anyone with nefarious qualities, we would never end up with a new president.

I don't see anyone singing the praises of Wright's words. I only see people giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on one hand and people trying to cast exhorbitant doubt on the other.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

The realism of this topic is that BO has definitely lost ground due to his pastors racist mouth (if you believe in polls) Only time will tell if he can hold for the nomination.

__________________
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

Look, since on one answered my question as to why he even went to that church or stayed there, heres my take- he needed the blackness. He’s been thinking about his race from DAY ONE. But, so what? Does it really matter?

He decided as a half white guy who looks black as far aa café’ au lait skin will take him and who went to school in Hawaii and had zero “ghetto cred” etc. etc…he needed to wrap himself up with someone in the “black” community that could extend that “black I am one of you”..veneer to himself.…hell even Wright is a light skinned black, but obviously no none will mistake him for nothing less than a “Black Man” especially with he “African” nationalistic mantra.. He hooks up, does community outreach is EXTREMELY fortunate in whom he draws as opponents (scandalized, one drops out of the race altogether) and is elected to the Illinois state house.

So far so good.

He ran for senator- his rep. opponent, who was expected to make it a very tough race, withdrew due to a marriage issue re: divorce records supposedly sealed that named his opponent as a philanderer etc….my my, Very lucky, huh?
Enter crack pot Alan Keyes, welcome aboard Senator Obama.

He speaks well, he carries himself well he APPEARS to be untainted, hes “black” and as any party would, they make him a poster child- “lookey what we got here, a well spoken not too black, black man”…newly minted Senator etc. So even before his swearing in as senator, he was selected to give the Key Note at the 04 convention….ala Kennedy, folks swoon, he’s naturally likable and he senses an opportunity in 08.

He winds up going for it. As a nominee for his parties candidacy to the presidency...who in the hell would have ever imagined that for him even 6 years ago?

So, as to today’s hoopla, this all took on a life of its own a year ago, first thing he did was what? Jettison Wright from speaking at his convention announcing his run for the presidency, his first national event. Hello.

WHY? If you still need to ask or have it explained, welcome back from vacation, how was Mars this trip?

Hes just another Politician...hello....if all we needed was a slick spellbinding orator, bring back Bill. Jeez. He is no better, no worse than the rest, he just speaks and projects better, and to the dems I say, get over it.

He got caught out, as he is too young and came up to fast. IF he had jettisoned Wright last year and ran in 2012, this would have barely rated as an echo.


And SOB, I disagree, I thought overall; the speech meandered a bit and was not very , uhm conclusive regards what this issue was supposedly addressing, and yes he is adroit I give home that. In fact he contradicted previous positions and himself.
But he,y who reads it? The sheeple watch and clap ooohhh he so smooth and he looks so calm, hes sooo convincing……
BUT yes, that’s misdirection, a keen verbal slight of hand, sun tzu had a lot to say about misdirection and if its works for him, he’s pulled it off. And it appears it will, the MSM are DEAD sleep…and this will pass, at least for now. Hillary must be steaming.


A far as merit Sob…..I have to disagree.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Interesting - you may be correct about that.

Nevertheless, at some point he would have to come out and openly denounce Wright. The vast majority of people in the US, regardless of party, will never easily accept anyone screaming that God has damned the US and all the rest of that lunacy.

The way I viewed it was that he wasn't going to play the game the opponents whipping up the pastor attack wanted him to play. Why would he do that? To him, and others, it was a bunk game and one played forever for which many are indeed tired if the nation is to move on. Instead, he wanted people to start talking about what he felt should really matter insofar as frank talk about race between both races and why each says and/or has concerns about the other, why each can overreach in their comments, how the race history leads people to opinions, truths from one's own perspectives, distortions based upon one's perceptions and experiences, etc.

I assume the merit you are referring the the weakness I perceive in the type of attack visited on him that I mentioned. If I am incorrect, please advise. Can you explain why you feel so so we can discuss it? I am interested in exchanging our ideas on that.

Wright has made some fiery comments on occasion over the period of decades about things the nation does or has done. That's common for pastor's zeal and can be pulled from many pastors if one goes transcript hunting and cherrypicking comments. I've heard such comments in both Catholic and Protestant churches on a variety of issues. Pews remain full.

American power and influence has increased since its inception. Barring some unforeseen catastrophic incident, it’s only realistic to expect this trend to continue. Even on the race issue, as Obama himself has pointed out, improvements have been steady. Perhaps the gains have been too slow, but a significant advance will require a new approach. Just hoping (wishing) things will get better won’t get us anywhere. Acknowledging the problems the black community brings upon itself is likely to be a much more productive approach.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

I have to disagree with you there. I’ve never found one that had a message I agreed with enough to join. My parents regularly attended church services, and they have switched to different churches a few times as a result of a change of pastors. A new pastor brings with him a new message, the new message attracts a congregation that subscribes to that message and alienates those who disagree, alienated members will find somewhere else to go.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Cherrypicking and transcript hunting? I hardly think so. A veritable cornucopia is available from Wright.

Indeed? I can't say I have ever heard anything remotely like any of this in any service I have ever attended, anywhere. But to each his own.

But you really have to do some intense hunting to find something that will hang with Wright's rant about the USA manufacturing the AIDS virus for use against black people. He really needs to seek help.

__________________
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

I would say blaming the US for Pearl Harbor is up there on the lunacy scale as well. I think you would have to look for a while to find that - outside of a Jim Jones cult.

You can't dismiss Hope so easily. Realism and Cynicism are equally impotent without actions.

Hope, Cynicism, and Realism are only frameworks with which to take action or inaction. The actions you do or don't take lies heavily on your outlook.

Potential disappointment is a lesser risk than not attempting to achieve.

What's that supposed to mean? It doesn't seem to be a response to my post.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

But rarely will anyone find full agreement in any church on all points. Almost every human has some points of disagreement with another. Church and their congregants are not different. Millions of Catholics, for example, attend the Mass whilst disagreeing with teachings on abortion, contraception, etc. Many of the priests have, at times, railed against the nation on perceived failings on such moral issues and plenty others, such as inequality, poverty, etc.

Those playing the Wright game would have the public believe that he merely sits on the pulpit decrying the US as a US hater. As Obama corrected, he hasn't. Whilst denouncing some of his fiery rhetoric as excessive or skewed in his view, Obama pointed out that those comments were not made in a vacuum. For example, when he decried the US over its drug issues, the three strikes laws, etc--i.e., letting drugs hit the streets and incarcerating blacks disproportionately--he condemned the nation on that score. That isn't, to my ears, much different than when I hear the US condemned on abortion and poverty, etc, from many pulpits I've seen. Morality and national conduct in relation to the conduct must be put in the context in which a preacher offers them. Obama pointed out the vast bulk of the time that the preacher pushed a positive message over a scathing criticism, also part of a preacher's job. Preachers speak from a spiritual perspective.


I'm similar to you in that I really enjoyed my Quaker schoolings and experiences as a child. Quakers have no clergy. We held 'Meetings for Worship' where people meditated and simply spoke their minds about what they were reflecting spiritually.

But, I accept that most people in the US do attend a church if they practice any faith. So, unless most Americans wish to become Quakers or something similar, they will attend an organised religion because they feel that format is more beneficial to them. Barring a few fanatics, I've seen hundreds of millions of them do so and I've never seen total agreement with all who attend with the pastor and/or church. And what pastors say also is put in the spiritual context in which they are raised. A Catholic or Evangelist minister who feels the nation is mired in evil due to vices speaks from a spiritual perspective.

I feel this is a very dangerous ground being played by those who brought up this issue about Obama's pastor, who endorses him, etc.

For example, McCain got an endorsement from Hagee, a very popular preacher. Besides some fiery foreign policy views based on his religious opinion that others might find very dangerous, he has long been virulently anti-Catholic. Yet, when Hagee's endorsement was brought up to him, McCain reaffirmed his happiness to get his endorsement.

That is far more a concern to me than what Obama did if I were to bite into this kind of angle of attack. Obama denounced the excesses of his pastor's comments, rejected the endorsement of Farrakhan, etc. If the tables were to be turned here, the fair conclusion is to assume McCain--who cheerfully still takes Hagee's endorsement--is an anti-Catholic and/or appeaser of anti-Catholicism and anyone who votes for him is likewise an anti-Catholic and/or appeaser of anti-Catholicism and the hostile enemy of 1/3 of the American people.

The problem is the with the core doctrines of the church. I do not know of a single person born into a Catholic family who disagrees with the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus and the crucifixion and even sacrament who is active spiritual participant within the Catholic church.

The core doctrines of Barack's church is embodied in the "Black Value System" all members are expected to honour; in fact they are expected to pledge allegiance to this very system and are required to teach it as a part of church membership:

Trinity United Church of Christ: Black Value System

This is not merely one of many doctrines but a core set of commandments for members of this church, imagine the reaction of the liberal left if John McCain belonged to a church that embodied the following core doctrines:

-Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System.

-Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the White Community.

-Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions.

-Commitment to the White Community.

Imagine the reaction; the problem is not Obama agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions of a single pastor or even agreeing or disagreeing with a minor rule or doctrine of a church.

The problem is Obama is an active member of a church that embodies racial nationalism as a core value of the Church; why is man like Obama who claims to oppose racism involved with such a church? Could his spiritual needs not be met at a more inclusive United church? Something does not add up.

Normally I would not condemn anyone for such an affiliation but since he is running for the highest office in the land and may govern a majority white population; I view this as fair game.

The thing I have a hard time wrapping my brain around is, who ARE these Americans who have never forgiven or even embraced deeply flawed people in their lives? Are we to believe no one who opposes Obama has ever looked at a drug/alcohol addicted family member and say "you're still family and I still love you despite your choices?" Maybe I'm unique but my cousin was addicted to crack for most of my childhood and my mom used to "play a game" with me and my sister every holiday called "hide the shiny stuff" when he and his girlfriend came to our house for dinner.

To me, that's the point of Obama's speech yesterday. People have been talking about how he "sat there for 20 years" But that means he met this guy in his mid twenties, when he was still figuring himself out, when he was a man 20 years younger and more inexperienced than he is now. This guy set him on a path towards Christian faith and convinced him that people have a duty to serve their community. No doubt, over time, as Obama matured he began to disagree more and more with aspects of Wright's sermons that others have been apalled by. But the idea of just servering ties with someone who played a huge part of your life when you were young because it's politically expedient is pretty damn un-Christian and frankly, I would never want a President that did that. Imperator mentioned Clinton, but severing ties would be a Clinton move. By being emotionally honest Obama demonstrated how NOT Clinton he
is.


OSB, I think you can even go a bit further. In this country we have a national holiday devoted to Christopher Columbus, a man who didn't just speak atrocities in a church every Sunday, he committed them against thousands of people. Are the people who demand that Obama "disown" Wright going to "disown" visionaries like Thomas Jefferson because he owned and had sex with human property?

Let's examine the doctrines of the church that you find so upsetting. Because I would argue there's really nothing wrong with most of them.

Hasn't every ethnic or racial minority in the United States achieved success by doing these very thing. When you think of the European immigrant groups that "made it" they did so by thinking of their own community first before anyone. The irish helped the irish out with jobs, political positions. Irish people voted for Irish mayors like Daley who then helped out Irish neighborhoods in Chicago. Italians made sure to frequent Italian business' and to form business networks with italians. Is this church advocating something different form that? Didn't those groups have a right to do that?
Remind me to care about this when Americans come close to electing a non-Christian to President. Or when there aren't threads on this posting board throwing a conniption fit over Muslim members of Congress

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008