<p>Thanks for your input Hanna. I read an article in Newsweek last night that outlined something similar. I’m glad that you are OK with this, that is fortunate for you. But I feel the same way about both of these guys (Duke and Farrakhan). For me, either one would be a deal breaker. You don’t share that opinion and I respect that. I hope you’re right.</p>
<p>“What else should he have done?” Switching to a different congregation might have been a nice gesture, although it would be political suicide. Nevertheless, such a switch should have occurred a long time ago. Doing it to coincide with the award would just be opportunistic. Sorry guys, this issue is a deal breaker for me. You all don’t agree. We probably disagree on other stuff too.</p>
<p>He could have quit the church, too. I might have done that if I were in his place, but under the particular circumstances, I don’t think you HAVE to quit in order to avoid moral complicity in everything they do. It’s a gigantic, many-thousand-member church with countless programs. Various Catholic leaders have said plenty of things that I consider sexist and homophobic, but I don’t think every Catholic has to leave their church or else be tarred as a homophobe. In a big, diverse church, it’s legitimate to stick around and disagree.</p>
<p>I’m Catholic, and my feeling is that vis-a-vis the institution you stick around and try to change things by changing the people causing the problem. However, vis-a-vis an individual parish church (congregation) if the priest in charge publicly holds views I find seriously objectionable I would and have switched to a different congregation where the sermons from the pulpit line up with my beliefs better.</p>
<p>My in-laws are Methodist and they have several times switched congregations to get away from a pastor whose religious or political views they disagree with. They don’t leave the Methodist church, but they do leave the objectionable pastor.</p>
<p>I agree with that Hanna. What you say about church you could also say about country. My country does a lot of terrible things that I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean I have to renounce my citizenship in order to prove my opposition. Similarly if the pastor of my church says or does bad things I don’t have to give up my affiliation. A church is about God, not about the pastor and the political games they play.</p>
<p>Mercymom, do you seriously believe Obama is anti-semitic?</p>
<p>I find this interview with Rev. Wright interesting, although a bit dated now . I imagine that Obama finds far more to agree with in this church with this pastor than he finds to disagree with.</p>
<p>I think Hanna makes an important point. The Catholic church is pro-life, yet I know pro-choice Catholics. The stance churches take on gay marriage is also a hot point that many in a particular congregation may agree with, or not. The Methodist church doesn’t allow gay ministers. What does Hillary think about that? Should she renounce her church until they do?<br>
Has Rev. Wright himself made antisemitic comments? Googling around the net, I haven’t been able to find any. I did find comments where Obama disagrees with the award given to Farrakkan.</p>
<p>I was doing something else last night, and came into this conversation in the debate a little late, but they were discussing someone (maybe in Pakistan?)-- with a hard to pronounce name, and at one point, Clinton was trying to pronounce the name, and she seemed annoyed and finally just said-- “whatever” with regard to his name. Did anybody else find that really odd and so unlike her? What was up with that?</p>
<p>I appreciated Obama’s comments about reuniting AA and Jewish communities, with historic roots in the Civil Rights movement. This closeness pretty much shattered afterwards, due largely to differing central concerns of each community from l970 onward (AA’s: fighting poverty, making strides in employment and education opportunities; Jews: protecting Israel, maintaining religious commitment into the next generation of American-born kids).</p>
<p>I thought his instinctive ability to get “unstuck” from the word-game of denounce/reject, while injecting a brand new idea about future relationships between two communities with much in common, is an example of him rising above the squabble and inspiring new alliances.</p>
<p>I doubt there’s an antiSemitic bone in either of their bodies. Two champions of justice and equality, IMHO. Judging both by their records, I’m comfortable with both on that score. In terms of debate, he handled her criticism and moved the conversation forward, which I admired-- a lot. Then she bogged down in the nomenclature again, and she’s stuck right there.</p>
<p>I’d like to see what he could do in the future with his NEW idea of uniting two minority communities whose dialogue fell to the wayside in recent years. I’m certainly satisfied he’s not swayed by the likes of Farrakhan.</p>
<p>“It still very much looks to me like everyone is giving Obama a pass on this.”</p>
<p>Of course they are. When Hillary made the comment about Civil Rights acts in NH, it went on for a week. Some Obama cool-aid drinkers on this forum wrote lengthy Thesis’ about her commitment to Civil Rights because she was a Goldwater Girl when she was 15.</p>
<p>Here we have a 46 year old man whose spiritual advisor is a nut job, his church gives an award to Farrakhan, Farrakhan endorses Obama and the reaction is<"well he has denounced his association to his pastor and Farrakhan and that’s it.</p>
<p>"
Mercymom, do you seriously believe Obama is anti-semitic?" </p>
<p>I have my doubts about this guy. I think he also looks down on females, is also arrogant.</p>
<p>I think Hillary is the one being given a pass. The question was the name of the new leader of Russia. It is not all that hard to pronounce. She came close, but no cigar. I am sure the rest of the worlds was APPALLED.</p>
<p>I agree that he seems to be given a pass on this. In fact, some presidential candidates (in the past, don’t know about this year) did poorly because they got criticized for belonging to exclusive country clubs. And haven’t there been senators or governors who were ripped apart for belonging to “exclusive” clubs (ie, men only,whites only, Christians only). Actually, I always thought clubs (country or not) automatically went with the word, “exclusive,” but apparently not.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think he needs to remove himself from that Church. Of course, I don’t understand why he’s getting a pass on the Rezco real estate deal, either . . .</p>
<p>jonri: Thanks. As I said, I came in late on that one. I couldn’t believe she said “whatever.” That was wild and seemed so unlike her, in many ways. Very strange.</p>
<p>simba,
I think Arrogance could be Obama’s middle name! Have you ever heard of anyone writing their autobiography at age 33? Or running for President 2 years out of the Illinois senate!! </p>
<p>It makes me sick that our youth-worshipping, celebrity-fawning society aided by journalists who have tossed aside any pretence of objectivity (i.e. MSNBC, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, et al) appears to be ready to elect this clever, but inexperienced, smooth-talking man to the most important position in the world.</p>
<p>I thought the debate was pretty “ho-hum”. I still don’t know who pays Hillary’s rent, but they’re probably very rich now, so I hardly see what difference it makes. The Farakkhan thing was a non-starter, except for those grasping at semi-racist straws. The health care business was boring. Obama should have nailed Hillary better on NAFTA and didn’t. Hillary’s opening was bizarre! (I’d always like to go first in a debate to set the tone.)</p>
<p>But two things stuck out: Obama’s line about driving the bus into the ditch hit a homerun. His reply on Pakistan (area: foreign policy experience) was something Hillary simply couldn’t answer (and I give her points for not trying). In contrast, Hillary looked totally lost when asked about the new Russian President. There’s no doubt in my mind that Obama came across as more “Presidential”.</p>
<p>But I don’t it matters very much. There was no knockout (and I doubt many viewers sat through the whole tthing.) Even if Hillary wins the popular vote in both Texas and Ohio, she seems destined to lose the delegate race in Texas, and will lose outright in Vermont, and Rhode Island is a toss-up. There just aren’t enough delegates around for her to even get close.</p>
<p>Thanks so much for the reference to Spiegal magazine (a German publication). Here is an excellent article that was linked on that page:</p>
<p>Change You Can’t Believe In
By Gabor Steingart in Washington</p>
<p>The rise of democratic frontrunner Barack Obama signifies an alarming victory of style over substance. Not unlike the dot-com hype, his campaign promises more than he can deliver. The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.</p>
<p>DPA
Obama talks the talk, but can he walk the walk?
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama reminds many people of former President John F. Kennedy or civil rights leader Martin Luther King. But when I hear him speak, I have to think of the crazy days of the New Economy.</p>
<p>It was a magical time, even for the most levelheaded of business executives. For several years, wild promises seemed to be the most valuable currency in circulation. Profits? No big deal! Experience? Unnecessary! Realism? More of an obstacle than anything else. While some entrepreneurs undoubtedly had realistic business models and administrative talent, most of them were simply peddling ideas.</p>
<p>World economic output grew by 80 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2000. But the value of shares rose by about 1,000 percent within the same period. The market hit its zenith on March 10, 2000, and then the bubble burst. Suddenly the billion-dollar companies listed on the NASDAQ collapsed like so many cold souffl</p>
<p>jonri,
At least HRC had a clue about Medvedev. When the question was asked to either, Obama turned to her to answer. He had no idea who the guy was, and never even tried to pronounce his name. I guess Medvedev is hard to work into a sermon about hope and change.</p>
<p>mini: I did think he came across more presidential last night. I do not know what was up with her. That griping about going first was strange, too. What was that about? Even when I watched a segment from beginning to end, I still felt-- at times-- as though I’d walked right in the middle of a heated conversation. I didn’t get that griping about going first. I assumed it was because if you go first, then you don’t get to “close.” And it’s better to be the closer, so to speak?</p>