<p>What a guy</p>
<p>[Rev</a>. Wright’s Italian Job (Hold the Garlic) (Spin Cycle)](<a href=“http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrights_italian_job_hold_t.html]Rev”>http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrights_italian_job_hold_t.html)</p>
<p>Where the H*** was this info before SuperTuesday???</p>
<p>They found out a racist, deranged, black pastor, said some more racist, deranged things. :eek: I would be surprised that this is even in the news if I didn’t know that the political slime machine wants to alienate the huge Italian population from Obama in Pennsylvania. This horse has already been beaten to death, pulled outside for everyone to see, then ground up into meat for burgers later. Aren’t people tired of this already? What’s new?</p>
<p>Nope…not done yet. Obama gives most of his charitable contributions to this racist jerk’s church and has yet to repudiate him.</p>
<p>I also note that the Reverend is buying a nice new mansion in a gated golf community.</p>
<p>I am not familiar with the source of these most recent claims, but the prior exposure of Rev. Wright’s unusual interpretations of world history and “facts” was enough reason for viewing his supporters with extreme caution. I would eagerly support Gen. Colin Powell or Condi Rice for President and/or Vice- President over any of the other candidates. It is, however, too difficult for me to accept Senator Obama’s carelessness regarding racial & patriotic positions espoused by his pastor and confidant. The leader of the free world needs to be more responsible in his associations. If you watch violent movies or play violent videogames on a regular basis, you can easily become desensitised to the true horror of the violent acts; same with pornography, racism or irresponsible, emotional preachings of any easy “answer” based on hatred. With freedom, comes responsibility.</p>
<p>If Obama does not come out tonight or tomorrow and state that Wright was wrong to say Italians are enemies of Jesus, or the garlic nose comment he will lose NYC…it is hard to carry NY without NYC. Remember catholics regardless of their ethinicity (sp?) believe Italy to be their spiritual homeland. How many catholics travel yearly to the Vatican? Obama is going to have a lot of explaining to the Italian consolate about these comments.</p>
<p>As a catholic married to an Italian, that was disgusting. I am just appalled that someone can think this way, let alone state them.</p>
<p>This is getting so stupid. Why do old people (Rev. Wright, Clintons, McCain, Older Americans who are incredibly ignorant of the “other side,” etc.) and ignorant people in general have to ruin everything?</p>
<p>This election is getting more stupid each day. Obama is clearly the correct choice. You know why? Because no one can attack him. It seems all of the attacks on Obama are either unsuccessful or are really attacks on individuals around him. News flash! Rev. Wright is not Obama.</p>
<p>I really cannot understand why Hillary Clinton is pushing this issue when the same can be said about her. Contrary to what Clinton said the other day, we do pick some of our family members. Hillary chose to marry a man who is clearly a sexual deviant and a womanizer. Why aren’t people out there criticizing her for being MARRIED to such a person? Why are women voting for her?</p>
<p>Anyways, this should be a non-issue in terms of the Democrat’s nominee. The Clintons have far more dirt on them and they can be tied in to Rev. Wright. too. (<a href=“http://www.411mania.com/siteimages/billwright_1559.jpg[/url]”>411MANIA | 411mania’s Comment Policy)</p>
<p>Also, the most ridiculous thing about this is that everyone in America is acting like they have never said anything racist or prejudiced! Even if you personally have not, how often have you stayed silent or even laughed when someone else did? </p>
<p>Lastly, why are so many so oblivious as to never ask themselves why the media keeps pushing this story?</p>
<p>EDIT:
Oh yea, is it me or did many Americans think it was not possible for non-Whites to say racist things? Yea… I am pretty sure there needs to be more dialog between races in this country.</p>
<p>I find most religions can easily offend or be offend. Religious fundalmentalism of any kind makes me nervous. As Huck Finn said “All right then, I’ll go to hell”.</p>
<p>So wait, bullet, is Senator Obama going to have to repudiate every individual thing that his Pastor said in the past? Not even what he is saying now but everything he’s ever said 20 years ago? </p>
<p>you don’t think thats just a little crazy?</p>
<p>The Bible can be kind of racist against romans and other groups, should all three candidates apologize for the bible too?</p>
<p>^^^
Exactly. Do you want him to give another speech everytime someone digs up some more controversial stuff that his pastor said. especially when its been established where he stands on the issue, and that his pastor has already been established as a racist? Come on. How long is this gonna go on? He’s already gave a speech on why and how he doesn’t agree with what his pastor says. </p>
<p>As said before Obama is the right choice because they have nothing on HIM!!! He can’t apologize for every comment that someone else says, as if he can control what they say.</p>
<p>And for people’s fyi, his charitable contributions went to his church not to Rev. Wright. That money went to feed the homeless, help single moms, among many other things. You act as if its a new revelation that any churches’ pastor that has a huge congregation has a lot of money. Thats how it is across the nation.</p>
<p>I think African Americans have shown a great deal of restraint considering what they have been through in this country for the last 300 years. Speaking as a “WASP” I believe when more whites feel comfortable with interracial marriage, then the country will become an American “Family”. That is not the only issue but I think it is the big test. I believe in the statement “the story of America is about race and space”.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but when a candidate has as little experience as Obama, the only experience he’ll be able to draw on is the experience of others. Therefore, his choice of advisers, both professional and personal, is integral to how his presidency would go. If he defends controversial (and let’s face it, wildly unpopular) advisers now, what would he do in the White House?</p>
<p>Newjack: while I believe that nobody’s perfect, I don’t think that something as divisive as racism can be cast aside because “oh, well, everybody’s racist.” I also don’t think that anyone believes that it was impossible for non-whites to say racist things. I do think, however, that many Americans instantly jump to the minority side and say “but hey what about slavery!” There is a certain degree of anger and resentment that is acceptable, but I prefer flat-out, obvious hatred. I can deal with that. But when you insert that racism and resentment into religion, which is where the next generation is getting their morals, then that’s where I have a problem. Can you honestly imagine a non-black church calling Italians “garlic noses” for crucifying Jesus?</p>
<p>Zamzam:
What is experience? This whole thing about “experience” is BS in my opinion. </p>
<p>Also, it’s not about people actually being racists, it’s about people saying racist and prejudiced things. Basically, this whole thing is about ignorance.</p>
<p>Anyways, Rev. Wright is in no shape or form a political adviser to the Obama campaign so your point is irrelevant.</p>
<p>I know that Obama will surround himself with the right advisers. Just look at his campaign. Look at how well it has been running. He went from being the token African American who runs for president to being the front runner. Now, look at Clinton’s campaign. With all of her “experience” that she is claiming to have don’t you think running a campaign would be a relatively easy task for someone who was “instrumental” to negotiating the Northern Ireland treaty? With all her “experience” Clinton has surrounded herself with the wrong people and has been running an awful campaign. (Whose genius idea was it to ignore the caucauses?)She has gone from front runner to desperate-selfish-woman who will say and do anything to win.</p>
<p>“Can you honestly imagine a non-black church calling Italians “garlic noses” for crucifying Jesus?”
Yes, I can. Has something similar probably been said in a non-White church? I would think so, unless you are asserting that non-White churches are the only churches in which racist and prejudiced comments are made. I hope that’s not the case because that in and of itself would be racist.</p>
<p>Personally, I think Hillary’s marrying a womanizer (I don’t know about sexual deviant, that’s your opinion) and staying with him shows much more positive things about her than Obama’s longterm support of his racist, crazy pastor… Hillary’s choice is a personal choice. Obama’s choice reveals things about him that undermine his whole public persona and raise doubts about what he would really do as a political leader.</p>
<p>Well I’ve been going to the same church for nearly 20 years & as far as I know there has never been a racist comment uttered.</p>
<p>Nor has our pastor ever said anything remotely political.</p>
<hr>
<p>Whites seem to get all the blame for racism in America, but everyone I know tries very hard to demonstrate love and acceptance of the African-Americans in our area. None of my friends would ever want to be considered racist. I’m feeling much more rejection & condemnation FROM the African-Americans following Rev. Wright than I’ve ever seen displayed TOWARD African-Americans in my whole life. :(</p>
<p>Good point Keshira, not to mention that Hillary took a VOW to remain with her husband - for better or worse - sickness & health and all that. </p>
<p>For Hillary, a divorce might be worse than putting up w/ Bill’s “sickness”, regardless of her political aspirations.</p>
<p>why does Obama, a smart man, have an ignorant preacher?</p>
<p>the man has been a 20-year influence on Obama. Obama doesn’t have the same opinions as Wright has, but what does this say about the people he would choose to surround himself with? if president, would he be loyal to those with backwards and insensitive opinions as he has with Wright? basically, would he choose people he has had **experience **with, or would he really go for change in his cabinet? </p>
<p>his campaign has been running well because he has had a groundswell of popular support from a high number of independent voters who have taken his words as bank credit for real, tangible things. he has been able to consistently rely upon this group of the disillusioned and unsatisfied by promoting change, a notion that many leaders have harnessed to gain power. but it is dangerous to say that his campaign is an indication of how he will serve as President–Bush’s compassionate conservatism comes to mind.</p>
<p>hillary and her campaign’s folly was hubris. they assumed many things and didn’t press their advantages when they could. then again, many people assumed back in early 2007 that barack was not serious. </p>
<p>both campaigns have said the wrong things and the right things at times–but their messages resonate with different groups. independent voters are a very large group–and a larger amount of money comes with that larger base.</p>
<p>what wright said was blatantly racist and incorrect. that is not speculative. no ‘white’ church would get away with these words unscathed if it was frequented by a presidential candidate. no ‘black’ church should, either.</p>
<p>Newjack:</p>
<p>Interesting that you point out ignorance, considering you dismissed my point as invalid despite the fact that I said both political and personal advisers are important. And since Wright is a personal adviser to Obama–both men have said so–I would say that Wright’s actions are not of little consequence. How will the international community look upon a president who actively defends a bigot? (I would also like an explanation of how this is all about ignorance. It’s late and I’m tired, but maybe my fatigued brain can’t comprehend how saying racist things isn’t racist?) As for my last comment, I would argue that predominantly white churches (especially the Roman Catholic Church) would be less disposed to target “Italians” as opposed to the historic “Romans” of two millennia ago. The Romans of Jesus’ time may have murdered Jesus, but I don’t think most people would instantly associate those Romans with modern-day stereotypes of Italians, and to do so equates the Western civilization of today to the Rome of the first century A.D., which is, to me, a minor oversight of two thousand years of development.</p>
<p>Besides, experience is important. A president can’t do anything without the support of his Congress. How can a junior senator, with very little clout, no foreign policy experience (not like Hillary has any either, but even knowing heads of state is ahead of Obama), and nothing to offer Congress but words, be able to carry out his policies?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding me?</p>
<p>The night before Obama’s speech last week Rev. Wright removed himself from the campaign. He was a part if Obama’s campaign…where do you think the traction came from?</p>
<p>It is not about ignorance, race or prejudices…it is about his credibility. The character of a man is judged upon the people he associates with.</p>
<p>The avg person is having a problem with him, naming a book after Rev. Wrights sermon, calling him a spiritual guide, attending his church for 20 yrs, tithing 20K in 2006 to the church, getting married, baptisizing his children, putting him on one of his committees…than let’s add in I nebver heard him say those remark (ok…I’ll give it to him), but what about Rev. Wright being there with Farrakhan when he gets an award…how does Obama explain that? How does he maintain a personal, spiritual relationship with someone who has said that America was instrumental in the AIDS virus, or that we deserved/or cannot complain about 9/11 because the roosters came home…what about the Italian remark…</p>
<p>If a person supports another person or institution, then they need to be able to defend that support. As a private citizen, most people don’t care who others support. But when you are running for political office; especially the presidency of the United States; the most influential and powerful nation on the planet; then you do need to defend your support.</p>
<p>So it doesn’t matter if it’s Wright saying racist statements; Michelle Obama saying stupid stuff; another relative or close friend; advisor; etc… If he is going to support these people, then he needs to be able to defend these people. We are all products of our environment. The most influential aspect of our environment is the company we keep. Whether it’s our family, close friends, pastor, or other close acquaintance. As president of the United States, he will be representing the country’s interests. Just because a close relation says racist statements doesn’t mean that the other person is a racist. But it also doesn’t mean that he ISN’T a racist. Therefor he needs to be able to defend such statements.</p>
<p>Again, it wouldn’t matter if he was a private individual. But he isn’t. The funny thing is, it seems that the democrat side definitely seems more tolerant. When Bill Clinton had his indiscretions, and was even impeached by the congress, the democrat supporters tried to convince the country that it’s his private business and shouldn’t be an issue. How naive. I guess that attitude is; “If privately, Obama is a racist, it doesn’t matter”. “If privately, Obama was a sexist, it doesn’t matter”. “If privately, Obama had an online internet porn site. It doesn’t matter”.</p>
<p>That is what this whole argument and debate is about. You’ve got some people saying; “This man wants to represent me. I don’t know if I want representation from someone who condones or supports racists”. The other side is saying; “It doesn’t matter what happens in his personal life. He has a magic switch that turns off any of these thoughts or opinions when he comes to work to represent us”. Sorry, but your personality, beliefs, morals, values, etc… don’t automatically go neutral because you went to work.</p>
<p>Nope; if Obama wants to associate himself with certain people, then he has to be able to defend such support. He has to convince the American public that even though he’s around this person a lot, confides in him, trusts him, etc… that there is not way that he has been influenced by such beliefs. He HAS to do that. This is NOT his private life. If he wants to have a private life, then get out of public office and get a job with a private company. The company he is trying to get a job at is CEO of the United States of America. And I, You, and every other citizen are the stock holders and board of directors. This is his job interview. So far, I wouldn’t hire him.</p>
![http://www.411mania.com/siteimages/billwright_1559.jpg[/url]](http://www.411mania.com/siteimages/billwright_1559.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
