<p>
</p>
<p>That is such a great statement…you need to remember and copyright it. just like “Let’s Roll”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, I’m not an Obama supporter, and I lambasted him over this in another thread, but isn’t this getting a little old already? Yes, we know his pastor was and is a racist; yes, many of us think Obama made a poor choice by remaining in his congregation (some disagree). What responsibility does he or anyone else have to keep running around denouncing his (obviously black-sheep) pastor every time somebody digs out another news clip?</p>
<p>Why aren’t we all posting up the crazy crap Hagee has said, and complaining about McCain for it? Because we know that while it’s a bad association to have, it certainly doesn’t reflect the candidate’s personal opinions, and that’s all that matters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to argue that Clinton’s sexual indiscretions materially impacted his ability to govern, be my guest. I’d think you were an idiot for it, but you’re welcome to try. However, in absence of that, it isn’t an issue. The only issue in his impeachment (at least the letter-of-the-law actual impeachment reason) was his perjuring himself. Had he not done that, Republicans would have postured and blew all the hot air they were clearly hell-bent on blowing about the issue, but he wouldn’t have been impeached.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t consider a candidate’s private life important, unless it materially affects his abilities to govern. Clinton comes close on that mark (much close than Obama in this case, at least) but really not that close.</p>
<p>And by the way, I’d be very careful about tarring the Democrats for this issue exclusively. The Republicans have done lots of it too. Remember the Congressional Page scandal, and how it came out that the Republican house leadership knew about the really very disgusting goings-on for months and sat on the information to prevent it from coming out? No, neither party has a monopoly on trying to play down personal indiscretions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BIG DIFFERENCE… McCain wasn’t a parishioner</p>
<p>There is no traction because McCain had no direct affiliation, Obama does. The day Hagee came out and endorsed McCain, he said thank you, but I am not, nor have I ever beem affiliated with him.</p>
<p>Everyone is still waiting for Obama to dis-associate himself from the Rev. Wright.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is about Obama going to the church anymore, it is more about how he can still say PEOPLE JUST DON’T GET HIM</p>
<p>1 of 42; I agree with you in principle, but I believe that the president and other public servants have a much smaller “private life”. Clinton having sex outside his marriage is NOT private life as long as he is the president. Obama continually supporting, contributing to, and condoning racist remarks by his pastor is NOT private life. These acts do in fact shape the person’s thoughts and decisions. Therefor they are not part of his PRIVATE life. These associations do impact his ability to govern. And that is probably why we disagree. And if a person didn’t believe that someone could have their thoughts and decisions affected by the company they keep, then I guess that I too would consider them an idiot.</p>
<p>In the farthest reaching of examples; if you think a person can hold public office, attend KKK meetings once a week, run an adult porn site on the internet, cheat on their wife, etc…; and believe that all of this is alright; and that there is no possible way that any of this mindset can or will influence that person’s decisions and ability to govern those that elected them; then obviously there is no continuing on with this debate. That is the crux of this and all other threads concerning Obama, Wright, Michelle, etc… Half of the people believe that such associations do influence a person’s beliefs and decisions; and therefor will affect that person’s ability to govern. Some on the other hand want to believe that it doesn’t.</p>
<p>I think that membership in the KKK represents a very serious personal belief that I would not want an elected official to have. I think, on the other hand, that Clinton’s indiscretions reflect nothing more than him having personal issues. You keep bringing up all these hypotheticals and straw man arguments - let’s return to reality:</p>
<p>Do you think that Clinton’s affair, had it not been made the subject of an extended witch hunt, would have markedly impacted his ability or willingness to govern?</p>
<p>Do you think that Obama’s presence in this minister’s congregation is significant in any way other than the bad image it presents? Are you suggesting Obama is an anti-white racist person?</p>
<p>bulletandpima: Yes, and yet McCain didn’t reject his endorsement either. I’m really, as I said before, not a big fan of Obama remaining in this guy’s congregation. But I think that is his personal decision, and see no reason to take issue with it unless I thought that Obama were turning into some kind of seething Black Panther racist as a result. I see no evidence of that or even any incremental steps toward it, and so am unconcerned.</p>
<p>I can just see the guys at Fox News licking their chops.</p>
<p>I can see that if a minister was preaching racist remarks for 20 years; or supporting directly people like Farrakhan, that it “COULD” have an affect and be an impression on the members of the church. Including Obama. I also think that Clinton’s infidelity shows his lack of respect for his wife and daughter. As such, if he doesn’t respect them, why would I believe that he respects me the citizen or the presidency. So yes, I believe it “Could” affect their ability to govern. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that a situation like either can’t be forgiven. But when one continues to lie about it; and continues to lie, thus resulting in an impeachment; and the other one tries to just dismiss it as though it’s a non issue, then I don’t see any reason to forgive. In order to forgive and forget, they have to admit that it is an issue and a problem. If they want to pretend that it’s not an issue or a big deal, then no, I can’t let it go.</p>
<p>All right, we’ll have to agree to disagree. The only difficulties I see in those situations is that 1) Obama might not be quite as independent and assertive as he claims to be (I already thought this though) and 2) that Clinton might’ve been put in an awkward situation (happened anyways). Personally, I didn’t and don’t see anything sinister. Oh well, the beauty of being allowed an opinion. :)</p>
<p>I think the reason that Bill Clinton’s personal life should have mattered to us is that it reflects on his character. A man who would cheat on his wife (repeatedly) lacks the morality and integrity that I desire in the President. If he has so little respect for his marriage and his family, how can he be ethical and honest in his dealings of his public life? I don’t see the two as seperate when performed by the same man.</p>
<p>3bm103, then there is no one left for president- see JFK, LBJ, Ike, I won’t even bring up Nixon. Washington, Jefferson, most of 'em had mistresses.maybe Truman was the last good president without a mistress or a criminal tendency. Carter, we won’t go there. that’s to remind Newjack why experience does matter. The founding fathers thought so. They put a minimum age of 35 into the constitution back when 35 was like 50 is today, relative to total life span.</p>
<p>As far as Hillary goes…if my wife was in an important position and she told me that she had an affair and soon the press will go crazy over it and I love her as I do :)… I would say “honey I will stay with you but you got yourself into this you get out of it” I would not say what Hillary said at the time…“it is a vast right wing conspiracy” she chose the poltical low road when she said that in my book. And for that comment I do not respect Hillary Clinton. I could vote for Obama or Nader or Daffy Duck before I could vote for Hillary based on that comment alone…</p>
<p>“It’s not a lie if you really believe it” George C.</p>
<p>I think H might have really believed it was just some right-wing slur.</p>
<p>Back to Wright, I just read what Obama said on the view yesterday, in case any of you missed it here it is:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So in other words, it only took Obama 20 years to decide that his former pastor was wrong</p>
<p>^ <em>yawn</em> How long did it take the Catholic church to find out that some of their pastors were raping little boys?</p>
<p>Puhleeeze…</p>
<p>The Reverend Wright thing is simply lingering because the Clinton supporters have nothing else but this - and desperation. :eek:</p>
<p>Or Hillary could be right. It could be the wright-wing conspiracy afterall. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>NJ mother: there is somebody left. There is Obama.</p>
<p>With more votes of “present” than anything else it’s a little hard to see what this guy actually believes. So people are looking to his closes associates for indications. I don’t see any connection to the Catholic Church. Nobody gave them any awards for how they handled that mess you know. Think about that.</p>
<p>The issue with the Catholic Church is a red herring. If a parishoner sat in a church where the priest was an admitted pedophile and preached the joys of pedophilia from the pulpit and a candidate for president sat in the pew for 20 years and didn’t leave the church then you would have a valid comparison.</p>
<p>Personally, I see a very clear connection. </p>
<p>Obama had no control over what his pastor said. He did not condone his behavior. He has not left his church despite the contoversy over the words of a preacher.</p>
<p>Many Catholics had no control over what the priests did. They did not condone the behavior of these priests. Many Catholics have not left the church even now that they know what the priests did, and how the church responded!</p>
<p>Sure and I just fell off the turnip truck. He may have been faithful, but his spouse hates America, it took him 20 years to distance himself from a hate-spewing pastor (and the pastor’s retirement, not a coincidence methinks). I’ll take a philanderer like Bill Clinton or Ike any day for president. Not for a husband but for president.</p>
<p>It’s a big difference between leaving a specific church/parish where the pastor not only holds but preaches views that are antithetical to the church’s (and society’s) views and leaving the denomination. If Obama had gone to a different United Church for Christ church no one would be critical of him - in fact he would be held up to great praise for his courageous stand against divisiveness. </p>
<p>You are trying to equate a Catholic going to a church whose priest is a paragon of virtue with someone who continues to go to a church whose priest is a known pedophile and preaches it from the pulpit. These are two very significantly different cases. Only the latter case, however, is akin to what Obama did.</p>