Obama dumps Rev. Wright

Parent Cafe
21

<p>

</p>

<p>Apparently, the proper tense here should be the present and/or future tenses. It seems the good Reverend is and will be continuing to call Obama out on his hypocrisy. At least according to an article in today’s NY POST:</p>

<p>[REV-ENGE</a> IS SWEET FOR ‘BETRAYED’ PASTOR - New York Post](<a href=“REV-ENGE IS SWEET FOR ‘BETRAYED’ PASTOR”>REV-ENGE IS SWEET FOR ‘BETRAYED’ PASTOR)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Later in the article, the “source familiar with Wright’s thinking” cuts to the chase:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ruh-roh. Hard to tell who is the dumper and who is the dumpee in this little tango.</p>

22

<p>Kluge; you are correct that many on the right will indeed consider this an issue worth talking about and concentrating on. Just as many consider Clinton’s sex life relevant. The difference between the “Right” and the “Left” is that:</p>

<p>The right believes that the company you keep does affect who you are, your beliefs, and therefor your actions and decisions.</p>

<p>The right believes that a person’s actions illustrates their loyalty, commitment, and integrity. </p>

<p>If a person has such little respect for their wife and doesn’t honor their commitment to her, then we have doubts of their honor and commitment to things less personal to them but more important to us. Such as running the country. We do believe such personal actions do affect his decisions and ability to govern. </p>

<p>If Obama has been taught and counseled by Wright on matters of what is considered the truth, right, wrong, etc…; then we have to believe that it’s possible that Obama may indeed believe some of the things Wright preaches. Maybe he believes that the government created aid. Maybe it is the white’s fault for a lot of the problems with minorities. Maybe our country deserved to be attacked on 9/11. </p>

<p>The point is, the right believes that you are influenced by the company you keep. Obama has kept the company of Wright for 20 years. It isn’t unreasonable to think that maybe Obama has some of the same beliefs. A couple months ago, everyone believed that Wright’s comments were isolated and not indicative of he true beliefs. Recently it has been realized that Wright’s comments were consistent with most of his life. Therefor, it is reasonable to believe that Obama has condoned such speech for years. To the point of possibly agreeing with such positions.</p>

<p>If however you don’t believe that a person can be affected or influenced by the company they keep, then you are correct that we will always have disagreeing positions on this. If you believe that a person can maintain an objective opinion on all matters without influence of friends, family, ministers, etc…; then we will obviously disagree. I know the hundreds of children and the mothers in the texas cult is an extreme, but most of them believe their way of life is right and just. The cool-aid drinkers of Jim Jones believed the same thing. These are indeed extremes, and I’m not even implying that Wright’s church is a cult. I don’t believe they are. I’m just emphasizing the point that people are influenced by those they keep company with. Because of Wright’s comments and because of the comments of Michelle Obama; many have concerns about Obama and his beliefs, motives, etc… Again, if you think people aren’t influenced and that Obama can totally isolate himself from such thoughts and preachings and govern with total objectivity, then you are right. Follow your beliefs and vote for the man.</p>

23

<p>“Barry”? Any particular reason you continuously refer to Sen. Obama by a nickname he’s not gone by for almost 30 years?</p>

24

<p>I think the nickname humanizes such a god-like creature, don’t you?</p>

25

<p>idad: I am not a partisan Obama supporter. I do not think Obama has a halo or that he is perfect. But he is definitely trying to keep the campaign on a higher level.</p>

<p>I think that both Obama and McCain have conducted themselves in a gentlemanly manner so far. They both seem to want to keep the dirt out of this election as much as possible. </p>

<p>OTOH, Clinton’s campaign is actually trying to bring dirt into this primary and then demonstrate that she is more qualified to win in November because she is better at playing dirty games. That is what she means when she portrays herself as a ‘tough fighter’. I’m sorry, I am not in any mood to reward dirty politics. And I don’t think voters are either.</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>You must be kidding. He STARTED his campaign, back in March 2007 with a kick-off YouTube ad portraying Clinton as the evil dictator in 1984 and a Hollywood fundraiser with campaign surrogates calling the Clintons liars.</p>

<p>He has called her a liar every week since. He has called her corrupt and on the take every week since. He and his campaign have systematically called her a racist – which is the most absurd charge imaginable for a woman who has spent her entire public career (starting with the Children’s Defense Fund) working to improve the lives of minority children.</p>

<p>If you recall, Clinton spent the first nine months of the campaign steadfastly refusing to say ANYTHING negative about Obama. When prodded in debate after debate, she said “I’m not here to attack Democrats, we have terrific candidates. I’m here to beat the Republicans.”</p>

<p>Not eviscerating Obama from the get-go was her biggest tactical blunder in this campaign. She took his shots for nine months before responding. Big mistake.</p>

27

<p>I like the reference a certain radio talk show host uses. (No, it’s not Rush, Hannity, or Regan). When everyone got their feelings hurt and felt offended because people were using Obama’s MIDDLE name; I.e. Barrack Hussein Obama; he decided to make it more generic and “American”. He now refers to him as “Barrack Millhouse Obama”. Got to love it. </p>

<p>People can say; “John F. Kennedy”; “George W. Bush”; “Hillary Roddam Clinton”; etc… But they can’t say “Barrack Hussein Obama”. What about “Barrack H. Obama”?</p>

<p>I think I’ll stick with “Barrack Millhouse Obama”. Although, I kind of like “Barry”. We could always just go with “BO”. We’ve got “GW”; we can now have “BO” or “HC”. Very appealing to the younger generation. “Barrack “BO” Obama”.</p>

28

<p>

Not particularly. To me, it comes off as patronizing.</p>

29

<p>I see a lot of Clinton supporters here. I was a big fan of Hillary too- huge fan, actually, from 1991 to about 2001. Then her stint as a senator showed that she was going to do whatever it took to win the Presidency. All her moves were calculated to maximize her Presidential aspirations. In the process she made a lot of bad judgements. </p>

<p>Even so, I was pro-Hillary until about January 2008 when I realized that Obama is the better candidate by far. I still like her, but I like her a lot less than Obama… or McCain. I would love to see a woman president and Hillary would make a very nice first woman president, but I am not going to vote based on that issue.</p>

30

<p>I suppose if name calling - literally - is going to carry the day then y’all enjoy.</p>

31

<p>I have done my research on Obama, and he wont even get my vote for city council.</p>

32

<p>Barack Obama’s nickname in high school = Barry</p>

<p>Hillary Clinton’s nickname in high school = Frigidaire</p>

<p>John McCain’s nickname in high school = McNasty</p>

<p>What do high school nicknames mean? Probably nothing.</p>

33

<p>This whole ‘I was there for 20 years, [dedicated</a> a book to him](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237699]dedicated”>http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237699) and had no idea he was this radical’ claim calls for a [“willing</a> suspension of disbelief”](<a href=“http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=282410]"willing”>http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/record.cfm?id=282410).</p>

34

<p>The two best Obama-quote spoofs I’ve seen today:</p>

<p>“I did not have spiritual relations with that man.”</p>

<p>“I was for Rev. Wright, before I was against him.”</p>

35

<p>BTW, the NY TIMES reports that Barry took copies of Rev. Wright’s sermons with him to law school.</p>

36

<p>I’m going to ignore the Pavlovian drooling, but I have a question for Christcorp:<br>
Admittedly, when you write a screenful+ of verbiage I usually just skim the first few lines then move on to the next post, so you may have covered this in the part I didn’t read, but in your paean to right wing moral superiority, did you reference McCain’s active courting of Rev. Hagee? And exactly how did that fit into the whole "we’re just morally superior to those nasty liberals because we care about important stuff like what someone’s pastor said instead of worrying about the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, a growing national debt crushing our children’s future, and other liberal trivia?</p>

37

<p>Funny how he only denounces him when it hurts his election chances. Pretty two faced…</p>

38

<p>“we’re just morally superior to those nasty …”</p>

<p>I think that trait is often exhibited by neo-libs.</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>Quotes please, Idad. With credible references. In particular, I’d like at least one in which the charge of racism comes directly from the mouth of Barack Obama.</p>

40

<p>I am assuming that a Presidential candidate, such as Barack Obama, should be held accountable for things his campaign co-chairmen say on his behalf. For example, Jesse Jackson, Jr. going on MSNBC the day after Obama’s humiliating loss in New Hamsphire and stating that the Obama campaign was investigating why Clinton cried over her makeup and appearance when she had never cried over “Katrina”.</p>