Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments

[kallsop]

Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90BMIAO0&show_article=1)


So, was Obama asleep at his church and while listening to his friend Rev. Wright for the last 20+ years and really didn't know this guy is a despicable racist hatemonger, or is he throwing his friend under the bus as he did to his white racist granny?

Either way, the wheels are falling off the Obama bandwagon. Quite a quandary for the superdeeduperdelgates now. Hillary has pulled out a nice poll lead over dead man walking McCain and Obama is hanging on.

[dudalb]

If Obama had said this when the Wright Controversy first broke, the whole controversy would have been over by now.

[T.A.M.]

Well wheels off the bus, perhaps, only time will tell.

It is a long way to November...Better now than in August or September. We will see if it sinks the ship, or not.

TAM:)

[chipmunk stew]

Either way, the wheels are falling off the Obama bandwagon.
People keep saying this without any evidence. Wait until the week is out and the poll numbers catch up. Every other time Obama's obituary has been written, his numbers barely budged.

[Pookster]

Whatever fallout there was going to be has likely already happened. All of us likely have friends/family that say embarrassing things or have views we would never subscribe to. I saw the same with Wright and Obama. I thought he handled him appropriately when all this first started. His repudiation of Wright now was strong and justified. I see this as a positive for Obama. It puts the issue to bed. I read somewhere today where even Rove recommended that Obama do just this very thing.

Throwing a friend under the bus? Hardly. Wright tried to leave an impression the past few days that Obama really did agree with him even though Obama has said he doesn't. Wright stepped in front of the bus all by himself.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

"At a certain point if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it — in front of the National Press Club — then that's enough," Obama continued.

[T.A.M.]

It will be interesting, though, to see if Obama loses any Black Vote, now that he has rejected his former pastor and guide. The man (Wright) is still a powerful force in the black community.

I suspect there will be no change.

TAM:)

[Dr Adequate]

If Obama had said this when the Wright Controversy first broke, the whole controversy would have been over by now. He did and it isn't, thus falsifying your hypothesis.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90BMIAO0&show_article=1)


So, was Obama asleep at his church and while listening to his friend Rev. Wright for the last 20+ years and really didn't know this guy is a despicable racist hatemonger, or is he throwing his friend under the bus as he did to his white racist granny?

Either way, the wheels are falling off the Obama bandwagon. Quite a quandary for the superdeeduperdelgates now. Hillary has pulled out a nice poll lead over dead man walking McCain and Obama is hanging on. Another revealling yet nauseating glimpse into kallsop's fantasy world.

Be civil and attack the argument, s'il vous plait.

[Sefarst]

Wright seems to have an attitude of, "If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me." And he probably feels hurt.

[moon1969]

Too bad John McCain wont say the samething about John Hagees comments? :D

[moon1969]

And I womder why wont the media and Hillary talk about this:

"Sen. Clinton Weighs Garnishing Wages to Pay for Universal Health Care
Obama's Critique of Clinton's Mandate is "Absolutely Untrue," She Says"

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Just thinking]

It is a long way to November...Better now than in August or September. We will see if it sinks the ship, or not.

TAM:)

Wright seems to have an attitude of, "If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me." And he probably feels hurt.

Wright has plenty of time between now and November to express just how "hurt" he feels. The problem is he's a loon and can say/do just about anything. I loved the way he somehow felt that serving in the military somehow makes one patriotic and implying with Cheney that if you didn't ... Well, didn't Timothy McVeigh and Oswald both serve?

[T.A.M.]

Serving in the army is noble, but it does not exclude you from insanity/Woo/Nuttiness.

TAM:)

[Cello Man]

I really wish Jeremiah Wright would shut up and fade into obscurity, fast. He's being an anchor for Obama's campaign, and not in the good sense of the word.

(sigh) But if it weren't for this, people would probably still be attacking him for the bogus claims that he doesn't say the Pledge or that he's actually a radical Muslim in disguise, just waiting to strike.

Still, maybe I'm being too optimistic. This is America, after all. I was absolutely stunned when this country elected Bush as President. I was further stunned, disgusted, shocked, utterly depressed, and horrified a thousand times over when he was elected again. This after a first term that could at best be described as a catastrophic failure.

If we can't see these stupid distractions for what they are, and we don't elect someone as capable and intelligent as Obama, then maybe we really do get the government we deserve.

[kallsop]

If Obama had said this when the Wright Controversy first broke, the whole controversy would have been over by now.


How would Obama saying he despises the views of his close friend of 20+ years make this go away? It's not credible for him to say he didn't know those views until now, especially after he admitted hearing some or all of it in his speech right after the news first hit the always diligent mainstream, 12 months after Sean Hannity was running with it.

I think it's a permanent and growing problem for him with bitter white voters, but time will tell. It's certainly an easy target for McCain, and Obama has given McCain permission to go after him on this issue. How thoughtful.

[Just thinking]

I really wish Jeremiah Wright would shut up and fade into obscurity, fast. He's being an anchor for Obama's campaign, and not in the good sense of the word.

He's going to suck up his 15 minutes of fame and then some. The fact that he has yet to even retract his claims of the US government developing AIDS and placing it into the black community is ludicrous. But what's even more so is how many people cheer him on when he says it.

But if it weren't for this, people would probably still be attacking him for the bogus claims that he doesn't say the Pledge or that he's actually a radical Muslim in disguise, just waiting to strike.

There's still the issue with that English professor ... errr, terrorist thingy and I think someone else as well. I actually believe that Wright may be the least threatening of those he's associated with, but it's all about perception.

Still, maybe I'm being too optimistic. This is America, after all. I was absolutely stunned when this country elected Bush as President. I was further stunned, disgusted, shocked, utterly depressed, and horrified a thousand times over when he was elected again. This after a first term that could at best be described as a catastrophic failure.

President Bush wasn't running a campaign in a vacuum ... please remember to consider just who he ran against, it helps to see why he did get elected twice, at least in part.

If we can't see these stupid distractions for what they are, and we don't elect someone as capable and intelligent as Obama, then maybe we really do get the government we deserve.

Now there's a statement worth sighing over.

[BPSCG]

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said of the man who married him.Questions for Obama:

Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew ten years ago?
Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew five years ago?
Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew three years ago?
Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew last year?
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes," why did it take you until today to complain about him?

[andyandy]

This being a passing opinion from a Brit,

it seems that if the pastor would go away quietly, then this would not really have much long-term impact, but judging from his press conference, he seems like the type of man who will be exploiting his new-found celebrity over the coming months.........

And that would in my opinion really damage obama - if he completely disowns the man then it suddenly seems like a U-turn from his earlier statements, or worse gives the impression that he's playing politics by abandoning his former friends to hide his own true ideology (whether that would be true or not)

and yet if he continues to try to tread a more nuanced argument in which he agrees with some things and yet condemns others, I fail to see how this can gain traction with the public at large, fed simple black-and-white narratives from the media.

Now every single time that Wright opens his mouth in the media, people are going to be saying "that's obama's friend of 20 years, how can he have such a close relationship with someone like that?" Guilt by association of what seems a most henious crime in America - a lack of patriotism........

[T.A.M.]

perhaps this is a conspiracy between Obama and Wright. Perhaps Obama asked Wright to go SO OVER THE TOP, that people will realize he is simply a nut job, and dismiss him (and any connection to the well spoken, articulate, thoughtful Obama) outright.

TAM;)

[jj]

Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90BMIAO0&show_article=1)


So, was Obama asleep at his church and while listening to his friend Rev. Wright for the last 20+ years and really didn't know this guy is a despicable racist hatemonger, or is he throwing his friend under the bus as he did to his white racist granny?

Either way, the wheels are falling off the Obama bandwagon. Quite a quandary for the superdeeduperdelgates now. Hillary has pulled out a nice poll lead over dead man walking McCain and Obama is hanging on.


Wow, talk about an inaccurate, obvious malicious OP.

Let's see, Obama and Wright are friends? Prove it. Not all white people are my friend, either. Nor was I a friend to the pastor of my mom's church most of the time, either. ("my church" would be very hard to define in a real sense)

Wright has been getting successively more and more radical, that's been clear, so somehow Obama was supposed to predict the future? What are you suggesting, politicans should be able to win the Randi Prize? Wright is playing the "uncle Tom" card on Obama, that's just pitifully obvious, now, and one has to wonder why Wright is deliberately trying to derail Obama. What is the problem, anyhow, and why in the name of creation are you trying to help Wright derail Obama? Are you a dupe of the Wright guy?

Hil3ary has shown that she has no ethics, morals, or care for what the job entails.

I mean, it seems clear that not a single bit of the fraudulent words above are at all true at the minute. That's almost an accomplishment, or something.

[shuize]

A few weeks ago: "I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother."

Now: "He has done great damage, I do not see that relationship being the same."

I think that second quote sums it up. What's different now other than the fact that he's hurting Obama in the polls?

When Obama refused to denounce his nutty pastor in his earlier speech, I disagreed but thought he at least had some guts. Now I'm convinced he's just another spineless politician.

[jj]

It will be interesting, though, to see if Obama loses any Black Vote, now that he has rejected his former pastor and guide. The man (Wright) is still a powerful force in the black community.

I suspect there will be no change.

TAM:)

I have to wonder, now, why Wright is trying to effectively portray Obama as an "Uncle Tom". It really is pretty disgusting, and that does seem to be the spin he's sending out. :(

[T.A.M.]

IT certainly gives Obama, from here on in, and easy one liner out...

"I told you already, he went to far, He is not the man I knew, clearly he is off his rocker...next question."

TAM:)

[shuize]

IT certainly gives Obama, from here on in, and easy one liner out...

"I told you already, he went to far, He is not the man I knew, clearly he is off his rocker...next question."

TAM:)


I'm not so sure. Obama spent twenty years as member of his congregation and up to even just a few weeks ago saw nothing which would cause him to denounce Wright. Now he can? Other than the pastor's negative effect on his campaign, what's different? Wright's not saying anything he hasn't said before.

In my opinion, it makes Obama look more like a calculating politician. Although I suppose "I'm just really dim" is another possible argument Obama could make -- not that it's a whole lot better.

[chipmunk stew]

I'm not so sure. Obama spent twenty years as member of his congregation and up to even just a few weeks ago saw nothing which would cause him to denounce Wright. Now he can? Other than the pastor's negative effect on his campaign, what's different? Wright's not saying anything he hasn't said before.

In my opinion, it makes Obama look more like a calculating politician. Although I suppose "I'm just really dim" is another possible argument Obama could make -- not that it's a whole lot better.
Obama did denounce Wright a few weeks ago. What he said he couldn't do was disown him. His denouncement is stronger this time because Wright is basically trying to imply that Obama did not believe in his own denouncement. He's implying that Obama was just being politically expedient. That makes it personal. That's new.

[corplinx]

He went to the church for 20 years but didn't inhale.

[bigred]

Wow, talk about an inaccurate, obvious malicious OP.

Let's see, Obama and Wright are friends? Prove it. Not all white people are my friend, either. Nor was I a friend to the pastor of my mom's church most of the time, either. ("my church" would be very hard to define in a real sense)

Wright has been getting successively more and more radical, that's been clear, so somehow Obama was supposed to predict the future? What are you suggesting, politicans should be able to win the Randi Prize? Wright is playing the "uncle Tom" card on Obama, that's just pitifully obvious, now, and one has to wonder why Wright is deliberately trying to derail Obama. What is the problem, anyhow, and why in the name of creation are you trying to help Wright derail Obama? Are you a dupe of the Wright guy?

Hil3ary has shown that she has no ethics, morals, or care for what the job entails.

I mean, it seems clear that not a single bit of the fraudulent words above are at all true at the minute. That's almost an accomplishment, or something.

LMAO

or something.

yknow if nothing else, the right Rev and the land mines he keeps laying for Obama have provided some entertainment value. He makes Emmett Kelly look like an amateur. This might be the best thing going since Billy Beer.

[Dr Adequate]

Questions for Obama:

Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew ten years ago?
Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew five years ago?
Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew three years ago?
Was the person you saw yesterday the person you knew last year?
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes," why did it take you until today to complain about him? Oh look --- you just reinvented the Sorites Paradox!

[Cylinder]

Let's see, Obama and Wright are friends? Prove it.

How's this?

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith...

...As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children...

[T.A.M.]

I'm not so sure. Obama spent twenty years as member of his congregation and up to even just a few weeks ago saw nothing which would cause him to denounce Wright. Now he can? Other than the pastor's negative effect on his campaign, what's different? Wright's not saying anything he hasn't said before.

In my opinion, it makes Obama look more like a calculating politician. Although I suppose "I'm just really dim" is another possible argument Obama could make -- not that it's a whole lot better.

He went to the church for 20 years but didn't inhale.

He has already explained the 20 year relationship, and has now denounced the man, because he gave the benefit of the doubt to him, and he (Wright) betrayed that.

Sure, there will be persistence from Hannity, Loonbaugh, and some extremist RW here on the forum, but for the most part, Wright has been neutralized...I suspect.

As for 20 years but didn't inhale...well...where did that get Clinton....oh yah, thats right...8 years as president.

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

oh, and many priests/ministers/reverends will help strengthen faith, carry out weddings, and baptize the children of their parish, but that does not make them your friend.

TAM:)

[Pookster]

... I think it's a permanent and growing problem for him with bitter white voters, but time will tell. It's certainly an easy target for McCain, and Obama has given McCain permission to go after him on this issue. How thoughtful.

And McCain has stated he won't bring it up, several times now ... even after he just brought it up. I'll be surprised if McCain brings it up again. But he's shown his tendency over the years to be for something before he's against it ... again.

[Pookster]

A few weeks ago: "I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother."

Now: "He has done great damage, I do not see that relationship being the same."

I think that second quote sums it up. What's different now other than the fact that he's hurting Obama in the polls?

When Obama refused to denounce his nutty pastor in his earlier speech, I disagreed but thought he at least had some guts. Now I'm convinced he's just another spineless politician.

What's different now is Wright is basically suggesting that Obama really does believe the same things -- in essence, he lied to us in his speech in Philadelphia. It's one thing to have friends with views you don't agree with, it's another to have a friend that is now calling you a liar.

[bigred]

Also there is a bit of diff between denouncing a few specific comments by RW and denouncing the man himself. But hey keep burying your head in the sand if you want - and fear not; as TAM has noted, it won't matter in the end. Unfortunately.

[PhantomWolf]

oh, and many priests/ministers/reverends will help strengthen faith, carry out weddings, and baptize the children of their parish, but that does not make them your friend.

TAM:)

But would you say that such people were like part of your family? being part of the family is generally a position reserved for very good friends.

[PhantomWolf]

Well from this outsider's POV, the US Presidential Elections are fought on a cult of personality rather than actual policies. What I find most amusing though is that people that can be so rational and logical suddenly lose all sense when it comes to their politics. Over here we vote for the party, that is what is important. Often even if you don't particularly like a candidate you'll still vote for them if it will help the party (now we have MMP this can be avoided is you really hate the person since you can vote for a Representative and a Party allowing you to split your vote, but previously under FPTP you'd general vote for the party, not the person) whereas in the US it seems that if the wrong person (ie the one that you didn't vote for) wins the nomination, then you're less likely to support your party and even could vote against it. Now that is just plain dumb.

[Cylinder]

Now that is just plain dumb.

Not in the case of POTUS, IMHO. It's a co-equal (technically) branch of our government that is held by one person.

[Kopji]

My guess would be that Obama is not really a true believer, but attends church for the social value and because it is expedient to what he wants to accomplish in his life.

Obama's dilemma might simply be that while trapped for 60 minutes a week in a room full of emotional people chanting and singing to an invisible deity (best described by old texts from an obscure corner of the Roman Empire) - how do you tell the dangerously crazy ones from the ones who aren't?

So Obama's course of action seems reasonable. First, treat the deity's representative like he was a normally rational human being who was misunderstood. That strategy failing, take the chance of calling the representative an extremist lunatic, risking the wrath of the larger of community of like-minded adherents and followers.

[PhantomWolf]

Not in the case of POTUS, IMHO. It's a co-equal (technically) branch of our government that is held by one person.

Nope still don't get it. Mostly as Democrats Hillary and Obama aren't that far apart on the issues, though there are some differences. As such, why would you refuse to vote for, or even vote against a person whose policies are so close to the ones of the person your wanted, and instead risk allowing a person whose policies are fundamentally different to what you want take the job? To me that makes no sense at all.

[PhantomWolf]

My guess would be that Obama is not really a true believer, but attends church for the social value and because it is expedient to what he wants to accomplish in his life.

This is interesting, as your guess doesn't seem to actually match his behaviour. It looks to me as an outsider more like he does actually have similar beliefs to his pastor but knows that it would not be politically correct to voice them. As such he refused to put aside the guy until he realised it was hurting his campaign not to.

But either way, I'd have to wonder about a how sincere a guy who would either toss a person that was "like part of the family" under a bus just weeks after supporting him completely, or who would sit in a church with a blatantly racist minister just for the "social value". I also find it interesting that those in the Cult of Obama are so ready to twist and ignore what he has said on this issue to rationalise it to themselves, just as much as I have been intrigued by the ability for those in the Cult of Hillary to do the same about things that she has done and said.

[T.A.M.]

But would you say that such people were like part of your family? being part of the family is generally a position reserved for very good friends.

No, I personally would not. However I am not a church goer, and the Priest who married my wife and I (Catholic) was different from the Minister (Anglican) that baptized our two children.

TAM:)

[Kopji]

This is interesting, as your guess doesn't seem to actually match his behaviour. It looks to me as an outsider more like he does actually have similar beliefs to his pastor but knows that it would not be politically correct to voice them. As such he refused to put aside the guy until he realised it was hurting his campaign not to.

But either way, I'd have to wonder about a how sincere a guy who would either toss a person that was "like part of the family" under a bus just weeks after supporting him completely, or who would sit in a church with a blatantly racist minister just for the "social value". I also find it interesting that those in the Cult of Obama are so ready to twist and ignore what he has said on this issue to rationalize it to themselves, just as much as I have been intrigued by the ability for those in the Cult of Hillary to do the same about things that she has done and said.

First, I don't get the same meaning from the word "family". I was reminded of the saying "you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family". That's what I thought when Obama first made the comparison, and yesterday's outright denunciation is what happens when that lovable but crazy uncle who lives way over there, suddenly shows up at your job interview.

How does one get at the 'truth' of a politician? Politics is a particularly distorted rendering of reality, like a cubist view of a building. Even if we understand it we might not like the results.

I really think that any of the candidates could make an ok President, but I thought that about Bush too, even though I did not vote for him. We should pay attention to the process they go through to overcome obstacles or problems, rather than what they say.

On Wright, Obama seems inexperienced in the same way he was about his comments on the little towns with religion and guns. He is a quick study, but the rules in a campaign are tougher than once you are in. (Look at the silly things Pelosi says that attract so little attention.)

Obama has his own vision. He is an 'unbeliever' in the sense that someone with a 'Reverend' in front of his name, or even God himself is not going to dictate that vision to him. I'm skeptical of the compatibility of that kind of individualism with being a true believer. God does not have sovereignty over Obama's vision.

Humm, call it "A-dar". :)

And I could easily say the same for the other candidates: "Unbelievers". They are more experienced in their deceptions though. Hillary just oozes it, and McCain has not even been called on it yet. Uh, politics.

There is a temptation to try and create a narrative that explains all the candidates behaviors, but I get over it.

[T.A.M.]

I find American politics is like a mob beating.

Like this...

A mob of 200 corners 3 people in an alley. The mob looks them over...

1. An old war hero
2. A battle worn scrapper
3. An untested fellow with his chest sticking out, waiting for the scrap

So the mob, looks them over and decides they have to take this young cocky snapper down a few pegs, so they pommel the crap out of him. They bloody him up until he is no longer the major threat.

Then they turn to the other two, and chose which one is the most threatening, and they beat on him/her.

This continues until all 3 are laying on the ground, wounded, bleeding, near death.

The one that survives...is president.

----

To me it is a nasty way to pick your leader, but there it is...IMO.

TAM:)

[BPSCG]

My guess would be that Obama is not really a true believer, but attends church for the social value and because it is expedient to what he wants to accomplish in his life. Agreed. It's the biggest black church in southside Chicago.

Obama's dilemma might simply be that while trapped for 60 minutes a week in a room full of emotional people chanting and singing to an invisible deity (best described by old texts from an obscure corner of the Roman Empire) - how do you tell the dangerously crazy ones from the ones who aren't?Leave out the word "dangerous" - the only serious danger Wright poses is to Obama's campaign. But come on. Do you really think it's so difficult to spot the loony?

So Obama's course of action seems reasonable. First, treat the deity's representative like he was a normally rational human being who was misunderstood. That strategy failing, take the chance of calling the representative an extremist lunatic, risking the wrath of the larger of community of like-minded adherents and followers.No. A reasonable course of action would have been to find another church many years ago, that wasn't being run by a loony. What Obama is trying to do now is frantically patch up the hole in the bottom of the boat that he knew was there twenty years ago but chose to ignore.

[BPSCG]

As such, why would you refuse to vote for, or even vote against a person whose policies are so close to the ones of the person your wanted, and instead risk allowing a person whose policies are fundamentally different to what you want take the job? To me that makes no sense at all.You forget, these are Democrats.

[BPSCG]

The one that survives...is president.And then there's a nine percent chance we'll shoot him to death before his term is done (down from 11 percent in 1963, so we're improving...).

[Just thinking]

... What Obama is trying to do now is frantically patch up the hole in the bottom of the boat that he knew was there twenty years ago but chose to ignore.

Only thing is ... there's more than one hole.

[kallsop]

1. An old war hero
2. A battle worn scrapper
3. An untested fellow with his chest sticking out, waiting for the scrap



I take no credit for this, read it somewhere. The 3 candidates are:

1. Lawyer who is married to a lawyer.
2. Lawyer who is married to a lawyer.
3. Genuine war hero who has a gorgeous younger wife with a huge rack.

[President Bush]

... there's more than one hole.


Tain't

[Darth Rotor]

. . . but judging from his press conference, he seems like the type of man who will be exploiting his new-found celebrity over the coming months.........
Yep, trying to bask in borrowed glory.
Now every single time that Wright opens his mouth in the media, people are going to be saying "that's obama's friend of 20 years, how can he have such a close relationship with someone like that?" Guilt by association of what seems a most henious crime in America - a lack of patriotism........
Wright has chosen to act the attention whore, thanks to his association with Obama. I don't doubt that he speaks with firm internal conviction, but I think he forgets the core issue:

This race isn't about him.

Obama ought to send him a quiet email, reminding the Rev that "Buddy isn't supposed to be half of a word."

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I take no credit for this, read it somewhere. The 3 candidates are:

1. Lawyer who is married to a lawyer.
2. Lawyer who is married to a lawyer.
3. Genuine war hero who has a gorgeous younger wife with a huge rack.
Gorgeous? No. Pretty? Yes.

Huge rack? No.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10962481a0805aa3a5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11991)
Nice rack? Sure.

To recalibrate your rack classification qualification, I suggest you consider something approaching "huge" (possibly NSFW, open with care)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1096247be67360b3cc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10947)

[Puppycow]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/mrf_ObamaWright5.jpg

Linky (http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20080501_only_half_wright/) :D

[T.A.M.]

nice!

TAM:)

[Random]

Well from this outsider's POV, the US Presidential Elections are fought on a cult of personality rather than actual policies. What I find most amusing though is that people that can be so rational and logical suddenly lose all sense when it comes to their politics. Over here we vote for the party, that is what is important. Often even if you don't particularly like a candidate you'll still vote for them if it will help the party (now we have MMP this can be avoided is you really hate the person since you can vote for a Representative and a Party allowing you to split your vote, but previously under FPTP you'd general vote for the party, not the person) whereas in the US it seems that if the wrong person (ie the one that you didn't vote for) wins the nomination, then you're less likely to support your party and even could vote against it. Now that is just plain dumb.
I put most of the blame for this on our media. Many Americans would love to have a debate on the issues, but if Obama gives a thirty minute speach outlining his healthcare proposals, our media spends the next week talking about his lack of a lapel pin.

The media belives that these are some of the key issues surrounding American politics today. Obama's pastor, Hillary Clinton's cleavage, a Communist Obama knew when he was eight, Hillary Clinton's laugh, Obama not wearing a lapel pin, whether or not Hillary can down a shot of whiskey correctly, and the fact that John McCain holds a really good BBQ.

If you are looking for policy information, our media just doesn't give it to you. How are Americans supposed to chose a leader based on their policies when they have no idea what their policies are?

[Rob Lister]

Yep, trying to bask in borrowed glory.

Wright has chosen to act the attention whore, thanks to his association with Obama. I don't doubt that he speaks with firm internal conviction, but I think he forgets the core issue:

This race isn't about him.

Obama ought to send him a quiet email, reminding the Rev that "Buddy isn't supposed to be half of a word."

DR

Wright acted exactly as I would expect him to act. Obama acted badly with the "Crazy Uncle" remarks, never mind the "Racist Granny" implication. Wright is giving him his comeuppance. Obama tried to have his cake and eat it too -- Wright demonstrated that doing so leads to a double handful of puke.

So, in that respect, this race really is about Wright, at least insofar as the issue is relevant and the media is focusing on him.

[mortimer]

I put most of the blame for this on our media. Many Americans would love to have a debate on the issues, but if Obama gives a thirty minute speach outlining his healthcare proposals, our media spends the next week talking about his lack of a lapel pin.

The media belives that these are some of the key issues surrounding American politics today.
Incorrect. The media believes these are some of the key issues that will get more people to watch/listen to/read the adverts between discussions of said issues. They're probably right.

[Random]

Incorrect. The media believes these are some of the key issues that will get more people to watch/listen to/read the adverts between discussions of said issues. They're probably right.

I think it is chicken and egg issue. Americans are told by the media that Al Gore sighing is an issue of vital importance to the nation. Americans assume that since everyone in the media is telling them that Al Gore sighing is important, it must be important. The media sees that Americans think Al Gore sighing is important, and decide to play up stories of Al Gore sighing. It’s a viscous cycle.

Of course, the cycle can be broken by either side, but neither side seems to realize they are stuck.

[Pookster]

Incorrect. The media believes these are some of the key issues that will get more people to watch/listen to/read the adverts between discussions of said issues. They're probably right.

It's all about getting people to watch, listen or read. Ratings are directly tied to advertising dollars. It's as simple as that. For anyone to believe the major media outlets have any different agenda, they're somewhat out of touch with the industry. They cater specifically to what they believe will draw in the biggest audience.

[dirtywick]

I think that's probably half of it. The other is these guys have been campaigning, by November, probably for more than a year. Anyone here think a year long campaign can stick just to issues? You can go ahead and name the differences between Obama and Clinton's policies, and then think about whether those handful of things can carry a discussion for 6+ months.

If policiticians want to stick to the issues, they need shorter campaigns.

[bigred]

I put most of the blame for this on our media. Many Americans would love to have a debate on the issues, but if Obama gives a thirty minute speach outlining his healthcare proposals, our media spends the next week talking about his lack of a lapel pin.

The media belives that these are some of the key issues surrounding American politics today. Obama's pastor, Hillary Clinton's cleavage, a Communist Obama knew when he was eight, Hillary Clinton's laugh, Obama not wearing a lapel pin, whether or not Hillary can down a shot of whiskey correctly, and the fact that John McCain holds a really good BBQ.

If you are looking for policy information, our media just doesn't give it to you. How are Americans supposed to chose a leader based on their policies when they have no idea what their policies are?Good point except that I agree that you have it backwards (ref your chicken and egg comparison) - the vast majority of people out there (IMO) don't have the patience, interest, and/or IQ to listen to the "boring" stuff like issues for long...the media knows this, and knows how people love the irrelevent, silly circus BS, and so panders to it.

That said, I think there are precious few sick enough to focus on Hillary's cleavage. :boggled: