59 Comments

1. Webutante:

Radical fundamental victimhood at its most vociferous.

Mar 13, 2008 - 8:02 am 2. 1Banjo:

Obama has already said he rejected and repudiated Farakan (who maintained a strategic silence afterward) and his views. So it’s hardly any stretch for Obama to say he might not agree with everything the preacher says — and in fact disagrees strongly with some — and expect a similar silence from the Rev. Dr. Wright. The MSM will then award Obama its customary pass.

Mar 13, 2008 - 8:27 am 3. Patsfan:

Roger et al,

When asked about George W. Bush’s numerous relationships with various (mostly white) Christian fundamentalists, I recall Christopher Hitchens replying that he saw “none of that stuff” in Bush.

Initially, Hitch didn’t cut Obama any slack, but in recent public appearances, he seems to have backed off and is actually showing signs of life on the troubling question of John McCain’s enthusiastic association with John Hagee.

In the unlikely event that Wright compels Obama to turn the White House into a black separatist enclave, I’ll give both men holy hell. For now, though, spare me your phony outrage.

Mar 13, 2008 - 8:41 am 4. Nahanni:

I don’t think Obama will be able to shrug this one off. The only people who would still go to that church after hearing just one of this guys sermons are people who agree with everything this “pastor” said.

Combine this with Barak’s lame double speak about paying respect to our nations flag and anthem, Michelle “the gift that keeps on giving” Obama’s statements about her hatred for this country, his support for the Sharia to be instated in Kenya (this one will break soon, if they have decided to air this one the Kenya stuff isn’t too far behind.) and what you have is a candidate that will be hard pressed to carry Washington DC much less anywhere else in November.

The Democrats, the SorosStooges who run the Democratic party, the MSM/Hollywierd and the nutroots have really screwed the pooch on this one. They chose to push Obama thinking that they could bury his steamer trunks full of shite, run a really slick PR campaign and pedal this guy as some sort of messiah. While they have done that they have also systematically destroyed not only the only other “viable” (and I use that term loosely) candidate they had in Hillary Clinton and have set the party up to implode like a Las Vegas hotel before Labor Day.

The Democrats now know that the only place Obama can get elected is in Illinois and that is only because of the Chicago party machine. The superdelegates will vote for Hillary because they should know by now (and will certainly know it by the time the convention rolls around) that Obama is unelectable and they are not as stupid as the SorosStooges and the nutroots. This will drive the radical left wing of the party and the race warriors insane. It will split the party, perhaps for good.

Mar 13, 2008 - 8:54 am 5. ashowalt:

“it’s hardly any stretch for Obama to say he might not agree with everything the preacher says — and in fact disagrees strongly with some — and expect a similar silence from the Rev. Dr. Wright. The MSM will then award Obama its customary pass.”

Perhaps, but this has already had some appreciable exposure, and it’s difficult to imagine that it won’t cause some people to question the sincerity of Obama’s goodwill-toward-men message. And if substantial numbers of people stop believing in that, he’s probably crippled.

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:04 am 6. David Thomson:

The MSM might have been able to ignore this story in the not too distant past. They can no longer get away with this nonsense because of the Internet. Does anyone doubt what you are saying? If so, you merely need to email them a link to the video. They don’t need to take your word for anything. Seeing the video will allow them to make up their own mind.

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:21 am 7. GringoTex:

I don’t know if this video will change anyone’s minds. Nonetheless it is interesting to watch. This video should be seen by tens of millions.
not rich white privileged
how many of us went to private high schools and got to live overseas? Ironic also that it was his white grandparents who did a substantial part of the raising.

Jesus taught me to hell the love out of my enemies
At the same time he is saying this, hatred is just OOZING out of him.

As others have already noted,it is interesting that he compares Jews to blacks, considering what Farrahkan (spelling) has said about Jews, and considering how the good minister has honored him.

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:23 am 8. srlucado:

Let’s look at the inverse–imagine Hillary (or any white candidate) had spent 20 years attending a church founded by George Lincoln Rockwell. Could she get away with saying, “Well, I don’t agree with all of it, of course,” or would she be toast?

Wouldn’t people be outraged at the race hatred spewing from the walls? Wouldn’t it be insufficient for her to say, “They aren’t speaking for me?”

Racism is racism, regardless of tint. And to spend decades voluntarily associating with racists is a stain that can’t be ignored, even by a “rock star” presidential candidate.

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:25 am 9. tree hugging sister:

If he were the even-minded, racially blind, open tent fellow he claims to be, I don’t understand how he lasted longer than 15 minutes in one of this guy’s pews. The FIRST time he visited. This isn’t a crotchety old uncle who’s embarrassing but you love him. This is a spiritual advisor Obama CHOSE. You’d never get elected as one of Jerry Fallwell, et al’s, loyal congregation. WHY do Obama and his hateful man o’ the cloth get a pass?

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:31 am 10. Mgmax:

Set aside whether or not this stuff is racist.

Obama’s whole appeal to whites is that he’s not one of those grievance industry Sharpton types. That he’s past that, that voting for him shows you’re past that, that we’re all going to get past that and he’s going to take us there.

Except– whoops! He’s not past that! Hey, Joe lunchbucket Ohio Democrat whose job went overseas, Mr. Harvard Law Review thinks you have privileges that were denied to him! That’s how this is going to play.

I think Obama’s electability argument just went down the drain. Electable– yeah, in the District of Columbia maybe.

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:50 am 11. Patsfan:

Actually, tree hugging sister & co, the opposite is true. Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, and both the Grahams have been saying rotten stuff about gays, Jews, (see, for example, Billy Graham’s relationship with Richard Nixon for strong evidence of anti-semitism on the pastor’s part) and others for years, yet most presidential candidates, as well as presidents, have kissed their rings and even, to some extent, let them influence their policies (you can’t tell me, for example, that Falwell and Robertson were not whispering in GWB’s ear when he decided to support the Federal Marriage Amendment). The fact is, America is a deeply religious country; always has been, always will be. Sometimes, that is to her detriment, but I think that, because we Americans have seen so many fundamentalists in our time, we will know enough to let the Hagees and the Wrights of this nation cancel each other out in the general election.

Mar 13, 2008 - 9:50 am 12. Jeffersonian:

Patsfan,

All of those preachers you mentioned are stalwart supporters of Israel (though Hagee, I’m not sure of). Please get your facts straight before making such a baseless charge.

And I’ve never heard anything come from the most spittle-laden sermon of a Robertson or a Falwell that even held a candle to what Obama’s spiritual advisor just laid down in his Christmas homily.

Mar 13, 2008 - 10:05 am 13. Stace:

Hagee is a huge supporter of Israel too. He’s for years been well known for that. Hagee runs the biggest church in my city, and he never had an anti-catholic reputation (that I was aware of) until that internet video was shown recently. I didn’t watch the video, so I didn’t see what everyone was so freaked out about. This is largely a Catholic city, so I’d be surprised if any public figure here could get away with being virulently anti-Catholic.

Mar 13, 2008 - 10:17 am 14. Mark:

Now this is just a theory (not being much of an Obama watcher) but I’d be surprised if his membership in that particular congregation was politically expedient when the question wasn’t whether he was too black to be President, but was he black enough to represent the 13th District in the Illinois State Senate.

Deals with even minor devils have a way of coming back and biting you on the asterisk.

Mar 13, 2008 - 10:18 am 15. tree hugging sister:

Oooooh, Mark! Good one.

As for the marriage protection thing, if you think it’s only the Falwells of the world whispering in a president’s ear, you are sadly mistaken.

And if GWB or anyone had, as I said, been a MEMBER of any said evangelical superstar’s CONGREGATION, I repeat: “NO way they get elected.” Your regular, everyday, personable Evangelical ( Huckabee, anyone?), less mind the pew sitter of some fellow who says that God will destroy Florida because Disneyworld let gays have a day at the park.

Mar 13, 2008 - 10:54 am 16. Richard Nieporent:

Not that I would expect the good Reverend to be logical, but did he ever wonder why whites would worship a black man (Jesus) as their savior if they are all racists?

Mar 13, 2008 - 10:55 am 17. tree hugging sister:

Oooooh, Mark! Good one.

As for the marriage protection thing, if you think it’s only the Falwells of the world whispering in a president’s ear, you are sadly mistaken. That unfortunate idea runs straight across all ideologies and societal stratum.

And if GWB or anyone had, as I said, been a MEMBER of any said evangelical superstar’s CONGREGATION, I repeat: “NO way they get elected.” Your regular, everyday, personable Evangelical ( Huckabee, anyone?) can’t get elected, less mind the pew sitter of some fellow preaching God will destroy Florida because DisneyWorld let gays have a day at the park.

Mar 13, 2008 - 10:56 am 18. tree hugging sister:

Dadgum it. Apologies for the double post.

Mar 13, 2008 - 11:04 am 19. Patsfan:

Stace & Jeffersonian-

Yeah, Hagee’s a “supporter of Israel” if by “supporter of Israel” you mean “someone who urges a nuclear war between Israel and her enemies to bring on the end-times” (apparently, he’s even got a book on this entitled: “Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning To The World.”)

As for Billy Graham, his anti-semitism was caught on a cassette tape in several exchanges with Nixon. Look it up. Regarding his son, Franklin: his quiet proselytizing certainly isn’t favorable to Jews or non-Christians of any stripe, and I find his abandonment of the 1994 Sudanese peace negotiations to be every bit as creepy as Wright’s visit with Quaddafi.

And Jeffersonian, what you seem to be arguing is: “Yeah, Falwell and Robertson are crazy, but not as crazy as the other guy! Neener neener neener!” Not much of an argument, that.

Comes the question: why are some forms of religious zealotry accepted, while others are not?

For good measure, here is a refresher on Robertson:

_abortion_and_liberalism

And Falwell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_falwell#Controversies

Finally, Tree Hugging Sister, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, my friend. I would argue that Bob Jones is further off the charts than Falwell, Robertson, and Wright, yet Dubya still spoke at Jones’s little clown college and managed to get elected president. Also, McCain spoke at both Regent and Liberty, if I’m not mistaken. I fail to see how that’s different from being a member in good standing of a certain congregation, especially since McCain has backpedaled from his 2000 position that Robertson and Falwell are “agents of intolerance.”

Mar 13, 2008 - 11:44 am 20. Lem:

While trying to rid ourselves of the vestiges and divisions of the past we might be in the process of creating new chasms.

Let’s not tear down the house in the name of change.. I mean renovations.

BTW ñ Obama is not yet the president and political expression vis-‡-vis the political contender seems to be a perilous proposition.

In some countries censorship is not needed… is self imposed.

The right to political expression will be severely tested in an Obama emperorship.

Mar 13, 2008 - 11:46 am 21. ex-democrat:

patsfan – your comments carry the unmistakable whiff of desperation. you more than anyone else on this thread have managed to convince me that the Obama phenomenon will soon whither and die. thanks

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:25 pm 22. BD:

Based on their public comments, it appears Michelle was taking notes during the sermon … and thus far, Barack would have us believe he dozed off.

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:27 pm 23. Patsfan:

Oh, ex-dem, sticks and stones, man.

Reading this thread, it’s clear you all think Obama is a closet leftist who secretly hates whites (and probably Jews) and will sell out America and Israel for a plate of cookies, so let’s get it into the open, shall we? Just say what you feel, already.

The guy ain’t Jesus, but I’m sick of Hillary, and I’m willing to give him a fair shot against John McCain.

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:42 pm 24. GringoTex:

Richard Nieporent

Not that I would expect the good Reverend to be logical, but did he ever wonder why whites would worship a black man (Jesus) as their savior if they are all racists?

Good one, Richard!

BTW, black churches have long identified with Jews, comparing their slavery in Egypt with their slavery in the US. Recall the lines from a spiritual: “When Israel was in Egypt’s land, Let my people go.”

As regards all the other preachers cited, such as Falwell, Billy Graham, etc, while I admit I have not engaged in extensive study of them, as I am not the church-going kind, I would be surprised if they would had also exhibited the hatred oozing from Obama’s minister- all the more striking because it oozed while saying “love my enemies.”

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:45 pm 25. Daryl Herbert:

Maybe this is outside of the bounds of acceptable discourse, but Obama isn’t just choosing the church for himself. That’s also where he takes his daughters to provide their spiritual education. Is this really the message that he’s teaching his own family?

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:48 pm 26. megapotamus:

“Obama is a closet leftist who secretly hates whites (and probably Jews) and will sell out America and Israel for a plate of cookies”

There will be no cookies.

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:53 pm 27. bobby B:

“The only people who would still go to that church after hearing just one of this guys sermons are people who agree with everything this “pastor” said.”

Or, possibly, one who seeks the votes of those who do go there for that reason?

Mar 13, 2008 - 12:57 pm 28. Lem:

Case in point.

A Penn Clinton adviser says something inocuous and reporters like the guy at politico says “it’s a pretty strong thing to say”

http://tinyurl.com/2c3hh4

Clinton adviser -
(Obama) “really can’t win the general election.”

and

“if Barack Obama can’t win” (in Pennsylvania) “how could he win the general election?” what is so ’strong’ about that?

They want to read race in those remarks?

Is Obama going to have the secret service investigate these harmfull allegations

Mar 13, 2008 - 1:12 pm 29. Lem:

Compare the remarks of Obama’s Pastor and the remarks that he gets people fired over.

Mar 13, 2008 - 1:19 pm 30. tree hugging sister:

you just keep digging yourself in deeper, my friend.

::sigh::

patsfan, you are the most willfully obtuse commenter imaginable. “Spoke at”, is it? “SPOKE“?

I fail to see how that’s different from being a member in good standing of a certain congregation

For the third and last time, I will say CONGREGANT, or some variation there of. As in “member”, as in “regular attendee”, as in Obama in church every chance he had, as in having that man perform your marriage. Got it? (Please say you do.)(Please.)

Pandering to a certain constituency ~ for example, Republicans to evangelicals, Democrats to union types, among MANY others on both sides of the aisle ~ is a time honored tradition of American politics. Even Bill Clinton defended McCain about his “speaking” engagement:

…That is, if you’re busy and you’ve got more stuff than you can cover and more facts than you can digest, much less give back to your readers, it’s very helpful to be able to turn every conflict and every person into a two-dimensional cartoon. So I’ll just give you a… but it is… often wrong.

Let’s take… and basically so, all cartoon figures must be conservative, liberal or a few moderates. So John McCain, a man I admire, lionized by the press as a moderate….

So he goes and gives this speech at Jerry Falwell’s University and immediately people say well this is a calculation and therefore this is a character problem, ignoring the fact that McCain is in other respects, genuinely, deeply conservative. That is, in two ways… he’s very strong pro-life and he and Joe Lieberman, probably of all the people in the Senate, are most in favor of Bush’s foreign policy approach which is unilateral military action. So itÔøΩs not fair, necessarily, to say this is a char… you can say I disagree with him, I wish he hadn’t gone and here’s why, but why turn him into a cartoon?

Now, if McCain’s hard earned dollars had been given to Rev. Falwell as a member, to build his church and support his (what I personally believe to be malicious) ministry, I doubt Clinton would have been so easy on him. His regular appearance would be tacit approval of the message and Clinton would hardly have used him as an example of false portrayal. But that’s not the case, is it?

It IS, however, with Senator Obama. I suggest you QUIT digging, patsfan.

Mar 13, 2008 - 1:23 pm 31. TerryeL:

I might be mistaken, but whatever Falwell’s faults might have been, I don’t think he ever said God Damn America.

This is toxic and Obama is not the man he says he is if he hangs out with racist hate mongers like this.

What is next? A black fist? Is Obama actually a closet Black Panther.

Power to the People. yeah right, people making 6 figure incomes with kids in private schools.

Mar 13, 2008 - 2:52 pm 32. Rhod:

And then there are the theological merits of Wright’s sermon.

Some long-ago Paulius Walnutsius killed Jesus – which should come as a real surprise to the Jews, who’ve been blamed for it all this time.

Herod got a bum rap too. The Italians did it.

Mar 13, 2008 - 3:35 pm 33. Rhod:

Oh, even more interesting, according to the bugwit Wright, Jesus was a “poor black man” offed by rich Italians.

All those old ’50’s prints of a Jeffrey Hunter Jesus have to go, along with anything depicting Max Von Sydow and Robert Powell as Jesus, too.

Even as a lapsed Christian, I won’t stand for it.

Mar 13, 2008 - 3:39 pm 34. Lem:

So Jesus (while black) was at the Cana wedding, the wine run out and we know the rest.

Is Obama’s minister perpetuating the blacks and wine myth

Let him w/o sin cast the first stone.

BTW – the pope just added a few.

Mar 13, 2008 - 4:25 pm 35. Ray Zacek:

So that guy is Obama’s rev and spiritual advisor? That a repulsive, demagogic performance. This guy is plump, pink and looks like a well-fed bourgeoisie yet emits this hateful screed in a voice and cadence that reminds me of the Kingfish on the old Amos ‘N Andy series on TV, back in the Medieval Fifties. These guys are not progressive. They are its antithesis.

Mar 13, 2008 - 4:38 pm 36. Patsfan:

Oh, tree hugging sister, you are such a sweetheart. Let me begin by saying that lumping “evangelicals” in with “union types” is a gross oversimplification at best, and wholly inappropriate at worst. There are religious unionists and secular ones; there are evangelical Christians who hate unions but back Democrats, etc.

My point was that the thrust of this thread seems to be that Obama’s association with a radical religious figure is a bad thing. I agree with that. But if you’re going to bring one person’s religious ties-no matter how shallow or how deeply they run-into play, you have to hold all of the candidates up to scrutiny, else you seem to be sending a message that it is okay for certain fundamentalists to mouth off, and not others.

McCain has mended fences with Robertson and Falwell. That’s a fact. To this Yankee, much of what Falwell and Robertson have said in their public lives has been just as cringe-inducing as anything to come out of Wright’s mouth. Here, for instance, is Falwell on 9/11: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” How’s that for damning America? And why would John McCain, who loved this country enough to risk his life for it, want to go anywhere near this man? Surely, McCain served with an honorable pagan or secularist or two in his military years.

Also, McCain welcomed the endorsement of Hagee, and he needn’t go to his church to worry me. Here, by the way, is a story on Rod Parsley, one of McCain’s “spiritual advisors.”

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

The minute, and I mean THE MINUTE Wright influences an Obama policy-the minister probably would have a President Obama negotiate with terrorists after a terrorist attack on America, which Obama said he wouldn’t do-I will turn on the senator from Illinois in much the same manner McCain’s recent love-fest with the religious right has made me turn on him. But really, anyone who accepts that America is a religious country has to recognize that involvement with fundamentalists is inevitable. That doesn’t make it RIGHT, mind you, but faith is what so many of us cling to. For we are all broken, and the quest takes us to some odd places.

That doesn’t mean all criticism is out of bounds; it just means we ought to have the intellectual consistency to rip both the religious right and the religious left.

Mar 13, 2008 - 8:24 pm 37. DWM:

1) Let’s be clear. Many of the people who commented above did NOT listen to the clip above.

2) Let’s put this in context. Not ONCE above did any one bother to mention the specific context of this style of preaching and its origins. The conception of a Black Jesus, most acutely expressed by James Cone, is a central component in Black Liberation Theology–a major element in this preacher’s spiritual message. If you have NOT read Cone’s work or if you have no familiarity with liberation theology generally you cannot possibly understand the origins and (therefore) the context for this sermon.

3) I challenge someone to listen to the sermon in the video above and tell me what specifically is racist or inappropriate? I want YOU to say it. Think about the words when you write them down. Then comment intelligently on those words specifically.

4) Finally, the issue here is far LESS than “cafeteria Catholicism.” Obama is not responsible for this man’s words. He does not have to account for them. The relationship between ministry and action–in Sen. Obama’s case–is totally and utterly unproven. Considering the woeful influence that the Graham and others have had on Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (Yes, Clinton), and Bush–we cannot expect ANY politician to have a clean record on religious advisers.

Mar 14, 2008 - 1:55 am 38. DWM:

1) Let’s be clear. Many of the people who commented above did NOT listen to the clip above.

2) Let’s put this in context. Not ONCE above did any one bother to mention the specific context of this style of preaching and its origins. The conception of a Black Jesus, most acutely expressed by James Cone, is a central component in Black Liberation Theology–a major element in this preacher’s spiritual message. If you have NOT read Cone’s work or if you have no familiarity with liberation theology generally you cannot possibly understand the origins and (therefore) the context for this sermon.

3) I challenge someone to listen to the sermon in the video above and tell me what specifically is racist or inappropriate? I want YOU to say it. Think about the words when you write them down. Then comment intelligently on those words specifically.

4) Finally, the issue here is far LESS than “cafeteria Catholicism.” Obama is not responsible for this man’s words. He does not have to account for them. The relationship between ministry and action–in Sen. Obama’s case–is totally and utterly unproven. Considering the woeful influence that the Graham and others have had on Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (Yes, Clinton), and Bush–we cannot expect ANY politician to have a clean record on religious advisers.

Mar 14, 2008 - 1:56 am 39. Lem:

DWM the reason why Obama is where he is – is so that people like the reverend stop calling for their damnation, Americas damnation? Its a bargain.

I heard every word, but I choose to show how erronious they are by adressing them indirectly. Is not polite to call some people stupid, specially a man ‘of the cloth’

Mar 14, 2008 - 2:09 am 40. Lem:

I show you how racist his words are if you show me how eficatious his words are.

Mar 14, 2008 - 2:18 am 41. melk:

DWM: I have just watched this video and I am appalled. How much am I expected to bend over backwards? The theme is entirely racist. The only issue is terrible rich WHITE people. Obama, he of the white mother abandoned by his Kenyan father, he of the most privileged schooling and advantages,he of the over $1m annual household income, is somehow emblematic of poor, downtrodden, exploited black people? And what is the message to this cheering congregation? Rich whitey is your enemy? Imagine a white minister preaching to a cheering white congregation about black crime. That’s the equivalent. This is also the minister that says that America deserved 9/11. Obama worships at this church. This minister married him and baptized his children. This is NOT Billy Graham.

Mar 14, 2008 - 4:34 am 42. Roger:

Hi, anonymous “Patsfan”, sorry to interrupt here, but as the proprietor, allow me to say your arguments are a crock.

I despise Pat Robertson, et al, as much as the next man. (Unlike Obama, I have been quite publicly pro-gay marriage, so you can see I’m not exactly “down with Pat”)

But McCain’s relationship to these evangelicals (ambivalent as it is) is nowhere near as close as Obama’s to the despicable racist Wright. Wright married the Obama’s, baptized their children and provided the sermon which gave OBama the title of his book. Enough already.

Mar 14, 2008 - 7:23 am 43. srlucado:

“Let’s be clear. Many of the people who commented above did NOT listen to the clip above.”

And how exactly do you know this to be true, DWM? Got a degree from the DeVry Insitute of Clairvoyance?

Anyway…

“…in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people…” (repeated x3 in this clip)

“…[Obama] ain’t white, he ain’t rich, he ain’t privileged…”

“…I am sick of negroes who just do not get it…”

“…Hillary ain’t never had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk…”

“…I am so glad I got a God who knows what it is to be a poor black man…”

Naw, nothing racist in this guy’s “sermon”.

Mar 14, 2008 - 7:25 am 44. Godzilla:

Re: Wright’s Christianity-hijacked bullshit – smacks a little of that talk jockey Cunningham’s “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” don’t it, if you just substitute “rich white people” as the incendiary refrain?

Rezko and now this apeshit insane pastor (not to mention Obama’s annoyingly preachy schoolmarmish wife). That’s some real judgmental acumen displayed in his choice of associatons, ain’t it?…NAAAHHHHHTTT!

Mar 14, 2008 - 9:24 am 45. Patsfan:

Roger, I read your blog everyday, and I find your attempts at objectivity to be laughable. The fact is, you’ve been entirely in the tank for the Republicans since endorsing Bush four years ago. Your occasional bleats about gay marriage mean absolutely nothing because, to borrow from Johnson, you’re already in the tent pissing out. If you think the next Republican president won’t stack the courts with anti-gay marriage judges, you’re fooling yourself, but your argument for electing a Republican is: “Vote GOP or we’ll all die!!!!!!” What rot. If you truly want a frightening change in our foreign policy, you’d have to elect someone who would overturn the interventionist consensus of the past 60 years. I share your distaste for Kucinich and Paul, the only 2 people who would do that. Rudy’s out of the race and McCain’s your man. Big deal. I just wish you’d be honest and admit you’ll be voting for McCain no matter how Obama handles the Wright situation.

Finally, Roger, merely saying someone’s arguments are a crock is not an argument. McCain needs the votes of the religious right, so he’s doing everything he can to cement those relationships; there’s no “ambivalence” on that score, or else he would not have backpedaled on Falwell and Robertson in the first place. Why do you think Mike Huckabee stayed in the race for so long? If the evangelicals stay home or break for Obama, McCain loses. As long as we’re digging into churches, I think it’s fair to ask if McCain’s religious background influenced his position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the like. So, you want to win rhe war on terror? Why ditch talented soldiers over the gender of their loved ones?

Go ahead, Roger, find something in Obama’s record that says he’s a black separatist. You can’t. Yes, he’s cocky, and yes, he’s a speechifyer, but to suggest that he is a racist is absurd.

I agree with something said above: “We cannot expect any politician to have a clean record on religious advisors.” Billy Graham has made anti-semitic remarks (see the Nixon years) while remaining close to several presidents and routinely earning their praise. I’m not about to write off everything Reagan et al. did because of their ties to Graham.

So what will it be, Roger? Why the reluctance to hold every politician and preacher to the same standards?

Mar 14, 2008 - 10:44 am 46. Roger:

Patsfan, of course it’s true all pols dance with lots of people… but you didn’t even come close to answering this:

“But McCain’s relationship to these evangelicals (ambivalent as it is) is nowhere near as close as Obama’s to the despicable racist Wright. Wright married the Obama’s, baptized their children and provided the sermon which gave OBama the title of his book. Enough already.”

I wonder why.

And I wonder why you choose be anonymous. I’m not. Afraid to stand by your opinions?

Mar 14, 2008 - 11:12 am 47. markus:

Joining Wright’s church was a smart political move for a light-skinned newcomer from Hawaii via Harvard seeking acceptance on the South Side. As Obama said earlier this month “I dont think my church is actually particularly controversial” He’s right: in my opinion the attitudes expressed in Wright’s sermons are not terribly unusual or out of the mainstream among BLACK Americans at all.

I can’t wait to have someone explain why the best way to eliminate the racism exemplified by Obama’s preacher is to….vote for Obama!

Mar 14, 2008 - 12:16 pm 48. Michael Smith:

This issue cannot be dismissed as typical political pandering that “every politician does.”

Obama did not merely visit this man’s church, or make a speech to its congregation. Rather, he has CHOSEN to support this racist hater for years — support him by belonging to his congregation, by naming him his “spiritual advisor”, by contributing $20,000 to his church, by exposing his two small children to this hatred — just to mention a few things.

And this CHOICE completely guts Obama’s claim that he wishes to “bring us together”. No one sincerely interested in “healing our divisions” would tolerate Wright’s viciousness for 5 minutes — more less support it for years.

Mar 14, 2008 - 12:18 pm 49. goodspkr:

The recent videos of Barack Obama’s own firebrand preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. has raised a lot of questions, most notably was he preaching bigotry. I have to answer no.

In one of the videos he states we shouldn’t sing “God Bless America, but God Damn America.” In another one he states that 9/11 was our fault and that the chickens have come home to roost. It was this last statement that made the connection for me.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not bigoted, but is simply preaching the doctrine of the Far Left. We in Colorado should be able to recognize it. Ward Churchill’s Septemeber 12th essay “Roosting Chickens” espoused the doctrine of the hard left that we deserved to be attacked for all we had done in the Middle East.

Barack Obama has been listening to this type of preaching for 20 years. Realizing that this is leftist rhetoric, we should not be surprised that Senator Obama is rated the most liberal member in the US Senate or that his wife would say “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” In fact, I am sure there are many liberals who completely understand and agree with her statement.

Mar 14, 2008 - 12:42 pm 50. neobuzz:

Roger,

We all appreciate your good deeds supporting the civil rights movement during the 1960s ÔøΩ and I mean it. However, you seem to have slept through the post ÔøΩ60s political world, a world in which ÔøΩvictimsÔøΩ of straight, white, male oppression are encouraged to hate their oppressor. This attitude pervades not only our college campuses, but also many liberal churches, community groups, political organizations, and even governmental organizations. It is the stock-in-trade of relatively mainstream individuals and groups. Dr. King was probably the last minority leader to espouse the view that people should be judged by the content of their character. Now itÔøΩs race, gender, or sexual orientation that matters.

I live in a very liberal area and I completely understand ObamaÔøΩs ÔøΩfunny uncleÔøΩ comment. These funny uncles are everywhere. My own familyÔøΩs ÔøΩspiritual advisorÔøΩ was, in fact, one of these funny uncles. He was a dear man who genuinely cared about my family and his congregation, in general. He was, however, a complete nut when it came to politics, and, especially, the politics of race and gender. Most of his flock adored his politics just as much as they adored the man, but not everyone. To me, he was a funny uncle, a funny uncle whom I adored.

IÔøΩm not saying that a segment of Obama supporters wonÔøΩt be horrified by the views of ObamaÔøΩs spiritual advisor. IÔøΩm saying that if they had been paying attention the past 35 years, they wouldnÔøΩt be horrified, or even surprised. I will probably not be voting for Senator Obama in the fall, but it is not because he surrounds himself with white-hating racists. Similarly, I will probably not be voting for Senator Clinton in the fall, but it is not because she surrounds herself with man-hating feminists. Hell, it would be hard to vote for a Democrat these days if I were to reject any candidate with a funny uncle in the closet.

neobuzz

Ps. In light of Obama’s choice of spiritual leadership, I many need to go back and rethink my view of Jimmy Carter and his affiliation with the segregated Plains Baptist Church.

Mar 14, 2008 - 12:54 pm 51. Patsfan:

Roger,

First, I don’t know what it means to “choose be anonymous,” but if you’re calling me out for not having a profile, it’s because I am new to Typekey, and hadn’t yet thought to set one up. Regarding your claim that I am “afraid to stand by my opinions,” were that the case, I would not respond to those who have criticized them here.

As for your allegedly penetrating point about Obama and Wright, you seem to be implying that Obama is a racist for his relationship with him. Why even imply such a thing when you can come out and say it? If there is someone ducking and dodging here, it is you.

True, McCain may not have been married by Parsley, Hagee, Falwell or any other member of that lot, but McCain has never argued for a secular politics, frequently advocating for at least two policies that are openly discriminatory and frequently justified by the right on religious grounds: “marriage protection” in Arizona and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the armed forces (the latter policy, I think, jeopardizes our ability to fight the terror war effectively, and although I know it was crafted by Bill Clinton, Clinton was no hawkish war hero, like McCain, so if McCain’s going to keep running at least partly on his military service, he should take some heat for DADT. I don’t expect it from you, Roger, but no matter). He’s given no signs that he will rethink these positions. Furthermore, he calls Parsley a “spiritual advisor” and praises Hagee on the trail. I don’t doubt that he is at least considering more than one running mate who will be favorable to them, nor do I doubt that, with John Paul Stevens aging, he will take their advice on judges so his veep will have something to run on after McCain serves out his term. All this will continue to affect our country long after McCain, Wright, and Obama disappear from public view (Come to think of it, no matter how much air time Fox gives the old crank, Wright already has, having just retired.). John McCain is not a hater at heart, and perhaps the John McCain of the 2000 presidential campaign would’ve been open to overturning DADT. I was 19 years old and fascinated by the McCain of 2000, which is why I find his turnabout so offensive.

McCain and Obama are, deep down, two very flawed men, but you seem to have this unspoken, unfounded fear, Roger, that Obama will let the black, leftist preacher Wright into the White House, where they will together resurrect the Black Panther Party. To you, the fact that Obama’s actions do not match Wright’s rhetoric matters not at all. Nor do you care an iota that the not uncontroversial Billy Graham has been to the White House time and again, or that Falwell and Robertson have never been disowned by the GOP. Heck, Obama’s best friend in public life is Tom Coburn! Were Obama the subversive you believe he is, wouldn’t that cranky old righty, or some other member of the Washington Establishment, have found him out by now? Wouldn’t the senator from Illinois have been exposed by one of our investigative agencies, put on a “no-fly” list and run from public life on a rail? I am stunned that I have put these questions to you, but they are the only way to answer your paranoia. Such is life in this right-wing echo chamber.

By the way, your buddy, Hitch, would be equally critical of Wright, Robertson, Hagee and the rest. Anyone who is troubled by the fact that any politician running for high office in America has to claim belief in some God cannot spare any of these preacher criticism. The hyper-religiousity of America…THERE is an issue to talk about.

Mar 14, 2008 - 1:56 pm 52. JK Ribera:

Obviously the point about Obama is NOT, as the inane poster above (Patsfan) seems to be indicating, that Mr. Simon or anybody on here that I can see (haven’t read absolutely everything) is afraid that Barack Obama is about to bring back the Black Panthers or anything close. That’s ridiculous. What is the case is that Obama shows atrocious judgment in spending decades with this repellent racist as his pastor. This is not the kind of person with the racial sensitivity to pull the country together, as he advertises.

Mar 14, 2008 - 2:26 pm 53. Patsfan:

“This is not the kind of person…to pull the country together, as he advertises.”

How’d “Compassionate Conservatism” turn out, JK Ribera?

I’m glad Roger linked to Obama’s essay on the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

Believe it or not, I don’t think Roger is wrong about everything, just most things. You have guts, Mr. Simon, for defending Salman Rushdie, giving Fleming Rose an outlet, and finally offering Obama a fair shake.

Keep writing. I’ll keep reading.

Mar 14, 2008 - 3:35 pm 54. DWM:

Srlucado,

Thanks for citing some content. Let’s look at them individually:

“…in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people…” (repeated x3 in this clip)

How is this racist? At best this is fact and at worst it’s opinion. In either case it’s not racist. I happen to agree completely that our country is, has been, and looks to be controlled by rich white people. I might add… rich white MEN to be even more accurate.

“…[Obama] ain’t white, he ain’t rich, he ain’t privileged…”

I certainly agree with #1. No one in America is calling Obama white. I disagree with #2 and #3 but that doesn’t mean that this is racist.

“…I am sick of negroes who just do not get it…”

That’s not racist either. He’s repeating a refrain that is often raised in black preaching–the culpability of many in the black community. He, like James Cones (again), is angry that many blacks do not see the system as substantially privileging a certain group of people.

“…Hillary ain’t never had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk…”

Not racist either. In fact, Hillary got what she got from Bill. So in this instance this is a real dinger.

“…I am so glad I got a God who knows what it is to be a poor black man…”

Again, James Cone. The idea of a black Jesus comes from “A Black Theology of Liberation.” The gist is that Jesus was oppressed, Jesus was poor, Jesus was a minority…etc.

Naw, nothing racist in this guy’s “sermon”

I agree.

Mar 15, 2008 - 12:53 am 55. Patsfan:

Here is a thoughtful post breaking down more of the content of the sermon:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/03/obama-and-wrigh.html

Mar 15, 2008 - 7:00 am 56. MisterSnitch:

“I’m not much for guilt-by-association”

I quite agree. I also agree that this instance is special, as Obama freely chose to attend that church, chose his affiliation with that minister, and so on. It’s not as if the guy latched on to him. This is a distinction that I believe will be easily and clearly understood going forward.

I noticed that Obama posted a strongly-worded disclaimer at HuffPo. But they don’t have much faith in its power to persuade – you’ll notice that the comments have been turned off. (And in fact, they were never on for this post.)

I also note that Billary has not been able to use this issue to her advantage. She’s clearly keeping her distance from it, and I expect her to do so until she (her handlers, of course) have a clear idea how to effectively use it. They are a little gunshy right now because so many things they have tried have backfired on them, and because they are so intramurally divided to begin with. Add to this the fact that Dems look artificial and out of place on religious issues to begin with (not their strong point), and it’s easy to see why Billary is struggling to get a handle on this.

For Billary, the potential cultural backlash is of OJ Simpson-like proportions. She may not be able to recover from a wrong move, and so she is, for the moment, paralyzed. On the other hand, this is her liferaft, and at some point she is probably going to have to seize it, or drown. It is quite a dilemna for her. She may even be hoping that the Republicans will do the heavy lifting for her. (After all, so far the meme is spreading just fine, without her direct involvement, on sites just like yours, Mr. Simon.) Just as Rush is said to have boosted Obama for a time, so may Rush and others boost Billary via this issue.

Now, where McCain’s use of this story is concerned – that’s a different story. This issue will be red meat to nourish and solidify his base, at least through the outset of the final leg of the Presidential campaign. It is also an issue that he should be able to use to pry white Dem voters away from their party.

The Dems are offering up lots of choice grist for McCain’s campaign mill right now, and McCain should be grateful. They also need to use it well. A knife in a surgeon’s hands is a healing instrument, in another’s its butchery. It remains to be seen how skilled McCain’s people will be.

Rove would know what to do with this extremely potent issue, though. Wonder how much connection to the campaign he really has.

Mar 15, 2008 - 11:34 am 57. MisterSnitch:

“This is not the kind of person…to pull the country together, as he advertises.”

How’d “Compassionate Conservatism” turn out, JK Ribera?

Campaign marketing turns out well if people believe it. This video, and any other like it that emerge, are a strong headwind to fight if Obama is an agent of ‘change’ and ‘unity’.

Once your campaign message starts to sound like a lie, you actually hurt yourself by repeating it. The question isn’t ‘how Compassionate Conservatism’ turned out, fella. The question is, will the American people elect a candidate who reminds them of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?

They haven’t. And they won’t. And you know it.

Obama’s in trouble. And he knows it. Everyone smells the blood in the water.

One last thing: Obama’s is an all-black church (and proud of it, according to their web site). What if a candidate attended an all-white church that was ‘proud of it’?

Ah. THAT would be racism. Think the voters know hypocrisy when they see it?

Blood in the water.

Mar 15, 2008 - 11:50 am 58. Patsfan:

You’re an idiot, Snitch.

It’s not an all-black church, but a leftist one; then again, that doesn’t much matter to you, does it? Keep whoring for your president and his 19% approval rating.

Nothing Obama can do can change your mind. To you, he is a commie (Or is it a Muslim? I’ve forgotten) and a traitor. You just don’t have the sack to say it aloud.

And don’t call me “fella,” you patronizing little bitch.

Mar 15, 2008 - 3:05 pm 59. megapotamus:

There are white parishioners at the church where whitey is denounced as a devil? We’ll need some evidence of that, you smarmy ignorant cunt. See how easy that is Patsfan? Chump?

Mar 18, 2008 - 2:12 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: