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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.