NYT: “Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright”
posted at 9:35 pm on March 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
The most rewarding thing about a day like today, when some liberal’s in trouble and anxious to save his own ass, is watching the worst, most predictable, most embarrassing hacks on the other side go face-first into the tank, exactly as you’d expect they would. Sullivan? Check. Matthews? Check. The New York Times College of Cardinals? Checkity check check.
There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.
Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better…
There have been times when we wondered what Mr. Obama meant when he talked about rising above traditional divides. This was not such a moment.
Hey, guys? If the last 20 years count for anything, the best estimates of his “fundamental beliefs” are that the United States is a racist hegemon begging to have jets flown into office towers to teach it a thing or two about imperialism. He’s a gutless, opportunistic coward who was afraid to say an unkind word to one of the power brokers in the black community on whom he counted for votes as an Illinois politician, and now that he’s a national figure he’s throwing the same guy under the bus to preserve the illusion that he’s a “post-racial” politician. And you’re sitting there cheering him on because you don’t care what sort of idiocy or anti-American vitriol you have to swallow to put a Democrat back into the White House. Does that about sum it up? Have I missed any “nuance” in the “U.S. government created the AIDS virus” rant that Obama never, ever heard anything about and that you’re now willing to wave away?
Exit question invitation: Which parts of Wright’s sermons, precisely, does the New York Times have any great objection to? The punchline to all this nonsense is that the good reverend’s rantings really aren’t very far outside the liberal mainstream (his AIDS theory notwithstanding), which is probably why Obama thought he could bury this scandal in the first place. So let’s compromise: You make a list of everything Wright’s said that you think is beyond the pale or off the reservation and we’ll pretend that Obama’s objections to those statements are heartfelt and sincere and not something he’d ever, ever want his young daughters to hear. Deal?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
1. “However, among African-Americans, 29% said Wright’s comments made them more likely to support Obama. Just 18% said the opposite while 50% said Wright’s comments would have no impact…”
2. Welcome to my ignore list.
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Allah — you hit this one right out of the park…
D2Boston on March 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM
His speech changes nothing. This guy has sat under this racist’s tutiledge for 20 years. If I didn’t agree with someone’s teaching , I surely wouldn’t be under it for 20 years! Enough said….
sMack on March 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM
the sulzbergers and the nytimes have come a long way: in 1917 they opposed giving the negro the vote.
now they deem an inexperienced, mendacious, corrupt and bigoted black man the best thing since lincoln.
sheesh.
just proves one thing: if they’re for it, good sensible moral people should be against it.
need more proof: they endorsed mccain!
the race this uyear is so… yuch.
choosing between hillary and barack is like choosing between lenin and mao, and mccain is trotsky!
at least mccain is courageous and a hawk.
sigh.
reliapundit on March 18, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Righteous rant, AP!
Obama got RICKROLLED!
Good Lt on March 18, 2008 at 11:41 PM
This situation is a killer for Obama because it rots away the central appeal of his candidacy. I can’t imagine anyone with even a peripheral knowledge of this controversy listen to Obama describing himself, or being described, as a Great Uniter without stifling a snicker. The die-hard Obama-maniacs will stifle those snickers, but not the rest of us. The electorate, as a whole, is dying to elect a black president, but simultaneously they are deeply suspicious of most applicants for the position, nervous about exactly the kind of racialism and hard leftism that Wright embodies. Wright is a fatal blow to Obama because he confirms the worst suspicions of swing voters – he makes Obama look like another tired race hustler, cut from the same old Farrakhan, Jackson, and Sharpton cloth. The nervous swing voters wanted both a reason to fall into Obama’s arms, and a reason to run the other way… and they were just given the latter. The greatest danger for the Dems is that their media echo chamber will insulate them from understanding this during their primary season, unless they have a last-minute failure of nerve ala Howard Dean. They’ll swoon over the Obama speech and pat each other on the back, writing encomiums to the Chosen One’s wisdom, even tentative floating the idea that he’s actually a better man in the wake of the Wright debacle… and then, during the election, a vast sea of Reagan democrats, swing voters, and purple-state voters will decide that McCain fellow is a heck of a guy, war hero and all, and turn Election Night into a “baffling” 40-state loss for Barry O. The media will sourly proclaim America too benighted and mired in racism to elect a black president, starting at about 8pm on election night. Smarter Democrat operatives will see this coming, and either persuade Obama to step aside before the convention, or do something to make him disappear, at least politically.
Doctor Zero on March 18, 2008 at 11:42 PM
He threw him under the bus?
How is that throwing him under the bus?
crr6 on March 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Not that the Senator would ever cruise to HotAir.com, much less read the comments but if he does…
Free advice to Senator Barack Obama from a recovering Democrat: Please say G*d Bless America every day and mean it. Also repeat after President Clinton: “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” (SOURCE)
HotAirJosef on March 18, 2008 at 11:54 PM
It sure did for me. The reason he and Michelle attend the church of a hate-mongering, racist, black-segregationist, anti-Semite, is because they belong there. The debate is indeed over.
Mojave Mark on March 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Best post ever!
xo
Domino on March 19, 2008 at 12:10 AM
The bottom line here, folks, is that if some people are willing to believe in what Obama is selling, since the Rev.’s video clips have surfaced, they are dumb enough to believe there is swampland for sale in Arizona.
eanax on March 19, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Let the Slimes and the Leftie minions have their ‘Amen’ moment as we can be assured that this bigot embracing political opportunist will have only won over those who would have voted for him anyway, the same Lefties and Blacks. For he has told everyone else (Independents, Whites and conservatives) that they are nothing but racists. And when he does lose what will they say then? That we in America are the very racists that Wright says we were. Get ready for it as it is coming.
mustng66 on March 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Obligatory Romney smear? Check.
The_Freeze on March 19, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I’ve been to a few churches and synagogues, and I’ve NEVER heard anything within a thousand miles of what Jeremiah Wright spews out from the pulpit………..NEVER!
DfDeportation on March 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Good job AP.
xplodeit on March 19, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Hilarious. True. Sad.
Three strikes, but in a good way.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 19, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Yes, Obama’s speech ends the debate. It’s now definitive, he will never get my vote. He should leave the Senate immediately.
luvstotango on March 19, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Racists Endorse Obama on Candidate’s Website
Connie on March 19, 2008 at 1:27 AM
In 20 years he was too stupid (or complicit?) to notice a foul-mouthed crackpot racist conspiracy kook in the pulpit?
Sounds like a real leader.
Of a Guyana Cult.
profitsbeard on March 19, 2008 at 1:30 AM
***NEWS FLASH*** !!! Obama Could Sell Ice To Eskimo’s! -NYT
I bet the elitists at the NYT go through cases and cases of kool-aid over there.
SilverStar830 on March 19, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Hallelujah! Amen Brother! Preach it Brother! Preach it.
It is pretty disgusting the sniveling drooling sycophants. Not one shred of cred left between them. I disconnected my cable a while back. Can’t stand them anymore.
ronsfi on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 AM
There was something lost in all of the Rev. Wright storm. Over the weekend Obama gave an interview or two about his Rezko connection. Seems he needed to add more to the public record. Might be translated as he needed to back off on a few lies. I know he gave one interview about Rezko to Gwen Ifill who is known for keeping lefties honest with her penetrating grin. Rather than focusing on shady land deals the MSM seemed more interested in the eloquence factor today. But if you didn’t have an MSNBC toady telling yoy it was the greatest speech in the English language you might think it was boring and self-serving.
snaggletoothie on March 19, 2008 at 2:07 AM
I love his “cherry picking” argument. He doesn’t mention, as Gingrich did on last night’s H&C, that the video we have is taken from tapes sold by Wright’s church. His own church “cherry picked” these racist remarks.
So, uh, why hasn’t the media picked up on this simple contradiction?
PurpleWombats on March 19, 2008 at 2:10 AM
American leftists need very little to motivate them. They need the HC/BO drama to stay engaged. But in the end, individuals will either vote or not vote– their habits will not change. I only hope I can deal with 4 years of McCain!
leftnomore on March 19, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Wow, NYT is insane. Remember that 80′s song, also in the Wedding Singer, “You spin me, baby, around..”
Talk about spinning, I think this Times article is even crazier than Matthew’s rant.
Conservatives R Us on March 19, 2008 at 2:54 AM
Oh, well…
I always wanted to learn Swahili, anyway.
franksalterego on March 19, 2008 at 3:37 AM
Obama Nation: Using Racism In Order To Form A More Socialist Union
Red Pill on March 19, 2008 at 4:01 AM
Hmmm. I watched a good portion of the speech on Norway’s only 24-hour news channel, they set off about 10 minutes to let Obama make his piece.
I thought he did good. He didn’t throw Wright under the bus, he made him out to be the crazy uncle in the family that you have to love even though he’s a loon.
That said, I didn’t really care when Wright’s sermons were revealed. I don’t hold Obama responsible for them, and I’m pretty sure Obama doesn’t agree with many of the things Wright sermonized.
Let’s be honest here guys – Bush has never, ever, been able to step up and give a CYA speech like that. That’s one of Bush’s biggest faults, not being able to defend himself and make a case for himself and his policies.
Seixon on March 19, 2008 at 4:35 AM
Of course, the worthies at the New York Times assume that this circle could be squared, so since Bambi did a good job, everything must be all better.
Some things can’t be fixed with lollypops and fond wishes.
gridlock2 on March 19, 2008 at 5:41 AM
Tell you what, Seixon; I have a racist, bigoted cousin who’s sort of the white counterpart to the Rev. Wright. Thing is, he’s been disinvited to all family gatherings and totally ostracized by the family, ’cause, well, family members agree that when you tolerate that kind of hate speech and keep associating with someone that despicable, you’re tacitly endorsing their views.
Well said, Allah!
Nichevo on March 19, 2008 at 6:19 AM
He made a speech that did what it had to do, i.e. sanded down some of the rough edges, without making any big gaffes that would just complicate the situation. Not a surprise since it was scripted and edited no doubt to within a milimeter of it’s life.
Why that’s important is because it gave organs like the Times and others who long to provide him with cover the plausible deniability they desperately need to say “It’s Over”. It really didn’t matter what he said, as long as it was warm and fuzzy, which is why he felt he could afford to hate the sin and not the sinner in this instance.
The question is, will those media establishments who are not eager to crawl between Obama’s cheeks and rim him like a 3-point buzzer shot going to take this as “the end” of the Wright controversy, or are they going to continue to pursue the story? If nobody continues to dig, that needle in the Trinity haystack may never be found, assuming it exists. All it takes is one more over-the-top pronouncement that strikes a new nerve, or some video of Obama emoting approval for some racially divisive uttering of his spiritual padre to open that wound back up.
I know the issue isn’t closed here or anywhere on the right, but without the reinforcement of the dinosaur media, it will be more difficult to sustain. Here’s hopin’.
Immolate on March 19, 2008 at 6:52 AM
The debate has ended.
The science is settled.
You are all deniers.
/sarc
pappy on March 19, 2008 at 6:59 AM
Oh please.
ctmom on March 19, 2008 at 7:05 AM
Just like Al Gore and global warming…the debate is over?
Haunchie on March 19, 2008 at 7:20 AM
Turns out his Grandma wasn’t a racist when she admitted to fearing black men on the street, she was prudently reacting to conditions on the ground…
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 7:31 AM
It no longer matters what the Times says. Their credibility is long gone. The only ones left reading the Times and watching Matthews are the far left loons. Essentially, the far left is comforting each other that everything’s going to be OK.
The only problem is that Obama has alienated much of his support from independent white men and women. They’re too smart to read the times and watch Matthews. They’ll come to the same conclusion that most everyone capable of their own thought has come to…Obama is nothing more than a typical politician willing to sell-out his grand-mother and say anything to get elected.
Obama may still win the nomination, but his chances for the general election just went into the tank.
orlandocajun on March 19, 2008 at 7:51 AM
The most rewarding thing about a day like today, when some liberal’s in trouble and anxious to save his own ass, is watching the worst, most predictable, most embarrassing hacks on the other side go face-first into the tank, exactly as you’d expect they would.
That’s a two-way street, Allah.
And I don’t see many if any on the left who say this is a bad speech. I have seen people on the right (NRO, Buchanan, guy associated with Pat Buchanan) says it’s a great speech. That trend seems to expose YOU as being that hack, eh? Though, I suppose that’s predictable.
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 7:57 AM
The infamous “I know you are but what am I defense.”
ROFL
Kahuna on March 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM
guy associated with Pat Buchanan
That should be Pat Robertson…
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 8:12 AM
The infamous “I know you are but what am I defense.”
Well, it’s just glaringly obvious, especially in light of the fact that many on the right think it was a good speech.
Sometimes the law of averages is the best judge of hackery.
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM
In defense of Sullivan–a columnist I pretty much despise most of the time–the post cited is actually an endorsement of McCain if you read between the lines. Frankly I’m pretty impatient with the constant level of disparagement of McCain here. When the left gets through with him he’ll need the help of every clear-thinking Conservative here. Obama’s speech yesterday is just a foretaste of the kind of unctuous, self-serving lectures we’ll be bombarded with daily if he’s elected president–just as his wife and pastor are sterling examples of the entourage he’ll bring into the White House and onto fawning TV channels. Want that for a way of life? Then just keep up the anti-McCain sniping.
Hope P. Muntz on March 19, 2008 at 8:28 AM
So the NYT times says shut up or else. (Bronx cheer)
RobCon on March 19, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Obama’s speech is going to defuse the situation for a little while until sober analysis takes hold and it becomes apparent that he lied through his teeth.
drjohn on March 19, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Unless I were to read/hear a larger sampling of sermons by Rev. Wright, I would be reluctant to write him off as a racist, anti-American kook. If most of his sermons focused on teaching good principles rather than divisive rhetoric as Obama stated, then he still can be judged as having an overall positive influence on the congregation. The fact that he occasionally let his experiences of what happened 50 years ago in this country taint his message is unfortunate, but it is not reason enough to discount the good that he has done. This doesn’t excuse the divisive sermons, it simply recognizes that he is a flawed person like most of the rest of us. I know this may come as a shock to many atheists, but Christians don’t expect their preachers to be perfect. In the Bible, Paul often reminded his followers that he was a sinner and that faith should be based on Christ rather than mortal men. That is still true today.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Nonsense . . . Obama aimed to cover his butt, nothing more nothing less. He willingly subscribed to the lying rhetoric of that vile, white hating preacher for over 20 years. Anyone that believes he didn’t understand and internalize Wright’s message is either a member of his cult or hopelessly naive.
rplat on March 19, 2008 at 8:32 AM
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Right. On. The. Money.
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 8:37 AM
You know what else most Christians don’t expect? Their preachers to take relish in the slaughter of their fellow citizens mere days after 9/11.
I call bullshit on the “but he fed orphans” defense.
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Typical liberal logic..but for those fleeting moments of evil where Ted Bundy murdered people, he was a model citizen for 25 years, so let’s cut him a break and let him go. The Years of good far outweigh the momentary lapses into evil.
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Exactly. It’s giving a pass to Wahhabist imams because only 49% of their sermons involve Jews eating babies. It’s still a net positive message, right?
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 8:43 AM
It’s *like* giving a pass… [edit]
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Lehosh,
But you’re judging not one Wright, not only his church, but also Obama based on probably less than 1% of what the guy has said. You don’t have a full picture of Wright or that church. Yet you judge an entire community and Obama… you know why? Because you want to believe the worst. That’s just poor judgement.
On a side note, does anyone else think Obama sounded a little like Kermit the Frog in his speech yesterday?
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Obama lied, hope died.
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 8:50 AM
I didn’t say anything about Obama or the black community. I’m saying that Wright is a disgusting person and shouldn’t get a pass on being hateful and disgusting because of some lazy moral arithmetic. And I don’t need a “full picture” of Wright, whatever the hell that would mean. If one corner of the picture is a lunatic racist, how is the rest of the picture going to cover up that corner that’s a lunatic racist?
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 8:55 AM
OK, well maybe YOU didn’t in that post. But many, many, many people on here ARE judging Obama and that entire community on less than 1% of another man’s words.
And it’s not one corner of a picture. It’s one pixel.
And I don’t need a “full picture” of Wright
Exactly my point.
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 9:01 AM
So, your telling me that someone should catch a break for giving multiple speeches spouting crazy conspiracy theories about white on black genocide, fuel anti-Semitism and ant-Americanism, preach hatred for their fellow man, and take delight in the attacks of 9/11… because it might be just a small portion of his sermons?
You must be joking.
Tell me, how much of a sandwich could be filled with cobra venom and you’d still eat it because it’s basically a good sandwich?
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 9:05 AM
It is not only the 20 year relationship with the pastor, it is also his marriage to a like minded woman. His wife, by her statements, feels no different from the pastor. He may divorce himself from his pastor, but not his wife.
Her Princton thesis:
When she sees a crowd of people, she see white and black, not a community…
right2bright on March 19, 2008 at 9:06 AM
oops sorry for the link mess
right2bright on March 19, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Lehosh:
Believing that past actions of the U.S. Govt were complicit in bringing the 9/11 terrorists to our shores is not equal to relishing in the slaughter of fellow citizens. One can still mourn the carnage of 9/11 and believe that the actions of our government against other nations caused the carnage. Although I think that this conclusion is wrong, I can understand why Rev. Wright’s negative experiences associated with acts carried out by our government in the past might lead him to believe this.
If 49 percent of Rev Wright’s sermons were in fact divisive, I doubt that Obama would still be a member of his congregation or that he would have survived as Christian preacher for so many years. Unless you have proof that a large percentage of his sermons were filled with divisive, anti-American rhetoric, your argument is meaningless.
Alden Pyle:
I am not a liberal. My logic is based on the Christian principles that I live by. That said, it’s a bit disingenuous to equate divisive sermons with murdering people. Besides, I never said that Rev. Wright should get a pass for the divisive sermons. I simply stated that you can’t judge the totality of a man by a few negative outtakes from his life.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Lebosh,
I’m not saying Wright should be excused for what he said. But people are taking what he said and judging his entire church and Obama on it. They’re taking pixels (to continue the analogy) and painting an entire picture, filling in the blanks with their own biases.
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Lehosh, sorry.
Tom_Shipley on March 19, 2008 at 9:17 AM
It is spot on to use murderers as a logic link to Wright because his ideology is firmly based the Black Liberation Theology and Wright insists that you couldn’t understand the “Black Values System” of Trinity United Church of Christ without understanding black liberation theology. He specifically (and repeatedly) credits Professor James Cone with systematizing the principles of the theology being used by the church.
Who is Jim Cone? Well, he’s a distinguished professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He’s also the brilliant theologian who offered this observation:
If wright had his way, his NBPP supporters would be using their military wing to wage war against whitey and fullfilling their Attorney At War’s philosophy that “there are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”
So put down the crack pipe and rose colored glasses and see these haters for what they are.
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Right on Allah. 20 years. T-wen-ty years.
Geronimo on March 19, 2008 at 9:23 AM
right2bright:
I tend to agree that the attitudes of Obama’s wife are a bigger problem. However, I think that her thinking has evolved a bit beyond the musings in her college thesis. She still has some issues that could hurt his candidacy, but they haven’t gotten any traction with the American voters yet. I suspect that most voters have focussed more on the Candidate himself rather than his wife, but that could change if he gets the nomination.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 9:27 AM
You’re right, I am making a judgment about B. Obama based on what his pastor has said. Also on what his wife has said.
People tend to gravitate to those who think like they do. I think the words of M. Obama and J. Wright give us one hell of alot more insight into B. Obama’s true character than he ever wanted us to know about.
Kowboy on March 19, 2008 at 9:28 AM
You don’t seem to have watched the video. Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk
and tell me that Wright is “mourning the carnage”.
Really? What percentage is ok? 5%? 10%? 25%? How much bigoted craziness is acceptable? Would you keep going to a church where the pastor had on more than one occasion been a lunatic racist? It seems to me that I might give my pastor a pass for one slip, but I would lose a lot of respect for him. The third and fourth times I might begin to suspect something was amiss…
I think you’re assuming it’s just pixels. I’ll return to my sandwich analogy.
Lehosh: I saw a cobra spitting into that sandwich, you shouldn’t eat it.
Tom_Shipley: How much of the sandwich?
Lehosh: What?
Tom_Shipley: I only saw him spit on that one piece of ham.
Lehosh: Well yeah, but we were only looking for a second… I think the cobra could have spit on the whole sandwich when we weren’t looking.
Tom_Shipley: We don’t know that. Let’s eat the sandwich.
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 9:37 AM
I’m sick of hearing myself. OK, three more:
I won’t attribute this douchebag, but this is too funny to ignore. Obama has over 90% of the black vote against Hillary; he’d get 99% against McCain. So…how, exactly, are “29%” of blacks going to be “more likely to support Obama”? Hmm?
On the essence of the Messiah:
Nice to read you again, Mark. Welcome back; vote McCain.
And, best for last, on the campaign:
Doc, best comment I’ve seen yet. Too long to quote, so if you missed it go back up and read it. Absolutely perfect.
Jaibones on March 19, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Alden Pyle:
Taking the above quote from Jim Cone out of context is a bit misleading. Mr. Cone isn’t out there killing white people or telling other blacks to murder whites. If you would read a bit more of Cone’s writings outside of wikipedia, you would see that the white enemy that he speaks of is human injustice. His particular choice of words to symbolize this is unfortunate, but you seem to be intent on judging individuals using snippets from their lives rather than looking at the whole person. Good luck with that.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Call me paranoid or call me a racist but if 79% of the black community can de supportive or accepting of Wright’s hate speach then I don’t think I am ready for a black president.
bindare on March 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Oh, ok, I buy that, human injustice just happens to be “white”.
You keep drinking the koolaid, but when someone publicly declares me the enemy due to the color of my skin, and his supporters and freinds militarize themselves and declare I should be killed. My gut says take them at their word and let the liberal professors try to read in between the lines for the nuanced meanings. It’s a philosophy that kept me alive in combat.
Tell them how much you sympathize with their cause when they kick down your door, see how that works for you.
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
NYT:”It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.” (Then you lack imagination.)
NYT:”He was as powerful and frank as Mitt Romney was weak and calculating earlier this year…” (Romney had to defend an entire religion, but Obama only had to defend himself and Wright.)
NYT:”The distinction seems especially urgent after seven years of a president who has worked to blur the line between church and state.” (Yet, we still can’t pray in school nor put Ten Commandments monuments in a courthouse.)
NYT:”Wisely, he did not claim to be unaware of Mr. Wright’s radicalism or bitterness…” (Unless you actually count those time when he said the exact opposite, but who’s counting? Obviously not the NYT.)
NYT:”Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright…” (Shouldn’ this read, ‘Obama should have ended his ties to Mr. Wright’?)
NYT:”…there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government.” (Unless you count Obama’s statement that his personal faith influences every decission he makes…including the decission to kill unborn babies, I suppose).
NYT:”He did not hide from the often-unspoken reality that people on both sides of the color line are angry.” (In other words, it’s okay for Wright to be a hateful bigot, because whiteboy Tony couldn’t get a college scholarship?)
NYT:”Against this backdrop, he said, he could not repudiate his pastor.” (Translation: Since over a quarter of blacks are not MORE LIKELY to vote for Obama because of Wright, he could not repudiate his pastor.)
NYT:”…he raised the discussion to a higher plane.” (I wasn’t high when I heard the speech…maybe that’s why I wasn’t impressed…)
ynot4tony2 on March 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
This reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Are the Obama supporters and MSM so blinded by this man that they can’t see that he is naked? I heard a quote from the supposed journalist Chris Mathews this AM. I absolutely almost choked on my coffee. He said Obama’s speech carries the message of Martin Luther King to today, and that it goes beyond his “I have a dream” speech. I was raised in Detroit during the Rev. King’s tenure leading the civil rights struggle. B. Hussein Obama would not make a pimple on Dr. King’s ass. Maybe Mr. Mathews should take out some of the old newspaper articles on Dr. King. This might just jog his journalist memory banks slightly.
pueblo1032 on March 19, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 9:37 AM
I’ve seen the video. I simply don’t interpret it to mean that he enjoyed the suffering of those killed on 9/11. He believes that past actions by the U.S. resulted in the terrorists attacking us and that the ultimate blame for 9/11 belongs to Americans rather than to the terrorists. I don’t have to hear one of Rev. Wright’s sermons to find people in America (both black and white) who firmly believe this. I don’t agree with this conclusion, but I respect the right of other Americans to think this.
You want to judge a book by its cover. I want to read the whole book and judge it by the sum of what it contains. All people have a darker side to them that occasionally manifests itself in divisive actions and rhetoric. I’ve learned to accept this fact and judge people using a more complete metric that looks at the sum of their actions rather than an occasional angry verbal rant. I don’t expect you to agree with me, because your mind is already made up. So, I guess we can simply agree to disagree.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 10:18 AM
I believe that sometimes a book’s cover is so vile that its contents are beside the point. And I don’t think we would be having this conversation if Wright had been, say, a Republican and said that gays were worse than terrorists.
It seems to me as though your issue isn’t the volume of his hate speech at all… it’s that you don’t find it to be very hateful.
Lehosh on March 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM
consider the work of James Hal Cone, the founder of Black theology. (When Sean Hannity interviewed Wright, the pastor asked his interviewer, “How many of Cone’s books have you read?”) Cone once wrote:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
This dangerous, satanic, perversion of the Gospel is the foundation of Trinity United Church of Christ.
This is the crux of the problem for Obama: Set aside the inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Wright, even concede that the Senator knew nothing of his mentor’s hate-filled rants, and you’re still left with the troubling fact that for 20 years Obama was member of a church that is founded on this racist and anti-Christian theology.
–Google it
franksalterego on March 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Hahahaha!!! Oh, that’s hilarious. Oh, you were serious? Umm… yikes. That’s beyond spinning something, that’s a full on F5 Tornado.
Nineball on March 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Cone isn’t declaring you or any other individual white man as the enemy. He is declaring human injustice that he believes is driven by a predominantly white society to be the enemy. I don’t agree with his conclusion, but I respect his right to have that opinion. Unfortunately, you are probably right that some blacks interpret his words to condone violence against whites. This premise is obviously incorrect but ignorance will always be a problem in America until we do a better job of educating people.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The linguistic judo that you have to do to come to that conclusion is evidence enough to me that you have either suspended reason or ate a whole truckload of dumb ass. Either way you clearly are not going to suddenly become a logical being deserving of conversation with me.
Buh bye.
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
And, you base your conclusions on: A two year voting record, and a silver tongue?
franksalterego on March 19, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Okay, I give up. Rev. Wright is a hate-filled, racist, anti-American prick who is brain-washing his congregation to believe the same things that he does. He has never inspired a lick of goodness in anyone. Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who secretly agrees with all of the divisive words that have come forth from Rev, Wright’s mouth, even if he wasn’t there to hear them. And, I fully acknowledge that all of the Wright/Obama-haters on this board are righteous Americans who never use angry, hate-filled words to describe their feelings concerning individuals or groups who have wronged them or others in the past. That settles it.
I wasn’t planning on voting for Obama anyway, but now I really hate him and Rev. Wright and I just love all you guys for opening my eyes to this insidious black cancer that is infecting America.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
He throws his grandmother under the bus…. I don’t care who you are you never do this in a public forum.
I just can’t wait for the race riots when he loses.
roux on March 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Alden Pyle on March 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Nice talking with you too. You are my idol. With your great bedside manner and interpersonal communication skills, you should really consider a career in politics.
franksalterego on March 19, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I think that Obama is an inexperienced political hack who won’t get my vote and who doesn’t deserve to be President. That said, I recognize his right to attend a church where imperfect people use divisive rhetoric. But, that isn’t why I won’t vote for him. I have much better reasons than this to vote for someone else.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 11:18 AM
That said, I recognize his right to attend a church where imperfect people use divisive rhetoric.
–NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Trinity United is not a “church”…It’s a cell.
Are we clear?
franksalterego on March 19, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Ok, lemme try to simple this up enough for you to catch on.
If you go to a church, and the pastor stands in the pulpit and consistently says things you don’t agree with, are YOU going to go to church there for 20 years?
Would you marry a woman whose views are completely the opposite of yours?
Neither would I.
Kowboy on March 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Interestingly enough, although you are being sarcastic as hell, and don’t mean a thing you typed… you happen to head the nail on the head more often than not in that post!
Nineball on March 19, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Yeah, Obama’s a racist! Just forget that you can’t find a single quote from him since he took public office (Or ever for that matter) where he said anything even vaguely racist or anti-American. What matters isn’t what he says and does, it’s all about people he knew!
Typhonsentra on March 19, 2008 at 11:48 AM
How’s that workin’ out in the ghetto? School vouchers certainly wouldn’t help, would they. Probably need more NEA involvement, more HeadStart/No Student Left BeHind, and a few more dollars per student thrown at it in D.C., right?
a capella on March 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM
And yet he was elected twice, and oh yeah, he’s not running this time. Also too bad that most voters recognize Obama’s speech for what it was. Simply a CYA moment not based in reality.
Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM
If you’re right, then he will be elected. If you’re wrong, the majority of Americans are racists. See, you win either way. have a nice day.
JiangxiDad on March 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM
The name of the DVD that those clips came off of is “The Best of Jeremiah Wright”. Why do you think it was called that?
Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Not only do I sympathize with your statement here, but I already had that thought myself. We need to be careful to judge based on the whole picture, not just on one or two incidents.
But the things he was saying are not just crazy, but full-blown conspiracy-theory paranoid the-government-is-out-to-get-us insane. He’s saying that the U.S. government deliberately gives black people drugs to get them hooked, that 9/11 is richly deserved, that white America is irredeemably racist, and that whatever happens to black people, it’s not their fault. They’re victims.
Being a pastor or a “good man” is not enough to excuse this kind of thing. It’s no wonder they’re on such good terms with Farrakhan. For people like this, race trumps actual religion every time.
When a black church has more in common with Black Muslims than with other churches, it’s only fair to question how serious they are about Christianity.
This is exactly the same as when Al Sharpton in the infamous Tawana Brawley episode held court in the middle of a bunch of Black Muslims. Though he claimed — and claims — to be a minister, that really raised questions about what kind of a Christian he is. Of course, by the end of the Tawana Brawley affair, it was obvious that he was just a cheap race hustler.
Of course, Wright is no Al Sharpton. Thankfully.
tom on March 19, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Kowboy on March 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Nobody has shown that Rev Wright consistently used divisive rhetoric in his sermons. If he had, it is unlikely that his tenure as pastor would have lasted for more than 20 years.
People marry other people with opposite views all of the time. Everyone knows: “Opposites Attract.” That’s not always true, but it often is.
NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM
If we are just “cherry-picking” why does the Big O show us some of Wright’s kind, loving tapes? Wouldn’t that be the obvious thing to do?
Oh yeah, there aren’t any.
PattyJ on March 19, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Has it dawned on anyone that this whole melodrama around Obama’s pastor is a classic example of guilt by association?
Not a supporter of the guy, but I find this whole controversy of this pastors comments to be completely lacking in logical merit as it pertains to the general election, and intellectually disingenuous.
assmasterflash on March 19, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I think some of the Obama defenders on this thread are missing the context in which we find the Rev. Wright story so damning. We are not a tribunal mulling over sending Wright to prison, or taking custody of Obama’s daughters away. We are voters judging the character and beliefs of a man who aspires to the highest office in the land. We’re also citizens of the United States who want the best for our countrymen. We don’t need to calculate the exact percentage of racism in Wright’s speeches to see that the man is a virulent, hateful racist. We aren’t debating his right to be one, but we maintain that 20 years of listening to, tolerating, and supporting such a person disqualifies one from the Presidency. Making excuses for the inexcusable, as Obama did in his speech, is doing the black community – much less the country at large – no favors. The only way racism and paranoia will be stamped out is by showing them absolute intolerance, no excuses, no long stories about how tough things were in the Fifties. From that perspective, Obama’s “brilliant speech” did him more harm than good. To put it plainly, I don’t want any member of Jeremiah Wright’s congregation within a hundred miles of the White House. I don’t want anyone who posts at Daily Kos within a thousand miles of it. It’s not a race thing. To paraphrase James Carville, “it’s the stupidity, stupid.”
Doctor Zero on March 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM
It isn’t just Wright. The whole congregation was baying approval, which seems to match the polling data that a majority of blacks, including black preachers of other denominations, approve of Wright’s message
a capella on March 19, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »