AOL Hot Seat Poll: Obama’s Associations

posted at 9:33 am on December 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey


Piggybacking off of yesterday’s post about the hypocrisy from the Left on Barack Obama’s ministerial affiliations with Rick Warren and Jeremiah Wright, this AOL Hot Seat Poll asks the question directly. It also gives respondents an opportunity to say that both or neither bother them. The poll has been on AOL’s site since yesterday evening, and with about 15,000 votes, only 5% are bothered solely by Obama’s association with Warren — but 42% have issues with Obama’s connections to Wright.

Update: Corrected for clarity; I meant to reference the hypocrisy of the Left’s reaction, not of Obama.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

As Rush said, 10 minutes after Warren gives his speech, he’s never going to hear from this Administration again and will get a continuous busy-signal when he phones.

Marcus on December 27, 2008 at 9:39 AM

So does this affiliation with Rev Warren (what is it with Obama and pastors whose last names start with “W”)mean Obama’s going to cool it on the Freedom to Abort Act?

eaglewingz08 on December 27, 2008 at 9:41 AM

I chose Warren. Though the medis has ignored that Obama has a pro-gay pastor for the Benediction. It really is a diversity of voices. Is the invocation somehow more important than the benediction? Warren’s still a douche though. Homosexuality = adult-child marriage? Get it together Warren.

DeathToMediaHacks on December 27, 2008 at 9:45 AM

AOL? Was the Compuserve poll down?

angryed on December 27, 2008 at 9:45 AM

I really fail to see the problem
If Warren is opposed to gay marriage and Obama is opposed to gay marriage (as he’s said), where’s the fire?

BobH on December 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM

BobH on December 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM

The problem is Barry was elected representing a Liberal Agenda. They invested their hopes and dreams in him. He claimed their stances on Abortion “Rights”, Gay Rights, Drug Use, Getting Out of Iraq Now, etc. But now, he seems to be embracing a Moderate stance. He realizes the majority of Americans will not stand for an extremely Left-leaning POTUS. He is feigning Moderation to gain strength and popularity. And this ticks off the Liberals no end. Therefore, they are using Warren as a focal point of their protest.

kingsjester on December 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM

I really fail to see the problem
If Warren is opposed to gay marriage and Obama is opposed to gay marriage (as he’s said), where’s the fire?

BobH on December 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM

You see, people like Warren oppose gay marriage on moral grounds. People like Obama oppose gay marriage for the moment because they need votes and support from people like Warren. Wink, wink.

ddrintn on December 27, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Er…no Bill Ayers selection?

flipflop on December 27, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Neither, they both mean nothing to Obama, he’s just uses them for some imagined political gain. On the other hand, his association with Rezko and the entire Chicago political machine concerns me.

lowandslow on December 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM

When someone, as Warren has, uses the “slippery slope” argument, they’re not saying “A” is “B” or that “A” and “B” are even similar. They are saying that if we do “A” that will lead to “B”.

We can debate whether that occurs; but it’s unfair to say that Warren (or anyone) who says “A” will lead to “B” is claiming that they are analagous.

A person who argues that legally recognizing same sex marriage will require – if we’re using the equal protection argument for same sex marriage – that the state must recognize incestuous marriage is not saying that gay behavior is the same (or similar) to incestuous behavior. They are saying the legal prohibitions against recognizing incestuous marriage may disappear if the state cannot differentiate between/among married couples.

It’s not an entirely unfair argument. But one that can be easily and unfairly demagogued.

SteveMG on December 27, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Piggybacking off of yesterday’s post about the hypocrisy on Barack Obama’s ministerial affiliations with Rick Warren and Jeremiah Wright, this AOL Hot Seat Poll asks the question directly.

Wasn’t the post about the perceived hypocrisy of the left’s reactions to Obama’s affiliations, not any hypocrisy on Obama’s party?

Tom_Shipley on December 27, 2008 at 10:36 AM

I mean “part.”

Tom_Shipley on December 27, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Tom_Shipley on December 27, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Yes, you’re right. I thought I’d written that, but I didn’t. I’ve corrected it. Thanks!

Ed Morrissey on December 27, 2008 at 10:50 AM

No problem!

Tom_Shipley on December 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Ayers.

darkpixel on December 27, 2008 at 11:06 AM

The Rick Warren thing is just a clever ploy.

“O” Dumbo the trickster moves on.

Rick007 on December 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Not THAT far OT, I guess.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is a travesty. End of discussion.
Having stated my opinion, I will further say that those who wish to enter into a homosexual union are free to do so. As to whatever societal protection they are entitled to, let the current protections of civil unions apply.
If that’s unacceptable, then either dissolve your union or shut up about it.

irongrampa on December 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is a travesty.

irongrampa on December 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM

But can you tell us why?

Here’s my comment to another thread:

My position is that marriage (as a concept and a construct) has been both diluted and contaminated.

The male domination/ownership of females is a theory that has been disproven by the success of feminist philosophy against minimal resistance. In other words, if the premise was true then it would have been much harder for feminism to achieve its present success level.

Yet the feminists basically walked in and took over, which could not have happened if males actually possessed the power that feminists claimed they had.

As far as my comment about no-fault divorce, the notion that a woman is property of a man by virtue of marriage is one that always was a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage as a God-given construct for humans to have eternal life. To the extent that people misunderstood patriarchy as merely a fancy intellectual philosophy designed to cover a male primitive instinct for power and control, then the entire nature of male-female relations has been corrupted.

Males and females are equal in value but are not identical. We are now discovering just how much damage has been done by the corruption of the language, whether through laziness or deliberateness. Marriage is the God-designed construct for humans to live forever. It is a re-connection of the separated parts of what was originally created as a single entity – a human being.

Unless a female is viewed (and valued) as a long missing piece of an incomplete entity (the male), marriage is little more than an emotional business contract. Those who want to know why their marriages failed have to look first to see if they were ever actually married in the original meaning of the word. But just as we have screwed up the country by viewing the constitution as a living breathing document, we have screwed up marriage by making it do things it was never intended to do and more importantly which it is incapable of doing.

In short, the average marriage is held to impossible expectations because it has been allowed to evolve and change from its original design and purpose.

The notion that there is no fault in a divorce is just as nuts as the notion that a wife can be an ante in a poker game (or whatever card game was being played).

platypus on December 27, 2008 at 12:55 PM

neither… Bill Ayres worries me.

Kaptain Amerika on December 27, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Update: Corrected for clarity; I meant to reference the hypocrisy of the Left’s reaction, not of Obama.

You needed to clarify that?
Please post name and address! We must all grab a torch and pitch-fork and storm that medieval castle! Think about the children, Ed!

RMR on December 27, 2008 at 8:21 PM

As I understand it Rick Warren has done a huge amount of work on behalf of Africa, fighting aids and such. Perhaps this is what informed Obama’s thinking when picking Warren, rather then some statement about gay rights.
I wonder what Rev. Wright’s stance is in regards to gay marriage. If he’s going to GD America over (say what was he GD’ing America about? I missed the nuance of that) then he might be holding a judgemental view of the gay also.

papertiger on December 28, 2008 at 8:12 AM

I think Rev. Wright is the best thing going for Obama.

A real black man with real beliefs and he’s not afraid to shout them.

Compare and contrast with whatever the hell Obama is today.

Ares on December 29, 2008 at 5:10 AM