Mr. Pazienza:
You assert that if my choice on voting day is not the same as yours, then I am not to be entrusted with the vote. How utterly absurd!
I am going to vote. I may not vote the way you would like, but I am going to vote.
I served in the US Army to protect that right, and you, nor anyone like you is going to deny me that right.
Whether or not I determine that "this crap" is inconsequential or not is another matter. I happen to think that "this crap" is not inconsequential. I want all the information I can find on all the candidates. Good, bad, warts and all. I do not believe all I see, hear, or read. I read material from both sides of the spectrum, and have found, on the whole, the actual truth lies somewhere between here and there.
Bullies and Pulpits
I'll make this very quick and to the point, since there's already far too much discussion of this particular topic.
If the American voters really are willing to take into consideration, even for a moment, Barack Obama's association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright when deciding whether or not to vote for him, then we get what we deserve in November.
The conflict-addicted mass media has been going ape-shit over the past several weeks, robotically parroting Hillary Clinton's talking points and keeping on life support a non-issue that's always been the kind of thing only the most simple-minded and sheltered among us would concern him or herself with. Now, in a ballsy tip of the hat to their own fuck-you-all might, TV and print news organizations are touting the Wright "scandal" as reason for Camp Clinton's recent bump in the polls. The whole ridiculous mess has forced Obama -- who had been taking the highest of roads by not throwing Wright under the bus -- to play by the asinine game that so many voters purport to loathe and actually address this nonsense. This of course adds yet another surreal layer to the story, by allowing the media vultures to breathlessly claim that the "normally cool Obama is on the defensive" against a tempest that they themselves created.
The Jeremiah Wright "issue" isn't one. In the famous words of Gertrude Stein -- there's no there there. Yet I don't doubt that there are quite a few voters across this land of ours who aren't convinced -- who find themselves scratching their heads and saying musically and suspiciously, "Well, I don't knooow."
And it's exactly this kind of thinking that gave us eight years of George Bush.
If you're really stupid enough to worry about crap this inconsequential, particularly with everything else that's going on in the world right now -- with all that's at stake -- please do the country a favor and stay the hell home on election day. You shouldn't be entrusted with the power of a vote.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
i have to find a way to disassociate myself from myself; I totally repudiate my ideas, statements and utterance directed outward to the general populace; there; I feel better; cleansed and ready to vote against my own interests.
Signed,
Hopplehead
All I can say is that so far America has given Rev. Wright the power to change the outcome of the 2008 Democratic Primary.
Amen, Chez! Look at all the presidents we've missed out on: Kerry, Gore...oh, sorry, I forgot most folks voted for Gore but that was the year the Repubs stole the election. I'm really going to be disgusted if we throw away our chance of having Barack Obama as our president. If we end up with Clinton or McCain as president, I may not vote anymore.
i heart chez!
I have watched in horror as the media has done nothing but attack Obama and cast doubt about him to the general public.
They even excuse those who may have some racist bents. Incredible.
They have been playing this game for over a month
they have cast him as the black candidate, the eltitst and the unelectable candidate. Everything Hillary has wanted them to do they have done and then some.
The Gore-ing of Obama is sad and depressing. We have suffered with mediocre presidents for 30 years and for a change we finally get someone who promises to be the calibre of an FDR and what happens but, the media sets out to do the hit job on him 24/7 for the Clintons.
I'd love to hear from one of the folks who thinks it matters what they imagine the practical effect of their relationship might be should Obama win the presidency.
As for the "judgment" issue: Puh-leeze! The American electorate would never allow him the good judgment never to attend any church (besides, perhaps, a Buddhist one).
"...then we get what we deserve in November."
I, for one, am pretty sick of getting the president we deserve. I'd appreciate getting a good one for a change.
Message to white middle class Americans-
If you're stupid enough to vote against your economic interests because of "I'm not voting for the black guy", or a flag pin, or Reverend Wright, or any other of this nonsense that Hillary and republiCONS are trying to confuse you with, you DESERVE to lose your job, house, and healthcare.
The "people" making these ridiculous things into "issues" are the enemies of the average voter.
Tax cuts for the richest Americans at the expense of ALL govt services while at a time of war is working out just GREAT for ya, isn't it??????
magen:
Just wanted to thank you for your comments. It is really amazing how the multi-millionaires like Sean Hannity, Charlie Gibson, Chris Mathews, Tim Russert, Rush Limbough and the rest obsess about Rev. Wright and labeling Obama as an elitist. To top it off the multi-millionaires, the Clintons, are the champions of the working class. The tragedy is that their propaganda seem to be working perfectly.
Thank you, Chez!
Chez,
So, all of a sudden, Barak Obama's judgement isn't relevant?...
How could he have been "so close" to Rev.Wright and not understood what his (Wright's) views and attitudes were?
It seems to me that that makes Senator Obama either slickly cynical enough to think he would be given yet another pass, (lest his detractors be thought of as racis), OR he was genuinely not bothered by Wright's attitude, OR he was simply naively unaware of it, OR he's just plain STUPID (not likely)...
My vote is for choice one (cynical), but NONE of them are characteristics I would tolerate in ANYONE purporting to be a leader with "better judgement".
(BTW, I am not a Hillary fan...I was a staunch supporter of JOE BIDEN, who was villified for much less aggregious statements, as well as for the same "crime" of non-attribution that Senator Obama was given a virtual pass on...If BIDEN were still in this, we wouldn't have the mess we do now.)
Even on Iraq/Iran, when given the opportunity to DEMONSTRATE his "better judgement", Senator Obama chose to NOT EVEN SHOW UP for the Biden-Gelb IRAQ Senate resolution vote AND the Kyl-Lieberman IRAN Senate resolution vote.
Bottom line: Senator Obama's "better judgement" does not extend past his tongue...He's all about talking the talk, but REPEATEDLY, when it comes to walking the walk...well...not so much.
Blue, I would have preferred Biden or Dodd, and was astonished that the three top candidates appeared to be the three with the slimmest paper qualifications. But here we are, choosing between two equally not very qualified candidates.
To bring Wright into the discussion would only be of merit if their were any indication that Wright has had any significance in Obama's thought process. Wright is a Black Liberation preacher and Obama is a post racial candidate. So whatever influence Wright has had seems to be in reinforcing Obama's conclusion that race politics should be put behind us. In other words, Wright's presence at the periphery of the campaign is only significant if you are inclined to believe that Obama is hiding some alter ego as a Black Liberationist, and that once elected he will drop the pretense of post racial politics and enslave the white race.
The whole idea of being "concerned" over Wright is then built on race paranoia. And the Right wing, is attempting to exploit nothing more than an innuendo that has no power whatsoever over anyone who is not a racist to begin with.
obama isn't responsible for his pastors statements. also, not everything wright said for 20 years was always so controversial, not to mention the fact that the statements were taken out of context. if you listen to the whole sermon it really isn't all that offensive. everyone knows people with whom they don't agree on every topic. life would be really boring if we only surrounded ourselves with people who thought like we did. we also probably wouldn't have all the great ideas that come up if everyone thought or viewed things the exact same way. back when i did go to church i didn't agree with everything the preacher said, either. if the views of a preacher is the standard to which we hold the presidential candidates, then none of them are worthy of the job, because each has ties to preachers who have said controversial things. and compared to hagee and coe, wright was nothing. why does it seem that angry white preachers get a pass, but (justifiably) angry black preachers are all of a sudden so horrible that they destroy a persons chance of becoming an elected official?
chez was right. this is not a big enough issue to determine whether or not to vote for someone. focus on what the candidates themselves actually say, not what people they know say.
You've got a better idea? Which of the three candidates remaining do you think will do a better job? Obama is not perfect, and, despite the pundits, his supporters don't deem him the Messiah. I serve Jesus, but I digress. It's not the mistakes Obama has made that affect my vote, its how he handles them. He doesn't get defensive-he admits his mistakes when he is aware of them. Perhaps he didn't properly estimate the magnitude of Rev. Wright, and figured that it really wasn't that big of a deal. Members of his church have documented that he has morphed over the years into someone they don't know. I know the he never imagined in his wildest dreams that his candidacy would face this much scrutiny because of his pastor seriously undermining him. I don't fault him for the actions of Rev. Wright, because every candidate has years of associations with some less than savory characters.
He handles every misstep with responsibility, and that what let's me know that he is being straight with me.
You know what's hysterical about this whole issue?
No one realizes the political brilliance behind the Wright/Obama tactics being displayed right now. The fact is that it has already been reported about conversations between Wright and Obama where they discuss about Obama having to throw Wright under the bus for his rhetoric to protect Obama's candidacy.
Should Obama survive Hillary, this whole issue (which should be a political albatross of Biblical proportions and an election killer) will be totally unusable in the Fall by McCain.
Its actually amazing about how much of the best of the combination of Reaganesque rhetoric, Clintonian triangulation, and Bushian misunderestimation is being conducted by Obama's campaign. His is a long-term campaign and if he gets thru the short-term barrage and the Democratic Convention, he will be unassailable by McCain - no bodies to dig up and nothing to gain traction on.
McCain will have to face him totally on the issues while fending off the media storm about his past from the left. You put them both on camera in a debate and McCain is going to look like the evil Emperor from Star Wars out of his robes next to Obama youth and charisma.
It will be like Hoover verses Roosevelt or Reagan verses Carter - a ritual slaughter.
Obama is the only candidate next to Dennis Kucinich that a Republican could beat. Thank you to the extreme left wing of the Democratic party who made it possible for us to have 4 more years of a Republican President. As bad as that might be.
Hillary is a LIAR (I ducked snipers' bullets in Bosnia) and a WARMONGER (voted to authorize force in Iraq, voted for continued funding, voted for Kyl-Lieberman). Nothing except a blue dog Democrat would vote for her.
And no one but a flat-out Republican bent on perpetuating division among Democrats would have written your swill.
I have an idea, why don't we separate church and state? Oh, someone's already suggested that!
I just read a piece on the book about "The Family", or "The Fellowship" which is slated to hit the stores in mid-May. It's called "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power," by Jeff Sharlet (Harper Collins). I had read about Hillary Clinton's close relationship with this scary, creepy "religious" group several times, with founding and current members who will give you the chills. It seems that the MSM is "reluctant" to talk about this group.
The Amazon review written by the NYT's Barbara Ehrenreich ends with "just don't read it alone at night." That says it all.
If you ask the most faithful member of Rev. Wright church what his message was on October 15, 1990 they will not be able to tell you. The way people talk it's like all he preached was hate for 20 years
and Obama was there every Sunday saying amen. I have attended church all my life but my family went on vacations, sometimes I was sick, sometimes we just didn't go. There are social issues that my pastor can't speak on for me. And during election time our churches are visited by many locals seeking election and if I don't agree with their politics I don't vote for them regardless how my pastor feels. So how can people say Rev. Wright was speaking for Obama We were shown a snippet of sermons spliced together and people went nuts. It's time to put this issue to rest.
Great post!
It makes me think of the Pope's visit and compare the media's coverage of that with their coverage of Wright. The Pope seems kind of "different" (but not "deficient"!) to a lot of Americans, with the big hat and fancy robes. But we treat that difference with respect, hopefully not because he's white while Wright is black, but out of respect for those who are part of that faith.
Yet the Pope speaks out against contraception, a woman's right to choose, gays, women priests. Does every Catholic have to believe every word the Pope says or walk away from the church forever?
And talk about scandal-- the sex abuse by priests against children. We wouldn't dream in a million years of making a Catholic candidate for president provide an exhaustive explanation because his or her priest was involved in one of these tragic cases.
This post said it better than anyone.
But I'm wondering why Michael Moore's own amazing response on Larry King hasn't received more attention. He said, "Well, I'm a white guy." And went on to explain how he wasn't going to join the chorus of all these well-paid white figures in the media who are passing judgment on Wright and Obama.
The main issue is-- it's not an issue. Unless we want to spend a few weeks discussing what Obama's milkman said. Even if we don't like what Rev. Wright said, all we have to do is say, "I disagree" and move on.
I know that's bad for CNN's ratings and Glenn Beck may have to stick Crayons up his nose to keep himself occupied until the next controversy-- but the rest of America will be just fine without 24/7 Wright coverage.
Or maybe we can have round the clock coverage of scholars reviewing Richard Wright's _Native Son_, also based in Chicago. I could go for that.
One thing to consider, the American people have a low opinion of the American press and it gets lower by the day. The Democrats should devise a campaign to expose the so called free press for what it is, money grubbing sensationalists with no regard for the future of America. How much longer will we let these corporate grifters imperil our country with the garbage they pretend is news.
Here's what i don't understand. The first black man to be the front runner for the presidency. A video of his pastor's past serman condemning the country runs constantly on the media. Then, said pastor goes on a media blitz making the situation worse for the candidate.
I truly believe that the leaders of the black community, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, need to keep the fact they are discriminated against because of race in the forefront, to keep their own selves relevent to the black community.
When a black leader intentionally tries to wreck a black presidential nominee'c chances for the highest office, he can then crow to his congrgation how racist this country actually is.
This is backlash at its worse. Wright is working overtime to destroy yhe nomination of Barack Obama. All for the good of the "movement".
This is a tragedy for this country and our society. Please Rev. Wright....take a long vacation and just shut up.
I gotta kinda agree with this post. It may not be absolutely true, but anyone with half a brain is going to ask what Rev. Wright's motives are. Was he dissed at the announcement ot Barack's candidacy? I do not think that's sufficient. Was it the Obama speech on racism? Well, push had not gotten to shove, but the wheels began to turn. Simpley put, Rev. Wright wants to push books. Sure. It doesn't matter if the manner in which he does it is a mish-mash of conflicting assertions. The "reconciliation" theme, played over and over, is his vaunted bread and butter. Truth is, non-reconciliation is the bacon. When someone like Barack lives out the reconciliation theme, Rev. Wright ,et al, are out of a job, diminished in stature and may not find it easy to establish a niche in an ascendant black man's Presidency.
I wish he would make a semi-permanent exit until after the election, but he won't. At his latest appearances he plugged a book that he said will be coming out in the Fall (I've read October). Great timing, just in time for the first Tuesday in November. Of course his publisher will want to send him on a multi-city publicity tour to drum up sales, and the Repubs and MSM will be feeding off that. The NYT and other book reviewers will get advance copies, so we'll get an early read on the contents.
No, he won't be going away anytime soon..
I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he had defended Wright, whose biggest sin was discussing the elephant(s) in the room. To that extent, this non-issue is relevant.
Obama did defend Wright - did you hear his speech on race? And he did it at his own peril. He said they disagreed, but that he was a family friend. It was Wright who threw him under the bus. Wright was egoistic or jealous or both. He made himself look like a fool, and cost Obama some support. I hope voters are smart enough to stop being manipulated by this nonsense. That's how we got GWB.
Man I'm so tired of this B.S. I wish people would ask Hillary if she thinks Obama is an honest man. Ask her to answer "yes" or "no". If she says "yes" than the next question should be "that shouldn't people believe him that the times he has heard Wright speak he wasn't the hooplehead people are hearing now or on You Tube?". Then press her further and ask if he didn't think Obama wouldn't have walked out of the church had he heard Rev. Wright say "G-D America". I think that would end it because Hillary would be forced to defend Obama.
Isn't it a lot easier for some Americans to get all hot under the collar over Rev. Wright - and thereby, Obama - than to admit that in their little white heart of hearts, they're racist to the core.
Slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the Klan...and we're shocked - shocked! - that people might resent it.
I agree 100% with your blog, but then again I do have a four year degree and like to indulge in the occasional latte.
Exactamundo. Every candidate has personal associations that are unfathomable to me. Wright's comments embarrass Obama, absolutely. But then, Bill Clinton's conduct publicly humiliated Hillary ... repeatedly ... yet her "judgment" in staying with him isn't a campaign issue. And you know, I don't want it to be ... I don't want the Presidential campaign to be an endless, tawdry rehashing of issues better suited to Us Magazine and The National Inquirer than to the op-ed pages of major news organizations.
He's got a nutty preacher? Hey, all preachers are pretty nutty in my book. Hillary went on The 700 Club, for cryin' out loud, talk about validating the legitimacy of whackjobs! But again, it's really not what I'm interested in, for the sake of the campaign.
Economics, statecraft, the kind of judges a candidate favors ... these are relevant issues, but they are not 10-second soundbite issues, and the modern media loathes complexity. They want a story they can promote with a shock-headline graphic, not a reasoned discussion.
I'm in full agreement with Chez on this one (although I'm not always) ... any electorate that lets things like this determine their chief executive choice gets exactly the government they deserve .... although the rest of the planet might not be as deserving of the consequences.
Loading comments…
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
Posted May 2, 2008 | 12:05 PM (EST)