I have been asking myself over the past several weeks why pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and, strangely, Tim Russert, to name only a few, didn't pursue their line of questioning beyond the artful rationalizations offered up by Mr. Obama. While I understand that these men and others have a personal right to be for a particular candidate, nonetheless I do no understand how they rationalize as newsmen their obvious bias in reporting.
For example, I would love to hear an explanation of why any one of them so readily accepted Mr. Obama's "I wasn't sitting in the pew" explanation for not knowing about Reverend Wright's sermons and then proceeded to laud Mr. Obama's "disown my white grandmother" sermon to effectively get the entire matter shut down in the media.
The pontifical nature of Mr. Obama's speech shifted focus from the specific, his association with Reverend Wright, to the general, race relations, even bringing in Geraldine Ferraro's remarks which were in no way the same category as Reverend Wright's. Mr. Obama's disingenuousness extends to his claim that had Mr. Wright not stepped down now as Pastor of the Trinity Church, he would have left it. Surely Mr. Obama cannot claim that in his 20+ years as a member of this church he was absent for every sermon in which Mr. Wright expressed his particularly hate-filled and angry thoughts about race and patriotism.
And, as is obvious by his embrace of Mr. Farrakhan, the Reverend Wright could not be said to be "objective' when it came to his Jewish "brethren," either. Reverend Wright's passionate statement that Jesus's own people "betrayed him" (i.e., the Jews), makes it sadly clear where he stands on this age-old issue.
Hence, where Mr. Obama is concerned, his refusal to "disown" Reverend Wright based on his ludicrous claim that he had not been "present" for any of such sermons makes this an issue of honesty, not race, of political expediency not moral courage.
Mr. Obama was not readily accepted by the constituents of the 1st District of Illinois when he moved there in the 1990s. He lost an election to Bobby Rush, a four-term congressman and ex-Black Panther in 2000. The Trinity church has a membership of 8000 members, which looked like a match made in heaven to get one's local political credentials in order, an important reason Mr. Obama joined this church and why he associated with Reverend Wright, an influential local figure. To claim that he had the audacity of hope not to know of Reverend Wright's sermons is, again, disingenuous.
Furthermore, gearing up for a 2003 U.S. Senate election, in late 2002 Mr. Obama came out with his strong anti-Iraq War speech, trumpeting this as an overpowering example of the clarity of his judgment. However, it would have been political suicide to take any other position and was extremely expedient to do so. Claiming that this was a brave moral act and contrasting himself with Mrs. Clinton's "injudicious" vote as a senator to authorize the war strains credibility and echoes the dishonesty of his "I didn't hear it in the pew" excuse. In fact, the true nature of Mr. Obama's intentions serves to undermine the moral purity of his anti-war posture, especially since it is the major device he uses to distinguish himself from Mrs. Clinton.
By his own late-in-coming admission, Mr. Obama's judgment was in hiding during his dealings with Mr. Rezko, as well, and recently, when his "typical white person" remark provided yet another insight into his judgment. His "present" votes in the Illinois legislature and lack of activity in the U.S. Senate have allowed Mr. Obama to escape the dangerous political pigeonhole and is an further evidence of the one thing Mr. Obama has managed masterfully; his own political ambition.
Mr. Obama uses sophistry (which many mistake for eloquence), a form of dishonesty, to avoid taking responsibility for his actions and assumes a holier-than-thou posture that is more Teflon than tincture. And what is even more distressing and damaging to the American public are the reams of wool pulled over the eyes of big-mouthed media pundits who are more punt than prophesy.
Scary.
It was the moment in history where it could happen that a man would become a dictator and wreck havoc on others and destroy his own country and people.
This moment in history occurred because of new technologies. The microphone, radio and film created an image in the german people of their leader that made him bigger, more superior than he was. All image. Those factors are at work today. The internet and media and our culture have combined to propel a dangerous man to the height of leadership.
Like I said - the german people were good people.
Like progressive Democrats are good people.
There are terrible unintended consequences for the religious left to be taking over the Democratic Party.
Those of us who are moderates in the party are concerned. I think there are many reasons to be concerned.
History does repeat itself - in time. So when you all tell me that it is a moment in time for your great leader Obama to enter stage left. I think - I will watch and listen very carefully for signs of history repeating itself.
We will grow to dislike Obama and fear him because of his attitude toward us.
I really think a better fit for him in his quest for ascension is King of Kenya.
I also have seen from the beginning, the media's inability to show us any balance in their reporting of this primary campaign. I think it began with Obama getting Imus fired from NBC and CBS. I noticed it was ABC with the courage to investigate and release the Rev Wright tapes.
I see Obama as a modern day con man. I think the Democratic party is getting mugged and then being told we are the suckers. We are being told it is our own fault for getting mugged by this con man.
I deeply resent the media setting Obama up as our next President and excluding the democratic voters. The media seem so afraid to do anything but mouth Obama talking points.
America feels like a dictatorship already. Others say - how could it be worse than Bush? I say - Yes Obama Can - be worse than McCain. I will protest with my vote in the General.
I will do whatever I need to so that the media cannot say - Meet Dictator Obama of the United States of America.
Llikewise, you argue that because Wright asserted in sermons that Jesus was betrayed by his own people, that makes him a antisemite. How can that be when the statement centers on the fact that the Christian savior was also Jewisish? This is something that one regularly hears in churches not as a means of assigning blame to Jews but rather as a way of asserting that rejection by family, friends, or countrymen is the price that one must pay when one speaks one's own truth.
So if you're going to keep arguing for Hillary feel free, but try not to embarrass yourself or your candidate by at least making the effort to ground what you say in fact.
"Words are the means to achieve..."
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Stand up and say - "The End"
This is a battle for common sense.
Also interesting, that the author laments that Geraldine Ferraro had her whole life's work reduced to one comment, perhaps like Rev. Wright's entire 30+ years of sermons were reduced to 30 seconds?
Or maybe we could just go with the how dumb this argument is given the fact that Clinton is actually a proven liar (Bosnia).
But I guess if reality is not an issue then this article makes perfect sense.
Seems all the Caucus Kid has is a lot of "If I had not dogdged that vote, I might, maybe, possibly have done soething".
They aren't.
It's really very simple.
Race is his bully card.
I'm not interested in further media circus about this; it just elevates the gossip-mongering above thoughtful weighing of a candidate's career performance or public policy platform. The end result is careless, sloppy thinking that leads to very flawed conclusions, with no room for nuance or complexity -- and we get someone in office like George Bush whose hotline to The Almighty outweighed his mental liabilities.
Rev. Wright is not running for president, and I personally do not believe Obama is so malleable that he cannot navigate the complexities of relationships and the imperfections of people without any capacity for discernment. I am very much afraid that we've arrived at a point where the public now demands that a candidate MUST jettison a CHURCH, or personal relationship that is somehow deemed unsuitable. It might be Rev. Wright's political statements one day, but YOUR pastor's views another if those didn't just suit my tastes.
I do not care to play this game of Thought Police or Church Lady.