The All-White Elephant in the Room

I think this article brings up a very interesting and valid point. Although I am not one to subscribe to the notion of extreme guilt by association (which makes us all guilty of something) I have noticed that the Rev. Wright controversy has become a media spectacle for some time now to Obama's detriment. Some media figures more or less have said he hasn't denounced him "enough" or "properly" which to me is a very odd complaint. I've recently seen articles tying Obama to a poet from the 60-70's that wrote some very controversial poetry on the issues of politics and race in America at that time. He is now called a communist based on loose facts.

This in spite of the fact that the other candidates have equally controversial figures that they would call friends if not associates.

As the article rightly states:


I can accept this.

Why then is the Obama/Wright issue such a powerful factor in this right?

- Lee

Well, for one thing, just about the time that the Wright outrage had died down and Obama had assuaged the situation with his speech on racial relations, etc., Wright burst back upon the scene with his publicity tour making statements that continued the outrage and trashed Obama to the point that Obama did what he had not to that point, which is to denounce the Reverend as a racially divisive figure and to distance himself from him almost completely.

So far as I know, Hagee limits his rants to to the pulpit and to interpretations of the bible.

[edit on 2008/5/4 by GradyPhilpott]

I personally believe that there isn't much "dirt" on Obama. I think that there hasn't been a good angle of attack other than his lack of experience. I believe that the reason for this IS because of his lack of experience. Had he been in politics much longer I am sure better connections to shady individuals, lobbyists, or other scandals could be made but as it stands this...Rev. Wright...seems to be all the media has.

They are really working it ad nauseam.

Religious leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (the latter of the two once called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez on public television) also blamed America for 9-11 as Wright did. They blamed segments of the population (gays, feminists, ACLU), but in general it is the same sort of blame. Both have ties to McCain.

You see where this is going?

I have simply come to the belief that Obama/Wright media circus is a last ditch effort to stop his momentum because there isn't enough politically scandalous ammunition to use. Knowing this it is difficult to get "worked up" over anything Wright says. As a soon to be Independent voter, it wouldn't stop me for voting for him anymore than Falwell would stop my McCain vote (although Hillary's outright Sniper-lies turned me off completely and I wonder how that was so easily blown off), however I do see something very foul in the media handling of this Wright issue.

After hearing the rest of the fiery and controversial sermon and not just media hyped sound bytes, I honestly do not think it is a big deal at all really.

- Lee

I think that if you have a fairly significant and lengthy affiliation with a nut-ball, people have the right to question whether you're a nut-ball yourself.

Uhh...don't forget national television and public radio.



Even if Hagee said it only at his Church does it even matter WHERE someone condemns America for 9-11 or calls Catholics evil? How is it okay for one forum or venue and not the other?

I don't believe Wright has the same sort of television broadcasting deal. I had never even heard of him before this.

Either way...Wrights controversial rant was behind the pulpit and NOT made for national television. Segments of sound bytes were USED for national television by the media. Although I agree Wright's recent press addresses did nothing to help him or Obama and shown him to be somewhat of an attention-seeker. All the more reason for me NOT to take him seriously.

Obama has said enough about what he feels for Wright at this point yet the issue still rages on. Further and more controversial connections to individuals of his past are being sought after and their action are loosely if not outright blamed on Obama.


- Lee

I agree and never said anyone did not have the right to question. They should.

This to me though has gone beyond a simple question and answer session. I bet I could find this on the news right now if I search. It is continual and non-stop.

So my questions are:

If it is a simple matter of an answer then what answer/denouncement would satisfy the public?

Why are the same question (in the same manner and length) not being asked of the other candidates who also are connected to "nut balls" by the media?

- Lee

Trying to compare Obama's relationship with wright, to Maccains relationship with hagee doesnt pass muster.
Hagee gave McCain an endorsement.
McCain didnt however sit in Hagee church for twenty years while the men spewed bile, hatred, racism, and evil.

Obama is a snake-oil salesman who can not be trusted. He claims to be a "new kind of politician who will unite us" yet the only person in the race who has an actual verifiable history of taking bipartisan actions that go against his side, is John McCain.

Pastor Hagee is a nut case who asks people to believe some pretty unbelievale ideas. Calling the Roman Catholic Church the "whore of Babylon" is not a way to win Catholic hearts and minds. He preaches his own kind of hate, though he bases his theories on the Bible. McCain seems happy for his support, which would imply he has some sympathy for Hagee's views on say, abortion and evolution, and that should be taken into account by those who vote for him.

Rev. Wright is likewise a nut case who also asks people to believe some pretty incredible things. He was also the leader of a black separatist church for many years and an influence on Obama. Black separatism has its roots in American history and is understandable to me, but it is unworkable for a person who seeks to represent all the people of the United States and not just African Americans. It seems Obama is too "white" for Wright and so he has become a detriment to Obama. I believe Obama has chosen the path of aspiring to lead all Americans. I just hope he's not too late.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by Sestias]

So accepting someones endorsement of you, implies that you have some sympathy for their views.



But spending 20 years listening to them preach doesnt?

Saywhat?

And how exactly do you know what he spewed for twenty years, were you a church member? Did you hear a few sound bytes and come to this conclusion? Did you even listen to the sermon in it's entirety?

Even the sound bytes aren't as dramatic as you make them out to be in my opinion. I think your spouting a bit of rhetoric and propaganda here but the article itself addresses your point and Hagee's own bigotry:



From the New York Times article in original post.
My bold and snips.

- Lee

Nope, but that was the case being made when Minister Farrakhan did the same for Obama.

Obama has denounced both Wright AND Farrakhan while McCain who is aware of the hate filled words of Hagee (and Robertson's condemnation of America) has not done so.

Why not?

- Lee

WRONG.

The Trinity Church is NOT a Black separatist Church. It has White, Hispanic, and Asian members and is in no way based on hatred just dealing with issues of race in America. I have never attended this church (or much of any for that matter) but I like to do my own research before banging my fist down and passing judgment with casual rationalized ease based on 3 minutes of video or less.

Speaking of the White members of the church...here is one of them in the Chicago Tribune with an interesting tale:


My snips and bolds.

Gee...what a bigot!!

I know I know..it's not what most people want to hear as I can see most would rather attack than critically think and try to understand the issue. Most of you have no clue what you're talking about because you are being fed the story they want you to know as opposed to the truth.

This is why most people would rather drone on endlessly about Obama as anti-Christ/communist/terrorist for countless pages instead of commenting on the facts and media biases I am presenting here.

The reality is not as fun I suppose.

- Lee

I'm not basing the idea hes a bigot on "three minute clips" but on his hour long interview at the press club. He's a bigot, and a loony leftist one at that.

People on this board prefer a discussion over your typical mudslinging shown on other political boards. By using the term "loony leftists" you have marginalized around about half the board members before you have gotten to know them. Maybe you will learn to be more specific.
Welcome to my temporary foe and ignore list.

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

---

There's more than just his most recent rantings... He has a long history of similar sentiments described within his own books.

On the issue of his association with Obama, I'm confused why people think this an irrelevant line of inquiry. The guy married Obama, baptized his kids, and Obama even credits and borrows lines from Wright in one of his own books.

For the candidate of "something different", I think this whole debacle exposes Obama as "more of the same"...


reply to post by lee anoma

---

From the Trinity United Church of Christ... Talking Points.



When you look at Cone's stuff (and even more of Wright's stuff). I think it's very hard to argue there ain't no there, there.

Just my $0.02.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by loam]

What mudslinging. The guys a nut.



I was specific, hes a loony leftist.
Hes nuts, as his "ideas" show, and he comes from a very far left perspective.

But if your skin is that thin, im glad you put me on ignore, I dont debate or discuss with wusses.

Would you mind going into the specifics of this?
Which book are you referring to and is it one you've read?

I am not disputing his comments being perceived as inflammatory even though some of it sounds like the conspiracy ideas thrown around on this very site! All of the religious figures I mentioned tend to be a bit egotistic and controversial and I see no real difference in them save the degree to which they attempt to shock.

I think though you miss my point. Again this isn't simply a harmless "line of inquiry" (which is fine as I have already said) it has intense media focus in spite of how and when Obama addressed the issue on numerous occassions.

McCain associates and embraces religious leaders guilty of the same thing.
I am wondering why THAT is not such an issue or one that has the same level of attention and focus.

Thanks,

- Lee

reply to post by lee anoma

---

I'm a little confused by the logic that because McCain is getting away with his "associations", Obama should as well.

I care little which side of the political fence this issue may be found. The unevenness of the standard as applied by the MSM is certainly a problem, but is not one that justifies the argument that Obama's affiliations should remain unquestioned.

(BTW, on your other question, see my edit above.)




[edit on 5-5-2008 by loam]

Again.
20 years of listening to comments like "blacks and whites clap differently" 20 years of listening to comments like " blacks and whites learn differently" 20 years of listening to comments like "the US gov created aids to kill blacks".
Do you not understand the difference between someone who seeks an endorsement for purely political reasons and someone who volutarily spends 20 years listening to a wackadoo, and then makes that nutjob his spiritual advisor?