Wright has been consistent, and Obama has proven to be precisely what everyone feared—just another cheap empty suit, willing to say or do anything according to the requirements of the polls.
1
CY-
"...just another cheap empty suit, willing to say or do anything according to the requirements of the polls."
If that were the case, Obama would have thrown Wright under the bus in Philly. To me, that's strong evidence that he won't just "say anything." At least not all the time, or on this topic.
Posted by: Craig at April 29, 2008 05:01 PM (0MZfd)
2
So it's still okay to lynch during the middle of a ministry? Glad that's clear.
Posted by: Sobek at April 29, 2008 05:26 PM (6GK9U)
3
I think it's refreshing that Obama is willing to state that Wright is crazy.
I don't want to punish him for saying what's good and true.
I gotta punish what's bad and praise what's good. Obama said the correct thing, and he deserves praise for it. Rev Wright's claims are evil and bonkers.
Posted by: brando at April 29, 2008 05:44 PM (LXoqQ)
4
Please that is not the reason he didn't throw him under originally. He was hoping to avoid that at all costs.
Posted by: cv at April 29, 2008 05:55 PM (GmamD)
5
Isn't it just a gift from the Gods that the Rev. Wright seemed to give Obama this great seconds chance to have that conversation on race.
What BS !!
Frankly, the whole thing felt fishy from the beginning. Making it worse was the effort to blame Clinton for setting up the Nation Press Club affair where Wright could oh so well re-self destruct. But, of course, it would be topped off by Obama's attempt at a Sister Soulja Moment.
Only a political novice would ever believe that this was a coincidence. Even Karl Rove isn't this obvious.
The whole thing is just too easy that it stinks to high heaven.
And, of course, it still doesn't explain why Obama sat in Trinity UCC for 20 years ?
Posted by: Neo at April 29, 2008 06:04 PM (Yozw9)
6
And, of course, it still doesn't explain why Obama sat in Trinity UCC for 20 years ?
Posted by: Neo
Well he tells you why in his book!
Obama said today of Rev. Wright: "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
Obama's recollection in Dreams from My Father of his first time at Trinity United 20 years ago:
The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel—the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before her God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope….
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphereÂ…That's the world! On which hope sits!"
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. As the sermon unfolded, though, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate. The reverend spoke of the hardship that the congregation would face tomorrow, the pain of those far from the mountaintop, worrying about paying the light billÂ…
Posted by: LH at April 29, 2008 06:16 PM (WJDFy)
7
There are two possible explanations for Obama's throwing Wright under the bus today:
1) Obama is so naive and clueless that he had no idea that his spiritual mentor of the last 20 years was a fan of Farrakhan, thought the US government created the AIDS virus, and called the USA the US-KKK-A.
2) Obama knew who Wright was and what he believed, but hung onto Wright and his support as long as it was remotely defensible; but when the "it was all sound bites" defense was demolished by at least one of Wright's speeches being carried on live TV, Obama reacted like the politician Wright said he was, and did what he had to do to maintain even a small possibility of being elected.
Neither one looks very good for Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 29, 2008 07:08 PM (RP0Mk)
8
"If that were the case, Obama would have thrown Wright under the bus in Philly."
There's ALWAYS another bus.
Posted by: Dave at April 29, 2008 07:53 PM (Cv59z)
9
Obama once again lied to our faces and not only that but he lied so badly that he obviously thinks Americans are complete and total idiots, who cant put 1 and 1 together and come up with 2.
Not only did he lie but he has added another layer of disgust by those who thought he would be somewhat of what he advertized....and that is "different" than any other weak politician and forsaked a life long mentor and friend....a guy who "he" said was like family.....and for what....for rants and comments that Obama has been listening to for 20 years on a weekly basis.
I suppose when you have near 90% of the African American votes then you can pander at will to the white folk and not worry about it.
Obama does not have my vote...ever.
Posted by: Drider at April 29, 2008 08:46 PM (IQAbf)
10
Well, BO's followers sure remind me of the gang following Brian all over the valley. Tens of thousands shouting in perfect union.
"You're all different!"
- "Yes! We're all different!"
- Keith Olbermann saying, "I say you're the Messiah and I should know, I've followed a few."
Posted by: tsmonk at April 29, 2008 09:02 PM (j0chB)
11
That photo creeps me out--more than his other ones do, at any rate.
Posted by: baldilocks at April 29, 2008 09:07 PM (+p46f)
12
I'm not sure what creeos me out the most:
-Snobama followers chanting "change"
-The media offering up sacrficies to Obama
-Wright's ravings and his supporters bellowing
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 29, 2008 10:28 PM (LHaZf)
13
Interestingly, there has been speculation by Newt Gingrich that Wright may be intentionally going 'over the top' to damage the Obama-mama. See
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/gingrich-wright.html
Makes you wonder if he my/may not be in Hitlery's pay? 30 pieces of silver anyone?
Posted by: Big Country at April 29, 2008 11:19 PM (62pYV)
14
I agree with both your possibilites C-C-G but think there is a third.
3) Obama knew what Wright thought and said and agreed with it. Despite his fairly cushy upbringing Obama believes deeply in black liberation theology, that whitey is evil, that the USA is evil, that even in moderm America blacks are opressed, that Israel is an apartheid state, that the US liberators of Iraq are no different that the Romans who tortured Jesus etc. etc.
Even adding this possibility, there are still no go options for BHO.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 12:20 AM (2wI6h)
15
There's ALWAYS another bus.
.. but you really have to admit that the Rev. Wright seems to have paid for this bus himself .. or did he ?
Didn't the Rev. make this oh soooo easy by conviently re-self destructing at the National Press Club ? So easy that one could thing that it was a setup job with Wright taking a dive for Obama's benefit.
If not, then the ultimate question is .. does it always take Obama 20 years to really size up the people he deals with ?
I like my Presidents to do it in less than 8 years .. better yet .. in less than 4 years.
Posted by: Neo at April 30, 2008 07:37 AM (Yozw9)
16
Grrrrrrrrrrrr, your option 3 is implicit in my option 2.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 07:46 AM (RP0Mk)
17
Doesn't Obama have to deny him three times before he can be properly crucified?
Posted by: Neo at April 30, 2008 08:24 AM (Yozw9)
18
Please don't say "Hitlery". It detracts from your point. That's just not her name.
Posted by: brando at April 30, 2008 08:29 AM (qzOby)
19
There was someone(Geraghty?) over at National Review that suggested that the best way for Obama to handle Wright was to have Wright say something so radical in public that it would strecth the imagination to believe that Obama beleived it, and then for Obama to say, "Enough! That is not th ePastor I sat under for 20!" and denounce Wright completely.
Sounds like Obama reads National Review....
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 30, 2008 09:01 AM (ogM0d)
20
Should read:
"the pastor I sat under for 20 years"
Posted by: A Sheepish Grey Fox at April 30, 2008 09:07 AM (ogM0d)
21
"when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans."
Well no they didnt "rightly offend all Americans". In fact I heard a bunch of people clap and chear when the Rev. said that. Does that make those people who claped not Americans? Did Obama just question the patriotism of his entire church, many Democrats, and 2/3 of the media?
Posted by: Web at April 30, 2008 12:18 PM (92wJc)
22
So, either:
1. Obama is a leftist who pretty much agrees with Wright, Ayers, et al, and after trying to avoid it had to finally publicly distance himself because his electoral chances were in jeopardy--pretty much as Wright said in noting that Obama is a politician; OR
2. Obama was clueless for 20 years about what Wright was saying and doing, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary such as keeping Wright out of his announcing his presidential run, and material in his (Obama's) books, etc.; OR
3. Obama WAS a leftist, etc., and suddenly "saw the light" and honestly changed what he is all about.
Doesn't matter, tho; any way I parse it, I can't take him seriously as a responsible adult, let alone a President.
Posted by: Marty at April 30, 2008 12:40 PM (3Vake)
23
Why do I get the feeling I'm reading about Wright/Obama in the context of Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold"?
Posted by: Mark at April 30, 2008 01:19 PM (4od5C)
24
I do not think I am alone in feeling Sen. Obama could have said, when this first appeared, "I disagree with some of his views, but my respect for him and his achievements allows me to continue to hear his arguments."
Instead, we heard "I never heard him say any of that," followed by "I never paid attention," through "I do not think his views unusual," to "I only knew this man twenty years ago for a little while, the last nineteen-plus years were just a dream." [actual quote "The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said.]
Posted by: teqjack at April 30, 2008 04:39 PM (CEphM)
25
Obammy would have to struggle mightily to achieve the testicular fortitude of an empty suit. He is rather, an empty dry cleaners bag; weightless, colorless; a husk one might fill with anything but it presents a choking hazard. He declares himself post-racial while larding up an opulent golden parachute for this vile racist loon. And of course there is more and worse to come, Obamoids. Much more and much MUCH worse. If Wright is Barry's garlic, Rezko is holy water and sunlight combined. Best hold on to your smelling salts. For those subscribing to a Kanye West level of seriousness (most Dems), there is far greater and pernicious evidence that Barry don't like white people than there is that Bush don't like black people. This self-righteous twerp is poison. Better Hillary over him, not that it is likely to come to that.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 05:24 PM (LF+qW)
26
Mega, don't forget Bill Ayers. I suspect McCain is holding back some stuff to use on the Obamamessiah during the general election.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 06:52 PM (RP0Mk)
27
Didn't have time to read the comments....
Yes, Obama only had one honest choice, but it is one he and the media and I guess the Democrat party refuse to take ----- that would be sticking by their beliefs and engaging in a heated open debate about the true nature of the United States in the world and for the American people.
Rev. Wright's worst comments play worse than what the average Dem intellecutal and pseudo-intellectual would say, but they really don't have much of a difference in opinions. Too many active liberals view American history, and the society today, and say we have a systemic problem - a rotten core - that cause most everything we do to be bad or wrongheaded (or at best, not good enough to give a thumbs up).
With the war in Iraq and things still going on in Afghanistan and with the inmates down in Cuba and with how Bush came into office in 2000, you would think the liberals would have enough confidence to stand tall and proud and call out the conservatives to face off in a wide open debate about the evil or good in the US as a nation.
But they are clearly too scared to engage openly in the debate, because they know they will not win over the bulk of the American people.
So, Obama has to cover and deny and the media has to shield him instead of standing up for what they believe.
Posted by: usinkorea at April 30, 2008 09:48 PM (Ldw99)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
