Wednesday, April 30, 2008
I'm Just Curious
Why do we think that's not the case?
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Apr 30, 09:33:00 AM:
Maybe the candidate is a liberal or a minority and is given another free pass?
By , at
Wed Apr 30, 09:36:00 AM:
The commentary on MSNBC after Obama's speech was so biased that it was almost embarrassing. I usually don't go for the whole liberal media bias thing, but it was impossible not to see this. Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews were waxing rhapsodic about how the speech would go down as a historic moment in American politics, etc. After Pat Robertson asked (very nicely) whether this new turn perhaps created a credibility problem for Obama, he was not heard from again.
By 
Georg Felis, at
Wed Apr 30, 10:13:00 AM:
As no great friend of Obama, let me take a shot at answering your question.
If I were a candidate for office X, I certainly hope that the political opinions of my preacher, my barber, my neighbors, and my fellow employees would not be taken as the 100% representation of my own ideas.
And I can provide an example that you can not argue with. Christopher Chambers is a friend of Tigerhawk. But if I were to point to one of many opinions from CC that I disagree with, or a soundbite that has certain overtones and attempt translate that into “Tigerhawk believes X because CC believes X”, my argument would have no basis. Why? Because people we live and work with every day have opinions we disagree with. Obama tried to point that out with his Cobern coment and got creamed for it:
“The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.”
This was a legitimate comparison for him to make. If you somebody you spend at most a half-hour listening to once a week is going to influence your decisions, then why don’t you think somebody you work with daily is going to influence your decisions?
By , at
Wed Apr 30, 10:54:00 AM:
Obama seems to surround himself with anti-Americans. Look at his wife. She spouts a similar poison to Jeremiah Wright. Does anyone think Barack Obama has not given her the green light to do so? Look at William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, proud revolutionary socialists. Yet, he says they don't speak for him or reflect his beliefs. Someone is delusional or a liar.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Apr 30, 11:18:00 AM:
You can't choose who you work with. You can choose what church you attend. And putting up with a racist, conspiracy theorist co-worker is worlds away from befriending them, praying with them for two decades, and having them marry you and your wife.
He said it himself, remember? "I can no more disavow this man than I can disavow the black community."
By Escort81, at
Wed Apr 30, 01:35:00 PM:
Why do we think that's not the case?
Perhaps because Americans are very forgiving and understanding most of the time, perhaps to a fault. Americans weren't willing to have their elected representatives force a POTUS from office ten years ago for sex near the oval office (hummers while on the phone talking about foreign policy, impressive multitasking, that) and lies under oath about sex. If the economy had been tanking right around that time, maybe a different scenario, who knows? But we cut our politicians a fair amount of slack, unless they are perceived as huge hypocrites (see Spitzer).
Whether or not Senator Obama is ultimately successful in his bid for the presidency, what he did yesterday in characterizing Rev. Wright's NPC Q&A as a "rant" -- and doing so in clear terms and with some specificity as I guessed he might -- was an invaluable service. The African American community needs a national political leader that is willing to make a clean break with the wild conspiracy theories that do nothing but reinforce the politics of victimization. It is one thing to understand and appreciate how hard life is for many urban blacks -- and it certainly is, as Obama knows from his time as a "community organizer" in Chicago -- and quite another to blame the situation, even in part, on unprovable assertions of government conspiracies. Enough bad things have happened to African-Americans on this continent, and there is no need (and in fact it is highly counterproductive) to make stuff up, particularly at a point in time when real progress has been and is being made, and the last segregationist generation is dying off.
Yesterday, Obama put himself more in the camp of Bill Cosby-oriented solutions and less in the Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson camp of old-school tactics. It is possible that a page was turned in AA politics. The audience at the NPC was largely receptive to Rev. Wright -- he treated them like his choir, putting his hand to his ear as he said, "you reap what you ...," audience response, "sow," in responding to the question about 9/11 and chickens coming home to roost. Obama desevers some credit for trying to restore some degree of sanity and adult supervision, even if he did so out of political expediency, and even if Wright's statements at the NPC were reiterations of previous statements that Obama knew about at some point in time. He sent a message to all of the people (black and white) who had basically been saying, "what's so bad about what Rev. Wright said?," and let them know that the Obama vision of America does not comport with that rhetoric.
Now, it may be that Obama's primary motivation for making his remarks was that he felt disrespected by his pastor, but whatever his reasons were, I see it as a small but notable net plus for the long term political health of the country.
It would be interesting to know what discussions, if any, Obama had with his wife Michelle before going in front of the cameras to make his remarks. I am going to guess she was pretty upset with Wright and also felt disrespected, along with Axelrod and the rest of the campaign staff.
DF82 - There's no question that Obama exercised poor judgment in the past by having a close association with Wright. He's now acknowledged as much (perhaps too little, too late to win in Nov., but he still wins the Democratic nomination, I believe). This does not help his pitch of "trust my judgment, even if I seemingly lack experience." Small nit, ultimately (unless you are in the military), you can choose who you work with, you can always vote with your feet. And, yeah, the Dohrn/Ayers connection bothers me -- the most benign interpretation of it is that's what you have to do to be a successful politician on the South Side of Chicago, but it certainly stretches the definition of radical chic.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Apr 30, 01:53:00 PM:
"Small nit, ultimately (unless you are in the military), you can choose who you work with, you can always vote with your feet."
Yeah, I sometimes forget that civilians can do things like that.
By , at
Wed Apr 30, 02:45:00 PM:
Perhaps because we judge candidates based on their positions, not the positions of others in their lives. Having a racist uncle doesn't mean you are racist, even when you don't vote with your feet, because other bonds on other issues might tie two people together. (And presumably the racism issue is noted by you and not taken as serious good advice.) The person who helps you come to Jesus does a deep meaningful service to you, or at least in your eyes, and such a bond is not to be repudiated lightly; better to have a tenuous and condition union than none at all.
Had Obama thrown Wright under a bus for purposes of political expediency, he would have been reamed for that too. Don't damn the man in the catch-22 for being there, damn him based on HIS words and actions.
By Escort81, at
Wed Apr 30, 03:44:00 PM:
DF82 -
My father loved the guys he served with aboard DE220 (he is second from the right, back row), but one of the happiest days of his life was in October, 1945, when he boarded a northbound train to Philly from Miami, where his ship had put in to port shortly after V-J Day (they had been headed to the Panama Canal to serve picket duty in the Pacific Theater, after being part of hunter/killer groups chasing down U-boats in the Atlantic). Civilian life awaited, although he stayed in the reserves until 1957 (cruises to Bermuda were not so bad).
By randian, at
Wed Apr 30, 06:59:00 PM:
"Having a racist uncle doesn't mean you are racist, even when you don't vote with your feet, because other bonds on other issues might tie two people together."
This is a strawman. Wright isn't Obama's uncle, he's Obama's pastor. You can and should judge people on their voluntary associations.
"Had Obama thrown Wright under a bus for purposes of political expediency, he would have been reamed for that too."
Are you blind? Obama did exactly that. Obama continued to support Wright long after Wright's bigotry was unearthed. What I want to know is whether or not Obama has stopped attending worship services at Wright's church. Is Obama's denunciation only skin deep?
"Don't damn the man in the catch-22 for being there, damn him based on HIS words and actions.
"
Ok. Obama is an inveterate Marxist, steeped in divisive interest-group politics, speaks much but says nothing, and has deep associations with bigots and thugs. That should be damning enough for anybody.
By , at
Wed Apr 30, 07:10:00 PM:
The Democrats really know how to pick 'em, don't they? Obama isn't alone is his unfortunate associations, since Hillary has funky findraisers, foreign governments giving her money, shady deals, criminal acts, the Chicago 7 and Back Panthers of her own in the past. Nearly every day, one can read stories, like this one, detailing some wierd association of her own.
The strange thing is she's sort of innoculated from effect, by the very frequency of stories about her, while Obama gets into serious political trouble by association with his neighborhood radicals and an egomaniacal racist minister. At least, he would say, Rezko has disappeared off everyone's radar.
By , at
Wed Apr 30, 10:20:00 PM:
Anon: If I were a candidate for office X, I certainly hope that the political opinions of my preacher, my barber, my neighbors, and my fellow employees would not be taken as the 100% representation of my own ideas.
Obama is asserting his personal judgment, free will, and right to speak for himself. This assertion is made against those who believe people are automatons programmed by others around them, whether directly or through 17 years of osmosis. Individualism used to be a conservative value. But this year Righties have bought into the "society made me what I am" argument when it comes to Obama and his church.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 01, 12:15:00 AM:
Rubbish.
If I attended a church where the minister preached about the evils of the United States, damning it and saying that we as a nation deserved to be slaughtered by Islamist bastards, I would get up and walk out and never return. Ever.
It's not so fucking much to ask that someone who wants to be PRESIDENT have the same level of decency.
But no, because this matters to me, there's something wrong with ME. My thinking is flawed. How dare I hold a candidate for Commander in Chief to the same standard that I hold myself.
If I had the same associations as Obama (arms trafficking foreign national, hate mongerer, domestic terrorist) my clearance would be revoked. I'd be out of a job, possibly removed from the Army entirely. Depending on what I knew and when I knew it, I might even be up for a court martial.
And I'm just a soldier. He wants to be *President.*
By Escort81, at
Thu May 01, 12:45:00 AM:
DF82 - Then please be careful about the people you associate with, because I don't think they provide laptops or Wifi in Ft. Leavenworth. We would miss your postings if you were busy playing rock hockey and watching your back in the showers.
Obviously, though, the Commander in Chief is held to a different standard -- if Bill Clinton had been Col. Clinton and Monica had been Private Lewinsky, isn't it true that Col. Clinton would have been discharged? It doesn't seem fair, but the Commander in Chief is always a elected civilian and therefore not subject to the UCMJ.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu May 01, 12:53:00 AM:
If Obama just had one such association, it might not mean much. But, looking at his voluntary associations with SO MANY anti-American and/or racist, bigotted people, you have to start questioning his judgement. Like you tell kids - you become known by those you choose to associate with. Hang out with punks and thugs, and people will think you are one, too. Hang out with a bunch of upstanding citizens, that's what people will think of you - the people you CHOOSE to be around means something. And I don't like what Obama is saying by the kinds of people he chooses to hang with, from his anti-American wife, to his preacher, to Ayers. That type of person has NO business as the president of these United States.
By , at
Thu May 01, 06:39:00 PM:
I hate to keep harping on this, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "repeatedly articulated and defended bigotted commentary about Jews"? I wouldn't be surprised if he said something outrageous, but you have a hyperlink there and I can't see anything about the Jews in that speech except the following:
MODERATOR: You have likened Israeli policies to apartheid and its treatment of Palestinians with Native Americans. Can you explain your views on Israel?
WRIGHT: Where did I liken them to that? Whoever wrote the question, tell me where I likened them.
Jimmy Carter called it apartheid. Jeremiah Wright didn't liken anything to anything. My position on Israel is that Israel has a right to exist, that Israelis have a right to exist, as I said, reconciled one to another.
Have you read the Link? Do you read the Link, Americans for Middle Eastern Understanding, where Palestinians and Israelis need to sit down and talk to each other and work out a solution where their children can grow in a world together, and not be talking about killing each other, that that is not God's will?
My position is that the Israel and the people of Israel be the people of God who are worrying about reconciliation and who are trying to do what God wants for God's people, which is reconciliation.
Is this what you mean by bigotted commentary about the Jews? I must be missing something, or have a really thick skin.
By , at
Mon May 05, 06:40:00 AM:
The difference is that not that Wright supported Obama. It is that Obama supported Wright.
Obama, can this really be the friend that you respected and protected until the bitter end?
