Why I want to believe Obama

and why it would be foolish to do so

By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in | | | | Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I didn't watch Obama's speech live - I am focused on his opponent these days - but I have read the transcript. And I will confess that part of me really wants to believe that Obama is the candidate for our times. A part of me really wants to see him succeed.

It isn't white guilt, but rather a hope - there is that word again - that it might truly symbolize something in this country. And there are parts of his speech that are true and beautiful and worth saying. Clearly Obama is a talented and skillful speaker and politician.

But in the end I can't support Obama and believe his election would be wrong for America. Not because of some latent racism or hyper-partisanship. Not because his pastor spews hateful rhetoric or his wife's often bizarre statements.

No, I can't support Obama because behind his lofty rhetoric and obvious political skills is just another boring big government liberal who believes that compassion and justice flow through the federal government; that there is no problem that can't be solved with a government program.

For more read on.

I am about as white as one can get. Oh sure, I have some Native American roots, but I grew up in a middle class home in small town America among Dutch Reformed church goers eating pot roast and tuna casserole in my ranch style house. Ethic food to me was the thrill of eating a burrito with my mom at a bar/restaurant ( knowing my dad would heartily disapprove of such an establishment). The closest I got to ethnic music was listing to The Fiddler on the Roof.

I didn't grow up around a lot of obvious racism or racial tension, perhaps because there just weren't that many African Americans in my community. I didn’t have any strong feelings about race because I didn’t deal with it as part of my daily life. Thus to me, the issue of race was mostly an academic issue or part of the culture war.

I resented being called a racist and having my political views denigrated unfairly. But in the world of identity politics I had little leverage. Maybe if my Native American blood wasn't so diluted by inter-marriage I could have laid claim to some victimhood (and maybe gotten a scholarship).

My response to such accusations often seemed lame to even me: but I like Dr. J not Larry Bird; Tiger Woods not Phil Mickelson; I idolize Lynn Swan; I enjoy blues and jazz and am ignorant about classical music; etc. I was left to say that I wasn't racist because I cheered for black entertainers and sports stars. At least I didn't try "Some of my best friends are black."

But politics always interfered. I was accused of having a backpack of privilege or whatever. I supported Reagan and disliked Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I thought OJ was guilty. I supported welfare reform and opposed reparations for slavery. I thought Affirmative Action had plainly gone awry. I found rap music offensive and disturbing.

For a moment Obama seemed like someone who could break this cycle. Not that he would explicitly repudiate Sharpton or Jesse Jackson but that he would simply move past it. Like Tiger Woods he would acknowledge the past but by nature of his unique heritage refuse to be defined by it.

I wanted to believe in the possibility of a post-racial candidate. Someone who was running on a theme that wasn't explicitly racial or coalitional.

Obama's rhetoric about telling voters what they needed to hear not just what they wanted to hear sounded good. His idea that American's could still come together and work on problems and address issues without bitterness and rancor sounded good. And let's face it, it wouldn’t be bad to have a politician who was good with words and gave interesting speeches.

It seemed for a moment that Obama could mean not just that we could put the saga of the Clintons behind us, but that we could get a fresh start on race as well. Not that we would put it behind us completely or that we would all just start singing Kumbaya, but that race would be just a part of the mix not a determining factor.

I wanted to believe that we could have a politician who united the country instead of dividing it until he had a plurality.

I wanted a leader that wasn't controversial; who didn't cause sputtering of rage or convoluted conspiracy theories.

Just for a moment I thought maybe Obama could be a leader - not perfect or even my preference but a leader American could feel comfortable about.

I don't know how much these type of feelings are echoed by Obama fans around the country. I don't know how many people saw his speech, or read it, and allowed these feelings to convince them that he had this ability; that he was this type of leader.

But despite these hopes, I know that if Obama were to be elected it would be bad for America. Not disastrous, but damaging.

Why? Because Obama’s often inspiring and entertaining rhetoric belies his strikingly conventional liberal politics. His calls for coming together and changing politics clash with his leftist policies that offer nothing but more of the same liberal solutions that have been offered before.

In the end Obama is an empty symbol. On health care, education, entitlement reform, taxes, energy, and host of other issues his policies are not creative or unique in any way. They offer nothing but more government spending and regulation; more power in Washington and less for individuals.

What is the connection between Obama’s liberal policies and his inspirational post-racial persona? The former reminds you that the later is just wishful thinking. Politics is about conflict and about coalitions; about the art of the possible. When it comes to the details of public policy Obama is wrong on practically every issue across the board.

In the end Obama isn’t some brave leader speaking truth to power but a conventional liberal with an interesting story and a way with words. He wants you to live vicariously through his rhetoric and believe that emotions can trump substance; that something that makes you feel good can solve problems.

It would be one thing if Obama as symbol of a post-racial America was just an added side benefit of a politician who was right on the issues; or even wrong in interesting ways. If he brought a new approach to important policy debates or really offered hope – that word one more time – of changing the way politics is practiced in this country. But instead of bringing change Obama would simply put a more attractive face on the liberalism of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

I am not one for pop psychology, but you could say that I was projecting my hope of an idealized America onto Obama. It represented a sort of secret wish for a politician that generated excitement and energy.

But in an ironic way this whole scandal surrounding Jeremiah Wright popped the bubble and reminded me that voting for a president often does come down to the lesser of two evils; that wishing doesn’t make it so.

In a perverse way then, supporting Obama out of some vague hope of getting past racial grievances and strife would be insulting to him. It would be voting for him as a symbol of race rather than a candidate who should be judged on his platform and record.

Those who used to castigate me about my unconscious racism and my white privilege will not be surprised that I am supporting the old white male against the young exciting minority.

But the problem isn’t Obama’s race it's his politics. Some of my best friends are liberals, I just don’t want them to be president.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Wright Is Wrong And So Is ObamaComments (2) »
Why I want to believe Obama 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Pleasing platitudes are just that my friend -- music to the ears. No way on God's green earth he can know this man for 20-years, and he being Obam's spiritual mentor and he not know that he harbored these anti-American and hateful feelings.

He knew...oh yeah, He knew

The Partisan Report,

...and so does Hillary.

That was a homer ....period.

If nothing else, it should put the discourse on race/religion front and center for awhile and, I'll wager, the ultimate resolution of these touchy issues will be: a) consensus that there are issues; b) consensus that "something should be done"; and c) no consensus about what exactly to do.

My personal opinion? Government and religion should not mix...period. Personal faith is ultimately personal. Man should be judged by his deeds. Deeds can be governed and regulated by laws. Laws can be informed by religion, but need not be based specifically on them.

There is no consensus about religion, and "right and wrong" can often be relative to where you stand. That's why, ultimately, religion has no place in government, deeds are judged relative to our code of ethics, developed through our experience and informed by our history.

neither does Hillary.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

is done. The lying sack is done.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Just can't quit us, huh?

Now scram.


PS: Be sure to write another obsessive dKos diary about how we're all meaningless; only this time send us the link. We always enjoy the irony.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He's been working overtime to avoid being "the black candidate" (and with good reason, he's seen what happens to those candidates).

Gallup's newest polling data, most of which was taken before the Wright flap, shows that he's lagging bad with white and Hispanic voters, and dominating with black voters.

The more that race is an issue, in whatever form, the more focus will be placed on Rev. Wright and Obama's relationship with him.

And nothing he says can erase the fact that Wright said what he said and that Obama gave those comments his tacit approval by looking the other way, at best.

If you're right that Obama's speech is going to put race front and center in this campaign, then this speech will be seen as the beginning of the end of his candidacy. Because he cannot let it be front and center -- and that's why he had advisors telling him not to give this speech.

McCain and Hillary wish they could deliver a speech in such a manner, but that is about it.

I listened to the speech and I read it. It was well-written and beautifully delivered. It will tranquilize many people, but they were already believers in him.

I agree it puts the race issue front and center. I agree many Blacks have much to be angry about. But so do many other people.

Obama is correct that Wright's rhetoric is not helpful in healing us.

BUT . . .

Why did Obama embrace him? Why sit in the pews for 20 years and never object? Why not find one of many, many Churches that preach love and healing and which find productive ways to deal with racial divisions? Why did Obama have to be embarrassed by Wright for him to reject the statements? Why does he continue to defend him as a good person?

Does anyone believe this was isolated talk? I don't. Wright blames Israel and the U.S. for 9/11. He blames the U.S for Aids. He damns America. He mocks white people. He mocks Powell, Thomas, Rice and other prominent Black Americans. He is filled with hate. Obama not only sat there and failed to object for 20 years, but he also took his children to that "church."

How can he possibly help heal America if he starts by teaching his daughters to hate America, to hate white people, to hate Israel, to use profanity (in Church no less), to act out images of sex acts (as Wright did in relation to Bill Clinton) (and in Church!!!)? Or is he now going to have us believe that he exposed his young children to this, but then lectured them on how wrong it was?

Give me a break.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

Hope is Obama's entire campaign. He is hoping people project their hope on his campaign. Just don't look behind the curtain, you might be disappointed w/ the rock star "wizard".

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

I think he is a personally decent fellow, and I think he is both a realist and not a poo-flinging hate monger like the Clintons.

On the other hand he is a politician (-10 points), a Democrat (-20 points), and a pretty far left liberal (-100 points).

He is also a bit inexperienced. Still, head and shoulders above the Clintons and their evil coven.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

... the possible impact of the best parts of this speech. People less analytical than you will never figure out that Obama is, as you correctly argue, an extremely conventional liberal on policy.

I wish he'd just left his stump speech in the closet for today. I was truly enjoying the speech -- for all of the right reasons -- until he got to that part.

Had he done so, this speech might have gone down as something historically important.

We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

If you look at that Gallup poll, Obama's already hurting bad with white voters and Hispanic voters, even before the Wright flap. He's going to get trounced in Pennsylvania.

Sure, don't underestimate his speaking ability, charisma, etc. etc. I could be wrong, but I don't think he'll recover from this. Hillary's people are going to make it clear, in private, to the superdelegates that the Democratic Party would be hobbled badly by the Obama/Wright association.

And she'll be right. I don't think you understand how profoundly disturbing this is to people who aren't as politically engaged as you and I are.

steers a little closer to the political center in the years ahead, he will be an even more formidable candidate in four years.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

but if it is perceived that Hillary "Stole" the nomination from him he will be even stronger the next time around.

i>"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

who wanted the Goracle to run this year. Many in media were even openly (on air) holding out hope that he would jump in race as late as January.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

one chance to elect him president.
Surely she isn't lying.

On the whole, this speech was very long and very unfocused. When it dwelt on Wright and the blue collar anger towards blacks, it was pretty good, as he didn't dodge as much as most politicians do. However, otherwise, it was off putting, excessively long, and very liberal. The beginning, the most important part of a speech, which focused on our founders racism, was particularly bad.

While it helps staunch the bleeding in the media from the Wright affair, it doesn't really do anything else for Obama. The white collar liberals will love it, but they are already voting for him. The blue collar Dems, the Hispanics, and the swing voters who he needs in PA and the remaining states are not going to have the patience to watch it, and while they might like some snippets they see on the news, I doubt it will dramatically improve his position with them.

Hillary will win PA by a solid margin. And then she will win the Democratic nomination.

he really was trying hard to not be the "black candidate" no matter how much the people of his party wanted him to be. It has been clear to me that Democrats will get behind anyone who is a minority for moral authority and diversity's sake (Joe Biden summed it up so nicely with the "clean and articulate" comment).

But now, it appears that he really is running on a platform of "its ok because I am black, if all you white people weren't so mean, we wouldn't be like this." He was literally excusing Wright's racism because, well, black people have been oppressed, and so can you really blame him for being full of hate and on the other hand, Wright preaches nothing but love and tolerance. Of course, when the media are claiming this speech is on par with MLK's "I have a Dream" speech, that little contradiction is hardly going to be noticed.

If he could have really run for President as a black man with out taking the easy road and using the moral authority/race card, then I would have believed that he really is for change. But, he hasn't.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I have been unable to post any comments over at Protein Wisdom today. Odd. Here is the post I have been trying to get published over at the Pub, with some extensions...

It was suggested at the Pub that Obama is trying to sell a watered down version of liberation theology to whitefolks and that his nebulous mouthings are really a trojan horse for his core beliefs which are driven by Jeremiah Wright (hater & traitor). I countered that it is not fair to suggest that of Obama because nobody suggested that GWBush was a stealth agent of his church and reverend, whomever that may be and that his Compassionate Conservatism, a direct manifestation of his Christian ethics has done nothing to pervert the Church / State boundary.

It may surprise many of you to know that I am in favor of Bush's compassionate conservatism and that I think there is something monumentally important in the 'under God' phrase in the pledge of allegiance. God help us lest we become godless commies. And so I expect fully that there is some measure of transcendent morality present in those who run our secular state who understand implicitly that they have a moral responsibility beyond the ability to perfect government itself. Government should not be our Leviathan, but our own moral selves subjected to an even higher authority beyond what government can see. Otherwise if our morality is only secular and defined by government oversight then it becomes our duty to legislate morality, perhaps even panoptically. But I don't think that GWBush pushed the statist envelope - even the most cynical opponents said more about Halliburton than whatever GWB's church was. America essentially gave GWB and Jimmy Carter for that matter, the benefit of the doubt. JFK didn't have it and overcame. Romney didn't have it and did not overcome. Obama has now lost it and may or may not overcome.

I have no reason to believe that Obama is any more beholden to his minister than Joe Lieberman is to his rabbi whomever that may be, and I'm not going to go digging around to find out. (Andrew Sullivan has the right idea) That is because there is nothing in the man's policy or proposals that suggest to me that he must be. I think the presumption is prejudiced and it is one that I would not entertain. What's to stop us from asking for a dossier on everyone's spiritual advisor? Why stop there? Why not check up on their doctors and mental health? I'm not the legal expert but I think some measure of probable cause has been defied here.

Beyond that, on its face, what is the point of selling black liberation theology to white voters? Can anyone suggest with any credibility that those things Obama believes to be true about black victims does not inform his appeal to whites? It seems to me quite obvious that if you can remediate black dysfunction you learn more about human dysfuntion than you do about 'black' humanity. Where is the evidence that Obama would suggest a dual-track racialized approach to policy? It's one thing to say that his Christianity is victim-centered, it's another to say that it is racialized as well. Either is a good enough reason to doubt him, but I find it difficult to believe he is hiding a racial agenda directed by the more extreme soundbites we have heard - there being no better evidence than the fact that everyone recognizes how different Obama is from the class of race hustlers we already know.

Consider Baldilocks on Shelby Steele. I am thus inclined to believe that Obama is in fact purchasing some blackness in a rather radical chic way. But we all know how easy it is for stunned middle-class people to be aghast at Patty Hearst.

I welcome any and all critique on Liberation Theology. Having adopted some piece of that during a polytheist point in my own life, I understand something of its purchase on progressive thinking. Think of it as advanced multiculturalism, religious division. But I think anyone would be hard pressed to get James Cone on the phone and trip him into admitting what all the newbs seem to be swallowing, that he is a black supremacist. Again, this is all part an parcel of ministry to the sick, the friendless and the needy.

You might all do well to find out the nature of African American opinion that is not knee-jerkily seduced by Obama's rhetoric or candidacy. I for one have been a McCain supporter since Fred Thompson quit, but it doesn't change my feeling that a large number of Right critics have protested too much. As I have said, no honest supporter or critic of Obama should view his candidacy as a referendum on American race relations, and yet here is the full bloom of dishonest 'disinterest' bending over backwards to demonstrate absolute faith that Wright is a prima facia racist and that black strains of liberation theology is the coming of the Fourth Reich. Is there anyone serious at all in this criticism, people who have, perhaps read Obama's book?

Calmer heads will realize that the materiality of Wright's bigotry is nothing more or less than offensive speech for oversensitized people who feel like they have to claim their race and gender victimhood validated. All those who last week were telling us that Multiculturalism was crap are now reminding us that they are white men. I said to hell with those afraid of Imus and I say to hell with those afraid of Wright.

It is an embarrassment to see people who have in the past three years, written perhaps 1000 words or less about the black church in America suddenly appear so prescient.

All that said, while I am not particularly interested in the worst soundbites of the past two decades played out in excruciating detail any more than I am in finding out what Spitzer's professional paramour actually looks like - I do recognize where the outrage is coming from. Jeremiah Wright is outrageous. As somebody who has spent several years asking whitefolks if they were willing to make racism illegal, I understand fairly well what people consider crime and what they consider piling on. Some consistency would be in order. This is class three racism. Next.

Just wow. One final thing. There is some part of my interest which is vested in the symbolism of Barry to shake some cobwebs out of both black and white heads about what's possible and likely in this nation specifically to bring to the fore what the cream of my generation of black men is like (I am two months older than Obama). To the extent that he has been forced to make his big race speech with this burden is a disappointment. That some fraction of America requires an explicit disclaimer means that the presumption is that this black man, of all people, is suspected of having a hidden racial agenda. It's stupefying to me and it must be absolutely humiliating to Obama. The honeymoon is ending real hard. It is patently obvious that a good number are determined to label him a racist and have done with him. Anybody remember Kanye West?

he, of all people, might have a hidden racial agenda?

Afterall, the clips of that church show young and old alike in complete, glorifying agreement with the pastor. Young and Old alike......

Humiliating to him...it should be.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

just hides the Utopian Euro-socialism that he believes in and wants to impose.

Listen carefully to his speech this morning: He's trying to be a candidate of racial reconciliation, but he excuses Wright as being a typical black man who grew up in during government imposed racial segregation, as if there's been no progress in that area in the last 40 years. In other words, we "don't understand because we're not black."

Then he equates all of the hateful worst that Wright and his ilk believe to principled conservative opposition to affirmative action, crime and welfarism, as if that's just the flipside of the same coin simply because race is an issue in the discussion.

Moreover, instead of taking responsibility for being a member of an anti-white church for the last 20 years, he blames the ills of the black community (and the other victims - immigrants and women) on evil corporations (presumably run by white people), Ronald Reagan and George Bush's War. Give me a friggn' break. This is supposed to soothe me, how exactly?

And it's all a lie. It's a smokescreen. His prescriptions for these ills are made up of nothing more than big government liberalism, more welfare, wasteful spending on shoddy education, socialized health care and racial quotas (what he calls "ladders of opportunity.")

I understand why Americans would appreciate a black person becoming president as a symbol of just how far this country has come, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be picky about electing a president.

As with any candidate, character, ability, judgment, and what that person believes and would do as president is vitally important and Barry doesn't get a pass because he's black and would symbolizes post-racialism (whatever that means). In other words, the we shouldn't just accept the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" just so we can feel better about ourselves.

Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.


didn't say anything about personal responsibilty. As long as people continue to live in the past they will be relegated to history. Bad things have happened in this country's past but that was then and this is now. EVERYONE has a chance in this society if they apply themselves and don't pander to victim-hood. Bill Cosby gives a speech to a predominantly Black group and gets villified as someone who is carrying the White mans water. I am tired of hearing about all the victims. There are plenty of successful Black people in this country who have come from poverty to success. Perhaps those are the role models that should be looked to rather than the race baiters who continually promote vitim-hood.

...he explicitly calls for responsibility and rejects victimization.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

The whole speech is nothing more than a recitation of identity groups and claims to victimhood. This is divisive Marxist class struggle idiocy taken to an absurd extreme.

The quote you pulled is a jarring non sequitur that was cynically bolted onto the speech as a token soundbite.

I have read and re-read this speech, and it boils down to this:

"Except for the greedy rich among us, we are all victims of the greedy rich. Instead of wasting energy hating each other for the many reasons you have to hate each other, vote for me, and I will lead you in sticking it to the greedy rich."

Great, but if he cannot unequivocally reject the blatant and unashamedly racist and paranoid bigotry of his spiritual guide, political mentor and fatherly figure, how can he pretend to be able to promise that?

Finally someone who can analyze Obama, and without freaking out, see what he is at his core: "... a conventional liberal with an interesting story and a way with words."

Obama's a politician. Not the savior that some on the left want to see, and not the devil incarnate that the right fringe tries to convince us about. He says what he thinks needs to be said to get elected (surprise!) and if elected he won't be able to follow through on 95% of his campaign promises (surprise again!).

Here's the trouble for conservatives: the public appears to be sick and tired of the status quo in the White House -- they just might go for this smooth-talking liberal.

Thanks for a great diary.

What BHO said about Imus:

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Granted, Wright is not longer an advisor, but why did it take so long?

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

If only Pastor John Hagee had made those statements, then everyone here could quickly forget about it and help John McCain learn the differences between Sunni and Shiites.


"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

I had forgotten that John Hagee was McCain's pastor for 20 years rather than a random endorsement. I also forgot that Hagee married McCain and his wife, and baptized their children, and that Hagee was McCain's spiritual mentor for most of his adult life.


Thanks for your valuable thoughts on Obama.

of the declaration wrong ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Obama was referring to the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

Which, by the way, didn't actually really happen in the spring of 1787. More like the summer and early fall, with the actual ratification taking place mostly in 1788.

Pedantic of me, but you were trying to imply that you knew more about American history than Joliphant... or, for that matter, Senator Barack Obama, who I am given to understand wrote this speech all by himself. Which I am starting to believe, given the clumsiness of that first paragraph: he's never going to get the hard-shell libertarian vote that way...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I have to stop opening these things in tabs and then replying.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Outstanding blog. Couldn't have put it better.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

but highly overrated. I was wrong.

He is good. Actually this is an understatement. The speech was so emotional. It was humble. Call it Jewish guilt but I was moved. I cried. I was literally in tears by the end of the speech. So profound.

I thought Romney's speech was overrated and overpraised. It did nothing for me. It didn't move me. And I suspect it didn't move a lot of people. Obama's speech moved me. It struck all the right notes.

I suspect Obama will choose Bloomberg as his running mate. It makes the most sense. It will appease a lot of Jews who are skeptical. It will put to rest the anti-israel rhetoric from his pastor. It will put to rest the inexperience questions especially if the economy will be the main issue. But most importantly, it will cement the independent voters who he needs.

I worry for McCain. I am genuinely worried.

On a side note, I think this puts to rest all talks of a Romney VP. Mormon's racist past will be drudged up. McCain cannot afford that.

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

Obama blamed corporations for the problems in America and proposed more liberalism to fix it.

Then he called his grandma a bigot and equated Wright's hate whitey and America rhetoric to Reagan, Bush and Rush.

It was all a bunch of liberal Marxist moral relativism. Don't fall for it.
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.


Obama is made for the medium. Television captures the orator while ignoring the oration. You get so captured by watching the man that you fail to listen to what he is saying.

Sadly, you demonstrate the American public and its fascination with shiny.

Hey, let's all have Hope and Change.

This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

poor saps that would accept his flowery tripe as anything more than justification for the double standard that exists in this nation.

...cause I couldn't disagree more!

Romney's speech was a confirmation of the fact that spirituality is a constant gardener in the political flower bed.

Obama's was a pathetic attempt to reassert his control over the blind unquestioning devotees he has lost that effect on, and a plee to the thinking public not to pay any attention to all this sillness, because old Mr. Wright is in reality just a good fella who's sadly mis-understood.

What a bunch of garbage. He knew what was happening, he lied about it until today. He obviously likes that kind of thought as he married a women who wrote a thesis on the subject, got married, had his children baptized, and was a regular member for over 20 years of a radical racist zealot!

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.

Romney as a phony. And so his speech came off as part of the charade. I think that's the difference.

People genuinely like Obama. They like him and therefore they will believe him. They will give him a chance. And that is what scares me. I think most people will want to give him a chance. And the more the far right tries to crucify him with this Wright business, the more people will rush to his defense. It's a knee-jerk reaction. I felt it. It's the same feeling I had during the republican primary when McCain was being crucified by Rush Limbaugh et al. I felt terrible for him. I wept for him. That's the exact same feeling I'm having for Obama.

The speech was profound. He is a gifted speaker, that's for sure.

I like Obama. I love McCain. Obama just secured himself the nomination today. I think this election will fair. They are both decent men.

McCain/Lieberman vs Obama/Bloomberg?

A man can dream.

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

Please...explain to me how you find the fact that he lied about hearing hate filled rants, while in church, profound?

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

his loyalty to Wright, the man, and his rejection of Wright, the ideas, rather convincing. Actually, it was the most compelling part of the speech. It was all so heartwrenching, so sad, so hopeful.

So brave.

I wept for him.

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

who talks like Rev. Wright.

Obama's speech was a brilliant smoke-screen from a political perspective, but this whole Wright issue shows that he is willing to stand idly by when people say vile things.

Obama is exactly the person we do NOT want to represent the US in foreign policy.

We do not want Obama talking to Fatah, Hamas, the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, etc.

If he can't stand up to his minister and show some leadership, how can he show leadership on a world stage?

about his prior denying he was in the church and heard the hateful words...and today admitting he was in the church at those times.

So you are emotionally moved by liars?...That's special.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

"In his latest column, Bill Kristol falsely claimed -- based on reporting by Newsmax -- that Obama had attended Trinity Church last July 22nd, when Wright blamed blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much global suffering.

Kristol later appended the following to his column:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

It should not surprise you to know that the Media only seized on that one mistake and the Kristol's entire column was rendered irrelevant.

Suffice it to say he was aware of Wright's rhetoric and leave it at that.

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

into the speech....hes said he was in the church when that rhetoric occurred.

I ask again, are you moved by people that admit to lying?..

You don't think he will have to answer for this?...

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

... anything Wright said for twenty years, that would be (at least) 240 months, 1040 weeks, 7300 days until today?

That is the only way you can find his denunciations today convincing.

The way some people put their brains aside when it comes to politics is terrifying.

Romney/Pace 2008

searching for an identity. Raised by a single white mom. Lost. Searching......White....black......Not black enough. Confused. And he found in Wright, a father he never had. That's why I sympathize with him. We've forced him to make a choice. It is entirely possible that he loved Wright the man, but did not subscribe to his ideas. Nothing in his past (actions or deeds) suggest that he subscribed to Wright's rhetoric. Look at his campaign. He tried so hard to rise above race. He has gone to black churches and condemned them for their homophobia and anti-semitism. Who does that?

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

He didn't condemn his own churches racism and anti-Semitism, that's the point. My father was an old school racist, I couldn't stay in the same room when he went on a rant. How could Obama?

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

he was raised by a white mother, in a white world. He enjoyed all the advantages of the elite -- the best private schools -- all the way through Harvard.

Then, he decided to go into politics in Chicago, and suddenly discovered that he was TOO white -- that he needed some street cred to get elected in Chicago, so he joined a Black Church known for its incendiary preacher Rev Wright. Rev Wright took him under his wing, was his mentor and helped introduce him to the voting public of Chicago.

That was fine, as long as he stayed in IL. NOW, looking to a national audience, and needing that national audience to vote for him, he has to distance himself from the man who helped shape his views over the last 20 years.

Talk about conflicted.

This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

this explanation makes some sense.

But Obama is still not fit to be president of the United States. You mustn't be president of the United States and have a friend/spiritual leader who says "G*d D*mn America"

Also, I don't see "us" forcing him to make a choice. He chose to attend that church for 20 years. If he chose to be in that church for 20 years, hearing all that hate preached, what does that say about his values? We don't KNOW about his core values - it is possible that he is just naive and did not absorb the bad. But it is also possible that Obama and Wright share the same core values and that Obama is just pretending to be nice - we can't risk having somebody like that be president.

He was a young biracial man searching for an identity. Raised by a single white mom. Lost. Searching......White....black......Not black enough. Confused. And he found in Wright, a father he never had.

Sounds almost like a movie ... or the synopsis for one of those misery filled works of fiction that the critics love to praise. You are aware that you just made this up in your own head, right?

We've forced him to make a choice.

No one forced him to join a hate-preaching Church - do not deny him his agency. I personally would not give a white supremacist preacher the time of day no matter how many drug programs he ran.

It is entirely possible that he loved Wright the man, but did not subscribe to his ideas. Nothing in his past (actions or deeds) suggest that he subscribed to Wright's rhetoric.

Except for getting married by Wright, having his children baptized by Wright, titling his autobiography on a speech given by Wright, sitting in the pews and listening to sermons of hate and paranoid conspiracy theories given by Wright ...

He tried so hard to rise above race.

Sure, when it was convenient. It means he studied Jesse Jackson's run in 1988. Big deal. His rising above race is far less out of conviction than expediency. Else, his condemnation of Wright would have been far more categorical and would have happened a lot earlier than today.

He has gone to black churches and condemned them for their homophobia and anti-semitism.

Which leads me to ask why he decided to exempt his own church which seems to have far more of problem than most? Why did he wait 20 years until now to condemn Wright's craziness?

Pretty words really can turn brains to mush ...

Romney/Pace 2008

How can we respect a man who disowns his church.

I'm a secular jew but there is something unseemly about a man disowning his church. It's almost obscene. That's why Obama couldn't do it, and rightly so. You don't throw your pastor under the bus. You condemn his divisive rhetoric but you don't disown him. You don't disown your church.

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

Take an example from Church.

When Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, we didn't learn simply about humility. We learned also about serving our fellow man. A precursor to the ultimate sacrifice, we learn about sacrificing our pride, our position. We learn about sacrificing that ego which is a remnant of our original sin, from one without sin.

America has long been built upon sacrifice. Barack should be willing to sacrifice his friendship with Reverend Wright in service to America, and to the conscience he claimed today.

You don't disown your pastor? I do, the very moment he echoes the words of Reverend Wright. Without hesitation or remorse, and only the regrets that a sorry, flawed human like myself can't help but feel.

Life is hard, sometimes it involves hard choices. Barack thinks he can avoid them. Like Erick said so well today, he wants to have his cake and eat it too.


with the prophets in Hebrew bible. LOL

Jeremiah on Jerusalem;

"How like a widow is she, who once was great among the nations (Lamentations 1:1).... The Lord has brought her grief because of her many sins 1:5.... Jerusalem has sinned greatly and so has become unclean 1:8.... The Lord has rejected his altar and abandoned his sanctuary 2:7.... Her king and her princes are exiled among the nations, the law is no more....2:9"

Not unlike Jeremiah Wright's blame-America tirade, right?

Oh, and it gets worse.

And don't even get me started on Ezekiel, Isaiah, Amos, Joshua....

The revolution will not be televised. 1965

Rooting against is far different than warning.

Damning is different than chastising.

One definitely gets the sense that Wright WANTS the U.S. to be defeated, and is not merely warning us of our failings.

... in the first place?

If he had spoken up even once in the twenty years he was attending those hate filled services sitting with his wife and minor children in the pews, then he would have deserved a little respect. If he'd left that Church, like his main girl Oprah, then he would deserved even more respect for having the decency to know right and wrong.

But he did not do any of that until today.

He tried to deny that Wright laced his sermons with hate. He tried to dissemble about being present during those so-called "sermons." He got acolytes to go on television and claim that the "sermons" that celebrated 9/11 were given twenty years ago before he joined the Church.

There was absolutely nothing honest Obama's speech. But I do give him props for it being pretty.

Romney/Pace 2008

He knew he was a anti Semite.
He chose to be married by him.

He knew his anti American sediments.
He chose to have that vile man baptize his children.

He heard the abhorrent rhetoric from the pews.
He continued to go for 20 years.

He knew the psychic illness that was affecting his church.
He did nothing about it.

He was asked directly about it.
He lied.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.

to things that the person finds offensive?

We put up with things in our workplaces and our families, but to voluntarily keep going to church where a pastor says such vile things raises interesting questions.

Didn't he consider the possibility he was placing his kids at risk?

Didn't he consider the implicit support of a prominent politician to be aiding in the negative message of the pastor?

Given all the negatives to continuing the relationship, what made him decide to stick with it? Was it a decision his wife made?

Did he ever challenge the pastor---even once?

It’s not only about Jeremiah Wright. It’s about the congregation was well.

If Obama wants non-Black America to relate to his parishioners who week after week in their several thousands clap, sing, dance, shout, leap into the air to exult hallelujahs and amens cheering-on the sulfuric anti-American,anti-White, anti-Jewish vile, here are some questions for Obama, the presidential aspirant who wants to take us into a realm beyond race:

Bear in mind Obama has told us before he hasn’t heard his spiritual advisor and “mentor” whom he calls a “Biblical scholar” “repeatedly” say these “controversial” bile.

Senator Obama what were you and Michelle doing in the pews during this time of exultation when any of this toxic poison was being uttered from the pulpit? Did you alone and your family stand or sit still in the pews? Were your young daughters with you at the time?

Did you confront your pastor? Did you show concerns? In what form, if any? Did you write him so much as a mild letter of protest? Did you speak with members of your congregation about this? In what way did you manifest your “audacity”? Why did you keep coming back to this church Sunday after Sunday and make a $20,000
contribution to it?

And, one other thing. Obama tells us that we too have on occasion disagreed with what our pastor may have declared from the pulpit. No, sir. Not in a million years have I heard my Catholic pastor say anything even galactic close to what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about "God damn America" or how this great nation deserved the evil of 9/11.

The audience is listening

I found the speech very racially calculated and self-serving. Obama justified black rage because Obama still needs black voter to be angry. It's not enough to win 90% of the black vote, he needs the black voting bloc to be so angry that they will not vote in the general election if he is not nominated. This way he can hold the DNC and superdelegates hostage to his voting bloc, and counter Clinton's strength with Reagan-McCain Democrats. That is why he could not afford to repudiate Wright -- it would cost him his general election bargaining chip.

It's not easy for a white person to hear that speech through a black person's ears, or vice versa. I'll tell you, that speech served the same emotional needs for blacks as Reverend Wright -- just in an understated fashion. It's the quiet approach that could have lit the spark for a slave rebellion right under the slaveowner's nose, something Jeremiah Wright could never do -- in that's sense, it's admirable.

No doubt about it, if I was on trial for murder, I would want Obama as my defense lawyer. But President, no. The speech only confirmed my belief: Obama would not prioritize America's national interest as POTUS.

You're gonna need more than one lesson. And you're gonna get more than one lesson.

Obama had one chance to lecture Wright about why HATE speech is wrong. Hate speech leads to more hate.

Nice speech but Obama blew it... big time!!!!

Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never vote for hate monger... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.

...during Adolph Hitler's speeches too.
Hitler's rise also occurred during a period of great political turmoil in Germany. Beware the speaker with glowing words that say nothing.
Jim Cramer advises an investor to never depend on hope when evaluating a stock purchase or your personal holdings. Hope just doesn't seem to cut it there. But somehow, hope is supposed to cut it for a nation of 300 million people. Lives are at stake. But what's fifty million people more or less? For the NYT, the DNC, and the rest of the Socialist media, the risk to 50 million lives is nothing compared to the urgent need to implement the Socialist Agenda.

"Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. ...

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper."

That says it ALL, folks.


With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.

His attendence at this very liberal church is consistent with his very liberal record in public service.

He can't have sat in that pew for 20 years without having had some of Wright's views rubbing off on him. I believe Paul summed it up best when he wrote "Bad company corrupts good morals".


Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service