There is something both poignant and galling about the candidacy of Barack Obama.
Any American, regardless of party or race, has to find it heartening that the country has reached the point where a black candidate for president of the United States sweeps so many primaries in states where the overwhelming majority of the population is white.
We have all seen the crowds enthralled by Barack Obama’s rhetoric and theatrical style.
Many of his supporters put their money where their mouths were, so that this recently arrived senator received more millions of dollars in donations than candidates who have been far more visible on the national stage for far more years.
I note that LR gets a slam in on Obama with the article's talking about Obama's spiritual connection with his minister, who holds socio-political views that scare some Americans. Since Obama has made it very clear where his religious ties to the man (who officiated at his wedding and baptised his children) end and that those ties do not include any form of acceptance of his pastor's other views, I don't think an6y objective voter will be confused by such an article.
My own opinion is that is it far better to have a spiritual tie with a man whose political views you disavow than it is to curry favor with those whose views you have publicly condemned just to get elected, but then, I am not a Republican, and thus can't understand how McCain can kiss up to people who smeared him in such a shameful way. Perhaps I might understand McCain better if I had an overwhelming desire to be president regardless of what it cost or how it damaged my integrity.
Posts: 16662 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
So be it would have to come from me, a hot topic currently in the news, to be a subject in this forum. A situation that is certainly tarnishing the Democrat Presidential front-runner.
And naturally Barack Obama has given a typical sugar coated response, not because he wanted to but because he had to. It has been very well known that Barack Obama & his family has had a relationship with this minister for 20 years, the time they have attended this church. Their spiritual mentor. Then it becomes public what Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been preaching on the pulpit. Also we know that Rev. Wright was originally invited to deliver the public invocation at Sen. Obama's Presidential announcement. We find out the night before the invitation was rescinded...
In other words the Obama campaign feared Rev. Wright could be a potential problem to the campaign if word got out about what his ministry about...Racism & hating America...
So the legitimate question is what type of spiritual influence has taken place on the Obama's???
And if a white Republican was associated with a church & pastor, for 20 years, who preached of the same magnitude, you had better believe the news media would certainly be all over it. It is no more than right that Obama would be under the same scrutiny.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
'...There have been times when we wondered what Mr. Obama meant when he talked about rising above traditional divides. This was not such a moment.
We can’t know how effective Mr. Obama’s words will be with those who will not draw the distinctions between faith and politics that he drew, or who will reject his frank talk about race. What is evident, though, is that he not only cleared the air over a particular controversy — he raised the discussion to a higher plane.'NYT editorial
I voted for Hillary in the Maryland primary but, after listening to Obama's speech, if I could do it over, I would. I don't see how any objective person could listen to this man without detecting something that calls upon our better natures. This was not simple rhetorical skill and personal charm, this was, in my opinion, statesmanship.
Originally posted by frankvan: I don't see how any objective person could listen to this man without detecting something that calls upon our better natures. This was not simple rhetorical skill and personal charm, this was, in my opinion, statesmanship.
Very well put, Frank. The campaign isn't over, but last night had to be a deciding moment.
for people who are looking for a more hopeful, unifying course in race relations — and for a broader healing in our society — Senator Obama’s speech will be long-remembered and oft-acclaimed. It was powerful, brilliant and effective. No matter what happens in the 2008 presidential campaign, it is an address that Americans will read and recall for generations to come. A Speech to Remember
Obama's effort was, indeed, courageous and statesmanlike. For my taste, a little editing to take some of the politics out would have been a nice touch and there are still a few nagging questions on judgment begging to be answered. On the whole, however, he did a statesmanlike, yoeman's job of addressing a tough bump in the road of his campaign.
There is a lot of time left in the campaign. This, too, may pass. Should he go into the convention with the most votes and the most seated delegates then he should justifiably be the party's nominee.
Posts: 7623 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Can't these people just attend regular little churches where the sermons are about being nice to each other, not forgetting the annual pot-luck supper and the like? Are they drawn to megalomaniacal preachers?
I don't know if Obama stopped the bleeding completely or not, but has certainly lost some support. Don't think Hillary isn't making a strong case with the superdelegates right now. Those delegates will be faced with a tough choice this summer.
Frank did you happen to see Obama's interview with Charlie Rose in 2006? It was quite good.
I just got around to reading NNN's link to the article about Hillary. If what the article says is true, I find it very disturbing. I have long been a Clinton supporter, but some of her actions in this campaign have cooled that support. If the article accurately presents Hillary's lesser-known connections, that is probably the final nail for me. I am very disappointed in how things have turned out. I should say at this point that my favorite in the Democratic primaries has long since dropped out.
All this, of course, is based on the truth of that article. If it does turn out to be accurate, more will be heard about it. If however, it turns out to be untrue, then the only thing to be discussed is the author's motives. But what drives me is that the truth comes out, regardless of whom it hurts. I have no real objection if someone thinks Hillary is a power-mad witch who will do anything to become president, nor do I think that no one should bring up the Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. These are matters of opinion, and mine are no better than those of anyone else. (I think mine are better informed or more well-reasoned, but not better.) What I object to is people lying, whether it is an outright lie, or a more devious one. The words of Obama's pastor (whatever the real context was) and their implications with regard to Obama are legitimate grounds for discussion. As I show in another thread, at least one of Rev. Wright's more worrisome sermons is not what many are making it out to be. I have yet to see the context of his statement "God damn America", and will wait until I see the words before and after that phrase before I make any judgment. Those whose see no justification for them might question their own position, since I am confident that most have said those three words aloud. What if a tape of that existed, one that only showed those words and not the context?
I hope that, in the future, political discussions remain about opinion and fact, and we leave the lies and innuendo to others. There are many differences in the various candidates, more than enough to stimulate open, honest debate. But introducing lies, openly or disguised, is not part of any reasonable political discussion.
Note: I am in no way saying or implying that anyone in this thread has lied, openly or otherwise. No one has. My initial comments to LR were merely pointing out that his post was not as objective as it seems at first glance. I see nothing wrong with his doing that, nor with my saying that he did. I've probably done the same thing. Neither of us lied; we we stating both facts and opinions. Nor do I see anything wrong with legitimate questions about a candidate. But not all questions are legitimate. Nor are all questions ones that belong in a a political discussion.
Posts: 16662 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by frankvan: I voted for Hillary in the Maryland primary but, after listening to Obama's speech, if I could do it over, I would. I don't see how any objective person could listen to this man without detecting something that calls upon our better natures. This was not simple rhetorical skill and personal charm, this was, in my opinion, statesmanship.
I knew you'd get on board at some point frankvan.
Posts: 3040 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Was able to find this blog entry about the 9-11 sermon. Seems like there will be more to follow.
The "God Damn America" sermon was apparently in April 2003. I'm not very concerned about what Rev. Wright says and how it has affected Obama, everything I've ever known about Obama indicates that he is a very reasonable person and is a leader rather than a follower. In Chicago we have a lot of very passionate ministers and sometimes they get a bit carried away with themselves. I thought Obama's speech was brilliant in responding.
I found a couple other transcripts of the sermons and all I can say is THANK GOD I've never had to sit through one of those sermons! My Protestant raised butt could not have handled sitting that long... maybe that is why there is so much congregational response at Trinity.. if they don't stand up and scream they won't be able to sit through the 3 hour sermon.
Posts: 3040 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Note: I am in no way saying or implying that anyone in this thread has lied, openly or otherwise. No one has. My initial comments to LR were merely pointing out that his post was not as objective as it seems at first glance. I see nothing wrong with his doing that, nor with my saying that he did. I've probably done the same thing. Neither of us lied; we we stating both facts and opinions. Nor do I see anything wrong with legitimate questions about a candidate. But not all questions are legitimate. Nor are all questions ones that belong in a a political discussion.
When I post, it is not my intent to come off as fair, objective or open-minded. I will be the first to admit, that typically my posts are none of those things. And as a matter of principle, I typically don't vote for Democrats. Needless to say I will be looking real hard at the 3rd Party candidates this Presidential Election...
As for this situation with Barack Obama, while many in the Obama Campaign, may not think so, there is actually a good thing coming out of this. People are no longer looking at Obama on a pedestal being mesmorized by his captivating speeches. Rather they are taking a good hard look at him & trying to figure out what he stands for.
Granted he skillfully addressed his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there will continue to be questions in many of the voters minds. And should the Democrat Convention be decided by the super delegates, we could possibly see a surprise candidate emerge due to their doubts of win-ability, about both Hillary & Barack. Because it would appear John McCain's candidacy is the one benefitting from all of this.
