DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Oh that wacky Rev. Jeremiah Wright does it again.

Well, at least Obama doesn't defend him like some other's do.

If you go to the website for 99.9 The Fan radio station here in Raleigh, they have video of Obama playing basketball with the Tarheels this week... He can't defend anybody.

From LA Times

web page

Well, here's a most interesting connection we just came across.

Everybody is talking today about how much the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest unrepentant militant remarks hurt his most prominent parishoner, Sen. Barack Obama, and his chances to win the Democratic presidential nomination and the general election. So much so that the Obama camp realized the latent danger overnight and the candidate was forced to speak out publicly a second time today, as The Ticket noted here earlier today.

There was little doubt left in today's remarks by Obama, who recently said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community. He pretty much disowned Wright today. Obama described himself as "outraged" and "saddened" by "the spectacle of what we saw yesterday."

But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....

who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York


Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."

Reynolds has not returned e-mails or phone calls seeking comment, but Louis notes the obvious conflict between her political allegiance and her press club arrangements. He quotes a February blog entry of Reynolds saying, "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for his administration's successes.

In another entry, Reynolds notes critically of Obama, "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement."

Louis notes himself about the Wright appearance: "It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question."

(UPDATE: Sylvia Smith, the press club president, confirmed today that Reynolds is on the club's speakers committee. She told Michael Calderone on Politico.com that she still doesn't know whom Reynolds supports for president, adding, "Rev. Wright is newsworthy, period.")

--Andrew Malcolm

She may have arranged the speaking engagement... she didn't tell him what to say or how to say it...

Deleted Pro-Clinton Blog Entry from National Press Club Rev. Wright Appearance Organizer

web page

[April 29, 2008

A New York Daily News reporter, Errol Louis, revealed that Rev. Barbara Reynolds, who is also a journalist, is a Clinton supporter who suggested Rev. Wright as a speaker to the National Press Club awhile back and was recently asked to organize his appearance there this week.

Since Louis broke his story, the relevant February entry on Barbara Reynold's blog has disappeared -- just vanished. In addition, neither Rev. Reynolds nor the Clinton campaign, as of the posting of this news alert, have responded to queries about whether Reynolds suggested and organized Wright's appearance at the National Press Club with the knowledge of the Clinton campaign or go-betweens for the Clinton campaign.

Using cache recovery and other techniques, a BuzzFlash reader recovered the key blog entry that Errol Louis quoted from before it was deleted.

These are, allegedly, Rev. Reynolds' words of support for Clinton and explanation as to why she voted for Clinton in Maryland:

Using Google's cache and examining the source code of the deleted entry, I have been able to reconstruct the posting from Barbara Reynolds' blog (http://reynoldsworldnews.blogspot.com/) dated February 14, 2008, titled "HOPE", in which Barbara Reynolds, the person who supposedly organized Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club, praises and thanks the Clintons.


web page

and the text I retrieved is here:

Hope

February 14, 2008

Never before has the political clout of African-American women been so crucial as in this presidential race when they make up as high as two-thirds of registered black voters. Black women voters are the primary reason why Senator Barack Obama pulled Oprah and Senator Clinton garnered Maya Angelo and the majority of the black women in the Congressional Black Caucus in their respective camps.

As expected Sen. Barack Obama trounced Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Chesapeake Trifecta of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

With most of my Maryland and DC friends beating the drum for Sen. Obama, I tried to join the parade. Usually I am a drum major, leading momentum, but not this time.

Like many African American women, I have struggled with the dilemma of selecting a black man or a white woman to go against warmonger Sen. John McCain. My problem was that both Senators Obama and Clinton are darn good.

Finally I voted for Senator Clinton. My first reason was that as seductive as Obama’s mantra of hope, the Clintons legacy of help is more substantive and stronger.

Hope by definition is not based on facts. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time.

How do you abandon someone like Hillary Clinton, who at every opportunity worked for causes benefiting the poor, especially children? Her work began in her early days with her mentor Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund and at Yale Law School, where she pursued children’s studies. Early on her stated life’s goal was to be a "voice for America’s children."

Look how different things would be that before any policy, rather foreign or domestic, could be advanced, the fate of our children would be the first consideration, a value that I believe Clinton would bring to the table as president.

Under Bill, this nation championed diversity. With Bill and Hillary as first Lady in the White House, black unemployment declined, small business loans to African-American doubled, there was strong support for affirmative action and more blacks in his Cabinet and in high positions than ever before. In addition, Hillary made history by selecting a black woman, Maggie Williams, as her chief of staff. To offset plummeting election returns, Williams has been promoted to head her campaign staff.

In fact during the Clinton years, the nation experienced the longest economic boom in history: unemployment dropped from 7.5% to 4%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average of stocks rose from 3,200 points to over 10,000, and the federal budget rose from a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit to a surplus of nearly that much.

Now since one Clinton cleaned up the first mess created by Bush I, why not let another Clinton clean up the mess created by Bush Light and why not a woman?

Traditionally, I have sympathized or cast my lot with the "underperson," the one needlessly being picked on or ridiculed. Media treatment of Senator Clinton has been degrading.

Much of the news media have gone bonkers over Senator Obama, pandering and refusing to ask tough questions, while intensely and sometimes nastily grilling Senator Clinton. Pundits continue to stress that Clinton is "polarizing," and that 41 percent of voters say they won’t vote for her as if to cement a self-defeating prophecy.

When the Clintons were in office, I worked at the executive levels of journalism. It was overwhelming to see how many white men, even liberals, detested Hillary not only because she is a woman but because she did not play it safe and took on controversial issues, such as trying to win health care for the more than 44 million people who can’t afford it. She lost the fight, but it took courage to start it and I believe she deserves another chance to win it.

Atty. James Walker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, explains the disparate treatment this way: "In light of issues like the Don Imus firings, neither politicians nor the press want to go near anything racist. The public environment has been sanitized toward political correctness, but there are no holds on sexism. That is why there can be open season on Senator Clinton."

"Hillary is getting the benefit of Bill’s baggage, his dirt from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but Obama is getting a clean slate because of the guilt recently brought to the forefront of how America has treated blacks. That means an easy walk for Obama and the opposite for Senator Clinton," Walker said.

I also find it troublesome that so many influential Republican conservatives are confessing their love for Senator Obama. When people who are my enemies become friends of my friends, I am just naturally suspicious.

In any event, Sen. Obama, tall, brilliant, handsome, with a wonderful wife and a message of hope would make a good president, but I embrace Clinton because at the highest levels they have helped make life better for African-Americans. My vote for Hillary in the Maryland Primary was my way of saying Thank You.

Could all be a coincidence, but that's one heck of a Clintonian coincidence to be sure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Last night, I was watching MSNBC briefly and a guest tried to bring up this point, that the Clinton's may have been behind Rev. Wright being invited to the press club appearance...the MSNBC show host would have none of it, and cut off the guest trying to make the point...that, someone is working behind the scenes attempting to provide Rev. Wright with "opportunities" to speak out.

Not a surprise to me...mac

[color]

Good,
So I will not be accused of misunderstanding, or anything else.

Quote:

---

I just think it sucks pretty bad when a person of a race that claims as much injustice as Negro's do is being undermined by a person of the same race.

---

Why would race of these two men need to be considered in this discussion? I guess it does not suck as bad when its just a pastor/parishioner or church member? And again, what does the "Claims of injustice of the Negro" have to do with this also?? I mean first, you might want to join us in the year 2008 because no one uses "Negro" anymore, well maybe some dumb, Caucasian who is still pawning for 1950( is that you??). And of course, someone with that line of thinking would claim that there has been no injustices done to African Americans, nope just complaints because its been so good here and everything is OK.

Instead of just saying hey it sucks that Obama's pastor made those statements, it had to be about race and Negroes. I know those are two subjects you are well versed in. Or was that you trying to play that race card you keep handy??

j/c

Is it just me, or has anybody else found themselves able to separate Barak Obama from Jeremiah Wright?

Since this whole story broke, I never lost sight of the fact that Obama is running for President... not his pastor, wife, friends or fellow parishoners. What some pulpit-pounder says about America's racial situation is on him... and I'll judge him by his words only. Same holds true in my assessment of Obama.

This is why politics has such a dirty name... as long as efforts remain to tie these two men together at the hip, Obama must spend an inordinate amount of time playing "damage control." I'd rather see him be able to spend the time getting out his message and platform, so I can judge if I wish to give him my vote.

All this sleazy, sensational crap is annoying... and is wasting my time. I'll start listening to Jeremiah Wright when he throws his own hat into the presidential ring. Until then, he's simply a distraction that I don't need.


If people (of any political stripe) allow themselves to be influenced by this garbage, then the old addage really is true:

"People deserve the leaders they elect."

If I hung out with KKK members and they were mentors for me in my life, I would absolutely expect the American public to question my relationship with these people and whether or not I shared their beliefs if I were running for elected office. And, I would expect a lot of them to assume I held such beliefs or had no real problem with them. They would be foolish to do otherwise.

Clem, I get what you are saying but here is the problem... people have become quite skeptical that what they hear from the candidate is what the person actually believes. Most people feel (and perhaps rightly so) that the candidates will say ANYTHING to get them elected... so the only way to measure what they say now against reality is to compare it to things they said before they were candidates, people they associated with before they were candidates, etc...

I would not say that this should be the sole measure of rating a candidate but I think that the views of past associates and the nature of that association is perfectly good for discussion.

DogNDC..."Why would race of these two men need to be considered in this discussion? I guess it does not suck as bad when its just a pastor/parishioner or church member? And again, what does the "Claims of injustice of the Negro" have to do with this also?? I mean first, you might want to join us in the year 2008 because no one uses "Negro" anymore, well maybe some dumb, Caucasian who is still pawning for 1950( is that you??). And of course, someone with that line of thinking would claim that there has been no injustices done to African Americans, nope just complaints because its been so good here and everything is OK.

Instead of just saying hey it sucks that Obama's pastor made those statements, it had to be about race and Negroes. I know those are two subjects you are well versed in. Or was that you trying to play that race card you keep handy?? "

The reason it has to be about race is that the good Rev. wanted it to be about race. That is the reason he discussed the inadequate educational methods of teaching African-Amer. kids.
Do you think this man discussed the inadequate teaching techniques to celebrate the lack of educational achievement in the minority community?

If you expect race to be kept out of the discussion then the speaker should not draw distinctions along racial lines...and if he does one should expect points to be addressed in a similar fashion. Now many posters may be dumb Caucasians living in the 1950s mindset but how is that different from a preacher discussing his people's plight in the 1800s thru the mid 1960s?

Wright is the type of man who seems to prefer using a jack hammer when the job screams out for the...tap of a tack hammer...nuff said!

JULES...

absolutely the connection must bring up questions...BUT...if your long-time professional mentor gets caught up in a personal scandal, it doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with you...it is fair to ask the question, but it seems a lot of people are past the questioning stage, and have moved right on to dismissing Obama for this...

honestly, have you ever talked with your pastor about the AIDS epidemic, etc.?...maybe it is bias, but i don't have a hard time believing that they never discussed such issues...my current advisor has been a scientific mentor to me for almost 7 years, but i have no clue what her opinion on 9-11 is, nor would i ever feel compelled to ask her about it...

i forget who i heard it from on Morning Joe the other day, but they made the statement that it sure appears many folks out there were looking for something like this to prop up their pre-conceived notions...

Quote:

---

Is it just me, or has anybody else found themselves able to separate Barak Obama from Jeremiah Wright?

Since this whole story broke, I never lost sight of the fact that Obama is running for President... not his pastor, wife, friends or fellow parishoners. What some pulpit-pounder says about America's racial situation is on him... and I'll judge him by his words only. Same holds true in my assessment of Obama.

---

In a word,, Yes! I've been able to seperate Obama from the words of his Reverand.

Had Barack Obama said those things,, Then that would be much much different... but he didn't!

Only those that love Hillary or McCain of pointing the fingers..

Placing blame on Obama for this mans words is about as dumb as blaming Hillary because Bill was diddeling Monica..

Unless you show me and prove to me that Hillary set Bill up with Monica,, Then what difference does it make?

Quote:

---

When the Clintons were in office, I worked at the executive levels of journalism. It was overwhelming to see how many white men, even liberals, detested Hillary not only because she is a woman but because she did not play it safe and took on controversial issues, such as trying to win health care for the more than 44 million people who can’t afford it. She lost the fight, but it took courage to start it and I believe she deserves another chance to win it.

---

On a different note, if the author thinks that is why people don't like Hillary, then he/she is just completely out of touch. Poor, poor Hillary, hated for being a woman with ambition... give me a break.

This man has been preaching this same stuff for years. He's been very vocal in all his sermons and teachings. This is no secret to Obama or anyone who associates with him. If I was against or appalled in any way by someone who's sermons I attended for decades I'm not sure why I would keep going.....

Ralphie,
If you look at the actual posting, I was not referring to what Wright said, I was referring to what Ballpeen wrote! Look back at the two postings! I was making a statement based off of Ballpeen's post, not the Rev.Wright.

Quote:

---

The reason it has to be about race is that the good Rev. wanted it to be about race.

---

- ok, then tell me where BO has made this about race??? Now before you go making something up, BO has NEVER made his candidacy about race. BUT there have been others, in the media, his pastor, the other people running for office( Hillary/McCain/Bill) that have made it about that!!

nuff said!

i got accused of that by a Hillary supporter, DC...just like the accusation of disliking Obama for being black...

kind of sad, for me, actually...i always thought the (generally) higher skill at multitasking would make women more attractive as presidential candidates...then, the first one to make a run turns out to be as slimy as politicians come...sheesh...

Quote:

---

Since this whole story broke, I never lost sight of the fact that Obama is running for President..

---

That is because you and people like you are the RARE set of people that still look for the issues! Most Americans can be distracted with BS. That is why you have these media outlets and others using 30 second sound bites. Why, because they know that most Americans will not do their homework and really look at a candidates positions. So they use short messages to trick people. Think about it, in all of this brew up, not one person has said/ come up with a quote or anything about something Obama said!! NOT ONE!!. So the media found Rev. Wright, cut up some of his speeches, and BOOM, instant controversy! Now of course Rev.Wright does not help and makes speeches that help himself, not Obama, but again, its associated with Obama.

I have read transcripts of them and articles about him and thoughts from those who have been around him. I have never attended one of his sermons.

I have also never attended a speech or personally heard David Duke speak. However, I have a pretty firm opinion of him and his beliefs despite that fact.

Jules.. a couple things. When I lived in Maryland I went to a church briefly, it was diversied congregation but it was probably more than 50% black and the pastor was black.. about the 3rd Sunday I was there was when the Clarance Thomas/Anita Hill thing broke and not a whole lot of "facts" had been substantiated yet..... That's when the pastor asked the congregation to pray for the sole "of the liar, Anita Hill." I never went back.

Then when I was looking for a new church in Virginia more recently, I tried one little church and the whole sermon was about money, basically me giving it to them. The people seemed nice and the pastor seemed genuine and nice but the thought of the whole hour being devoted to nothing but how I can help by filling their coffers bothered me... So after church the pastor introduced himself and I asked him about it. He sort of laughed and reassured me that I had picked the one Sunday every fall when they give the financial update and talk about money and that it doesn't happen again until next fall.. .so I gave them a second chance and ended up attending that church for 3 years because he was right...

It's not that hard to leave a church if you disagree with the message or the pastor or the motive or anything... there are churches on every corner and some are "better" than others.. and by better I mean that they will cater to what you are looking for in a church.

Look at it this way... if we were not discussing a presidential candidate but instead were discussing... say a.. potential Muslim extremist... if he went to a Muslim temple that preached love and forgiveness and claimed that leader as his spiritual advisor, we would have one opinion, if he went to a temple that preached hate, violence and the evil of the west, etc and claimed THAT leader as his spiritual advisor, I think most people would form quite a different opinion.... I'm not sure why this is so different in using association as a means to judge a mans character.

dang! I wish I didn't have to go to work...

I'll check back in with some thoughts later, Jules.


in the meantime- carry on!


cheers!
Clemdawg

Hi, Jules.

(Oh, God... he's baaaaaaack....)

I'm surprised that I'm now posting back-to back. Things must have slowed down after I went to work. I'm responding to you, but I hope this post will serve as an "open letter" to all Dawgs in this thread. It's an attempt to give some background as to why I made my initial statements.

Yeah... it's gonna be a long one. There's lots to cover.....
**sigh**

________________________________________________

Here's my deal with the Jeremiah Wright situation: I don't personally know the guy, but I've known many Black ministers in my years. In many ways, he seems similar to a number of them I have known. To understand the Black minister, one must first understand the differences in the role of The Church between AfAm culture and EuroAm culture.

In many ways (at least from my observation), the church serves in very different roles, from one culture to another. In so-called "White Society," it seems to serve as an adjunct facet of most peoples' lives. (Mind you, I'm generalizing for the sake of brevity here... there are no doubt many, many instances where this is not the case in Caucasian social circles.)

In short, it is but one of many facets to the gem Whites consider "everyday life."

In "typical Black communities" (more generalization here), the church occupies a much more central role in the social fabric. Since the "Days of the Sunny South," the church has historically been THE cornerstone of Black culture. Born of necessity, it has served as:

The central meeting place for spiritual fellowship
The central meeting place for community oneness
The central meeting place for artistic outreach
The central meeting place for intellectual discourse
and,
The central meeting place for political activism.

Because of our nation's sordid past- of slavery, segregation, seclusion and separatism, the church was (for centuries) the only source afforded the Black American to access these seemingly simple rights that their White counterparts could take for granted- from any number of different sources. To be blunt, it was the center of most Black Americans' lives- by necessity.

Enter: someone like Jeremiah Wright.

From the pulpit, his job has been historically very different than the role of his White counterpart. With relatively few instances of racial injustice, oppression, and social stigma hanging over the heads of his congregation, the European-American minister has been relatively free to concentrate his efforts/teachings on matters spiritual. Not so, the minister of the "Black church" down the road....

His job, by necessity, has been more far-reaching. Historically, his role has been one of the few avenues available to African-Americans to get their spiritual teachings, news, truth, basic info and sense of awareness. ( A Black 90+-year-old Great-Grandmother isn't going to log onto YahooNews to get her daily fix of "what's happening now".... know what I mean? )

From the pulpit, a Black minister in this particular role is going to load his message with much more 'relevant rhetoric" than his White counterpart... because that's the role he was assigned, when he took on the job. He must do so- because his role in the community is to bring to his people a sense of modern-day relevance from teachings that were handed down 2,000+ years ago. Don't misunderstand me here- the basics of their respective jobs are essentially the same, but the manner in which they execute them are very different- because of our nation's history- and how that history impacts their respective constituents' realities.

In short- Jeremiah Wright will say things to his congregation that his White counterpart would never say,,, not because it's wrong, but because it's what he feels his congregation needs to hear. It's up to the individual members of his congregation to decide if his words have any relevance to their lives.

To be honest, I heard many a thing in a Sunday Service that still don't reach me- but I think for myself. My hope is that Barak Obama does so, as well. That is why I see it as folly to try to link the two, ideologically.

When 'pulpit rhetoric' is interwoven with a message that should ring true with every modern-day American, there is always the chance that someone else can play the "Photoshop Cut/Paste Card"... and manipulate that person's words to say what they want people to hear.

Please don't be naive... what you are hearing is most probably the result of "Photoshop Politics" on the part of Barak Obama's detractors....whomever they may be.


_________________



Here's an example of what I mean:

"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check...."

"So we have come to cash this check - a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism..."

" It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro..."

"Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual...."

"There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights."

"The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges."

"There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied..."


Sounds a bit ominous and inflammatory, doesn't it?

Malcolm X?
Stokely Carmicheal?
H. Rap Brown?
Jeremiah Wright?


uhhh... no.

These were but a few quotes taken from Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech from 1963, on the steps of our nation's Capitol... one of the most uplifting and life-affirming speeches in all of America's oratorical history.


Amazing, what a cut/paste hack-job can do... if someone wants to press some other agenda....

Just in case you wanted to see where these "inflammatory statements" came from, here's a link to the full transcript... so you can see how easy it is to manipulate a great man's words away from what he meant.

I'm not saying that Jeremiah Wright is the nation's next Martin Luther King Jr. I'm not even saying that he's substantial enough to carry MLK's message to those who need to hear it. What I am saying is this:

Much of the rhetoric that a minister uses to inspire his constituents is just that- RHETORIC. As such, it's cast out there for public consumption, and is subject to manipulation by forces/elements who would seek to use it to their own ends.

Jeremiah Wright may or may not be an "America-Hating reverse-racist." I don't know. What I do know is what My Father taught me, many decades ago: "Figures don't lie- but a liar can sure nuff figure."

Amidst all the hyperbole, angst and headines, two things are certain here:

1. Jeremiah Wright speaks to, and not for Black Americans.
2. Jeremiah Wright is not Barak Obama.

To link (or sink) Barak Obama, just because of the church he attended is just plain wrong.



Damn. This post wore me out.
I'm going to bed now.


.02,
Clemdawg

It's hard for me to set a firm stance on the issue.. I don't mind Obama as a person, but I won't be voting for him simply because we have different political beliefs politically. I do understand that he and Rev. Wright aren't the same person, but you do have to account for their relationship a bit in all of this... (Heck, I'm a member of the same denomination.. United Church of Christ.. but I can assure you if the same speeches were given at my church for 20 years I would've heard of them and distanced myself.. and I'm not running for anything!)

But honestly, there is a bit more than "he just went to the same church.." The title of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" was taken directly from a Sermon given by Rev. Wright. (There are even some racially charged quotes in the book from Rev. Wright's speaches). He chose to have Rev. Wright perform his Marraige, the baptism of his daughters, AND had him head up his spiratual advisory board. No matter what you think about the guy, it's hard to believe that he NEVER heard ANY of these charged sermons over the last 20 years.. and this is someone who he thought enough of to head up his committee. If he would've come out and said, "well, I heard some things I didn't agree with, but I decided the overall message was good etc.. I could filter out the bad stuff..." or especially "I left when I heard those types of things" that'd be one thing. But he didn't. He said he had never heard those kind of things... It's just hard to believe.

On a personal level, I prefer Barak to Hillary. I even prefer his demeanor to McCain. I honestly think he means well. But I'm not voting for a friend. I'm not voting for someone I want to have coffee with... and I just don't agree with or believe his standings on the issues or that he will do what ends up being best for this country in the long run. As much as I would love to say I had a hand in voting for the first black president... I just can't do it this time around. Maybe soon... unfortunately it just won't be this time around.

Maybe...just maybe...Barack agreed with some things...and disagreed with others. But he didn't have to leave the church or "distance himself" for the sake of some argument, or to make a million strangers happy.

I went to church for years, and didn't agree with a lot of what I heard and read.

Thanks for wearing yourself out for us Clem. While I undersand the premise of what you are saying and the actual need for it during those days in history, what I hear from Wright is rhetoric that divides. I would certainly hope a leader of our nation doesn't believe in some of what this man says and apparently believes. I'm not saying Obama does, I'm saying that you are often judged by the company you keep, and sometimes rightfully so.

I also saw nothing ominous or inflammatory in the quotes from MLK. They were all right on.

Quote:

---

But he didn't have to leave the church or "distance himself" for the sake of some argument, or to make a million strangers happy.

---

He doesn't have to do anything to make me happy... and I don't have to vote for him... neat the way that works.

Rev. Wright's honorary degree canceled by Northwestern Julianna Goldman
1 hour, 34 minutes ago



May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Northwestern University withdrew an invitation for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to receive an honorary degree at this year's commencement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wright, former pastor to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, was selected to be honored at the June ceremony in Evanston, Illinois, on the recommendation of faculty committees, Alan Cubbage, vice president for university relations, said in a statement.

``In light of the controversy around Dr. Wright and to ensure the celebratory character of commencement not be affected, the university has withdrawn its invitation to Dr. Wright,'' Cubbage said.

Obama, an Illinois senator, has repeatedly denounced Wright's statements, which have included praise for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and a suggestion that the U.S. government was capable of developing AIDS to infect black people.

Wright's statements ``offend me, they rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced and that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally today,'' Obama said in a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, on April 29.

Obama's relationship with Wright came under renewed scrutiny when his former pastor repeated some of his statements, including that U.S. policy was partly to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks, during a speech at the National Press Club in Washington on April 28.

To contact the reporter on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net ;

j/c

I'm sure most are aware of this but Barack's mother and that whole side of the family is white. So I have serious doubts he wants to get power to get back at whitey.

I don't understand why this is an issue. No one is criticizing McCain for his accepting the endorsement of John Hagee who blamed Katrina on gay people.

It's a double standard and those who needed justification for not trusting Barack because he's different, or they didn't like him, are using it as justification for previous bias.

This pastor shouldn't be in the news and seems bitter and petty over Barack denouncing him so he will try to drum up drama and controversy and the media is exploding this story beyond proportion. This has NO EFFECT on the election. How will this Wright issue solve our education problems? Our gas prices? Our horrid economy? Those are the issues that need to be on the news EVERY DAY. I don't care about Wright. I want the issues debated and I want the candidates explaining their reasons. This is just sensationalism and muck racking. The news has turned into tabloids and it's sad.

So you don't care that Obama's SPIRITUAL LEADER, who he sat and learned from, is spewwing racist hatred and Obama was under his teachings for years? Wow, how do you seperate the man from his beliefs? Don't your beliefs actually play a part in how you stand on "issues". Actually, this sounds much more like deflection from an Obama supporter far more than people looking to find something to criticize him for because they don't like him.

I disagree with Wright and AM disappointed it took this long for Obama to separate from him. However, we don't know what the sermons Wright preached consisted of. And as much as I disagree with what Wright said, it is his right to say it. For all we know, this could've been a rare ocassion for him to speak like he did in church. Even though now he says it every chance he has, there's still no proof that that's all his sermons were over the last 20 years.


And no one has answered yet, why is there no outrage over McCain and Hagee?

My take is that

1) Obama did everything possible to provide cover for Wright's comments when they became public. The speech in Philly was brilliant. There are many truths in that speech, one of the more appropriate is how there are fundementally different views based upon the generation one was raised.

2) Obama was willing to take criticism for not disowning Wright. It would be inconsistent to simply disown him.

3) Once Wright reiterated his comments, with perhaps the most offensive comment being that Obama's priors actions were taken out of political necessity, Obama granted Wright his ride under the bus.

4) The cynic in me thinks that either Wright is 1) an egotic or 2) wants Clinton to win.

5) I still have a hard time understanding this guilt by association thing.

Quote:

---

5) I still have a hard time understanding this guilt by association thing.

---

This was the point of my first post.

If Barak Obama was stating that JWright was going to be his running mate upon nomination, then "guilt by association" might be appropriate. After all, JWright as a direct player in the nation's political arena would make a difference in Obama's electability... and questions would be rightfully raised about his influence, should they be nominated/elected.

Such ain't the case. And he shouldn't be given this much influence now... by anybody.

Whether one likes or dislikes Barak Obama, it should be based on what one hears from him in his stump speeches. I haven't yet decided about him, but I do know one thing- I won't judge him based on what someone else spouts in front of a camera.

This stinks to high heaven of a political hatchet-job, and I don't like it. I don't like it for/from any candidate, and I absolutely DETEST negative ads during political races.

Jeremiah Wright can say whatever he wants to, as long as he doesn't shout "fire!" in a crowded room. When I listen to his rhetoric (via soundbyte only, so far...) I'm hearing him. I actually do separate him from BObama while I'm listening. The hatchet-job isn't working on me.

Same holds true for all of us who post on this board. When you good Dawgs read my posts, you are reading MY thoughts.... not my minister's. I expect the same is true for all of you when I read your posts. Why should it be any different for this guy?

If there are people out there who worry that Obama is some mindless drone at the mercy of an ominous puppet-master, then one of two things is probably at work:

They didn't want him to succeed in his run for the presidency, and have now found their convenient excuse
or
They are mindless drones at the mercy of some other ominous puppet-master... with his/her own agenda.


I HATE it when American voters are used and manipulated like pawns... and this is one of the most obvious and heavy-handed attempts I've seen in a long time. Maybe that's why it's not working on me.

Linkage

Obama can't avoid pastor's central role
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:00 AM
By George F. Will

Because Sen. John McCain and other legislators worry that they are easily corrupted, there are legal limits to the monetary contributions that anyone can make to political candidates. There are, however, no limits to the rhetorical contributions that the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. can make to McCain's campaign.

Because Wright is a gift determined to keep on giving, this question arises: Can people opposed to Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy justly make use of Wright's invariably interesting interventions in the campaign? The answer is: Certainly, because Wright's paranoias tell us something -- exactly what remains to be explored -- about his 20-year parishioner.

In Monday's speech at the National Press Club, Wright repeated his accusation, made the Sunday after 9/11, that America got what it deserved. His answer yesterday to a question about that accusation was: "Whatsoever you sow, that you also shall reap" and "you cannot do terrorism on other people and expect them never to come back on you."

As evidence that "our government is capable of doing anything," he strongly hinted that he has intellectually respectable corroboration -- he mentioned several publications -- for his original charge that the U.S. government is guilty of "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." But yesterday he insisted that he is not anti-American. It is, he said, Americans' government, not the American public, that is a genocidal perpetrator of terrorism. So, he now denies that America has a representative government -- that it represents the public. He believes that elections mysteriously and against the public's will produce a genocidal, terroristic government.

Yesterday, Wright also espoused the racialist doctrine that blacks have "different" learning styles from others'. This doctrine of racially different brains, or of an unalterably different black culture, is a doctrine today used to justify various soft bigotries of low expectations regarding blacks, and especially black children. It has a long pedigree as a rationalization for injustices. Slaveholders and, later, segregationists loved it.

Obama should be questioned about whether he agrees about "different" learning styles. It is, however, predictable that journalistic and political choruses will attempt to suppress such questioning by suggesting that it is somehow illegitimate. The "daisy ad" and "Willie Horton" will be darkly mentioned.

There have been two television ads in presidential campaigns concerning which there is a settled consensus of deep disapproval. In both cases, the consensus about these acts of supposed mischief is mistaken.

The first ad was used in 1964 by Lyndon B. Johnson against Barry Goldwater: A small girl plucked petals from a daisy as a voice counted down to a nuclear explosion. The ad, reflecting Johnson's fear that his large lead would cause complacency among his supporters, concluded with a voice saying: "The stakes are too high for you to stay home."

Goldwater and many of his supporters were incensed. But Goldwater had said several things suggestive of a somewhat cavalier attitude about the use of force, including nuclear weapons. He had made his judgment a legitimate issue.

In the spring of 1988, in a debate among candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, Tennessee Sen. Al Gore used the matter of Willie Horton against Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, one of Gore's rivals. Horton had been in a Massachusetts prison serving a life sentence for the murder of a boy he stabbed 19 times during a robbery. Horton was frequently released on weekend furloughs. Finally, he fled, kidnapped a couple, stabbed the man and repeatedly raped the woman. Because the ad, made by supporters of Vice President George H.W. Bush, included a photo of Horton, critics called it racist. But supporters of Bush argued that the Horton episode was emblematic of Massachusetts' political culture, or of a liberal mentality, pertinent to assessing Dukakis.

When North Carolina Republicans recently ran an ad featuring Wright in full cry, McCain mounted his high horse, from which he rarely dismounts, and demanded that the ad be withdrawn. The North Carolinians properly refused. Wright is relevant.

He is a demagogue with whom Obama has had a voluntary 20-year relationship. It has involved, if not moral approval, certainly no serious disapproval. Wright also is an ongoing fountain of anti-American and, properly understood, anti-black rubbish. His speech yesterday demonstrated that he wants to be a central figure in this presidential campaign. He should be.

George F. Will writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

georgewill@washpost.com