Libertarian Librarian

Yeah-- wow is right. It's quite amazing how he takes this sticky situation and doesn't give an "easy" answer to it... I like particularly how he mentions his grandmother and her opinions that make him cringe. I mean, we've all been there. There are very few people in the world who you can agree with 100%, but that's not the point. Having to condemn people for some of the assinine things they say is pretty juvenile, and doesn't admit the complexity of people, issues, history, the whole lot.

The point is being unified by the need for moving forward and not getting bogged down in the marginalia.

And he does that beautifully.
 

Yeah-- wow is right. It's quite amazing how he takes this sticky situation and doesn't give an "easy" answer to it... I like particularly how he mentions his grandmother and her opinions that make him cringe. I mean, we've all been there. There are very few people in the world who you can agree with 100%, but that's not the point. Having to condemn people for some of the assinine things they say is pretty juvenile, and doesn't admit the complexity of people, issues, history, the whole lot.

The point is being unified by the need for moving forward and not getting bogged down in the marginalia.

And he does that beautifully.
 

No amen here. From earlier in the speech that was a response to the controversy surrounding his decades-long association with a rather racist preaching pastor:

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike. I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. 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. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. [...]

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. [...]

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

So, Obama spent twenty years at this church, was married to his wife by this man, had his children baptized by this man, called this man a mentor, and even had him on his African American Religious Leadership Committee; but Wright's racist and anti-American stances, which Obama admits were known to him, were overshadowed by the "nice guy that Obama knows?" In Obama's conversations with him, outside of those touchy sermons, Wright hasn't said bad things about other ethnic groups, and he treats white people well, too. This doesn't pass the smell test.

If Clinton or McCain went to a church for decades with a similar pastor, knowing full well of his making "remarks that could be considered controversial," would we applaud them for having such a man on their religious committees, or for being true to the good man that they know him to be? No. Either would be dragged over the coals.

Worse, Obama tosses in his white grandmother's alleged racism to temper the racism of Wright, and then goes on a radio interview a day or two later and notes that his grandmother is just a "typical white person." Again, would Clinton or McCain get away with calling anyone a typical [insert anything but white here] person, especially if the inference was that typical [insert anything but white here] people were intolerant or frightened of those who were different from them? No; I don't think so.

Unfortunately, Obama is just a typical politician. Hopefully for all of us, much like Ron Paul, the increasing media scrutiny will cast a light on all that is not portrayed in the audacious one's spin.
 

Ah Mojo, you make me sad.

Rather than attempt to respond to all of your points/contentions, I shall simply refer you to Andrew Sullivan: www.andrewsullivan.com

He gives a fair, well-reasoned, and thought through take on this issue, imo. Obama does not deserve a free pass on Wright, nor has he received one. But we all associate with people that have flaws, or objectionable viewpoints, or awkward ways of expressing themselves.

Is it better to abandon them all, to say, "I renounce you and ALL you stand for," or to recognize the flaws while still embracing the virtues and joy they bring us? I don't agree with all the stances the Catholic Church takes and I don't agree with all of the things the priests at my church say during their homilies. Should I renounce the priest and the church, or should I embrace the solace, peace and forgiveness the church brings me, the wisdom many of the homilies bring me, and perhaps examine the source and reasoning of the homilies I find disturbing in an effort to A)Love my neighbor, B)Question my own assumptions and reactions, C)Forgive others as I hope they will forgive me and D)Muster my thoughts and reasons for objecting to the homily's content so that I can discuss it with my family and, perhaps, with the priest?

Which of those approaches is more helpful and fosters growth and development for everyone involved?

People are flawed. If we disown everyone who has flaws, we will all live in very, very lonely places. Obama did not defend Wright, or his objectionable, racist comments. Rather, he chose to renounce those comments while reminding everyone that those comments are not the be all and end-all of Pastor Wright. Obama sought to find the reasons behind them in an effort to find a means to move beyond them.

He is frank and honest about race in a way that very few people are, much less politicians. I am sorry you can not see that, Mojo, truly I am because I think it is the tonic our society needs to move to that day Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned where all children are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Peace.
 

Ah, Nick, you make me sad as well.

You present Andrew Sullivan's take, and I present John Hinderaker's take:

I've expressed admiration for Barack Obama's political skills, but maybe, in a time of stress, his inexperience is beginning to show. In an interview earlier today, he referred to his grandmother--the one he slandered in his speech on Tuesday--as a "typical white person." Think about it: can you imagine any Presidential candidate, in any context, describing anyone as a "typical black person?" Or a "typical Asian person?" Worse, what Obama said was that the "typical white person" views others of different races with fear and suspicion. Obama appears to be digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Obama isn't, and shouldn't, be getting a free pass on Wright. I don't disagree with you there. There is a difference, however, between having friends and acquaintances with "flaws, or objectionable viewpoints, or awkward ways of expressing themselves"; and having a person who one calls a mentor (a wise and trusted guide and advisor), even though said mentor has laced his public statements with bigoted comments for years, and one has generously sponsored and supported that mentor throughout the years.

If my priest says something inflammatory on Sunday, I am not going to walk away from the church he preaches at. I'd go with your option D and "muster my thoughts and reasons for objecting to the homily's content so that I can discuss it with my family and, perhaps, with the priest." If that same priest continues to make those same sort of inflammatory and objectionable statements week-after-week, month-after-month, and year-after-year; then I will be notifying the priest's higher-ups and walking away from that church.

That's a big difference. Individuals who display their flaws occasionally, but who are otherwise generally good people, are the types of people that we all associate with. Individuals who continuously act in an objectionable manner, however, are not the types of people that I will continue a relationship with.

If Clinton or McCain had a decades long association with someone like David Duke, and they called that person a mentor, and they supported that person monetarily and otherwise; would you just look at that as them having an association with a person with "flaws, or objectionable viewpoints, or awkward ways of expressing themselves," or would you expect that such an association speaks to the content of the character of those who would continue such a relationship?

I'm not looking at ethnicity, Nick. Instead, I'm looking to the content of character of an individual who would say things such as:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

OR

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

OR

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."

And I'm also looking at the content of the character of the man who would call such a person a mentor and like an uncle.

To quote Obama, "Don't tell me that words don't matter." They do matter, and the many statements of Wright speak to the character of both the pastor and the politician who has looked to him for guidance for so long. I'm sorry that you can't see that, Nick.
 

I don't think that Obama said anything other than Rev. Wright was his spiritual mentor. That doesn't mean that he ascribes to nor agrees with his political worldview.

And, sure, there's some crackpotty stuff that Wright said, but I believe that his sentiment in some of those comments is actually worth looking at-- the idea that America is not perfect. And, as one of the world's superpowers, we have to accept that what may historically have made sense to our government doesn't necessarily make sense to everyone else in the world. Because our power is so great, the ramifications of our actions in the world are multiplied. We have to take responsibility for this possibility, especially when we make bad decisions.

Now, I'm not saying that I agree with his idea that we've supported, "state-sponsored terrorism against the Palestinians and in South Africa"-- but I understand where he could get that feeling or idea.

Now, after Obama's "grown up" response, I don't think there can be any equivocation about not only his distancing from Wright's inflammatory statements, but also his fitness for the job. It's about time that we had someone who can think and make nuanced, thoughtful decisions as the head of this country. It's time for us to grow up.
 

While Obama may or may not agree with Wright's political worldview, that political worldview is definitely part of Wright's spiritual message. Individuals are usually influenced by the teachings of their mentors, spiritual or otherwise, so that would lead one to the logical conclusion that Obama has been influenced by Wright in that role. Keep in mind that Obama's "Audacity of Hope" was inspired by one of Wright's sermons, and that Obama mentions Wright's influence on him personally in both "Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams From My Father."

Again, this isn't a situation of an occasional acquaintance who has just had his controversial words come to light. Obama's campaign had Wright put on their African American Religious Leadership Committee. Also, Wright is often described as an influential force in Obama's life, and it is not the first time that Obama has had to distance himself from Wright. The piece below is from the CS Monitor, and it notes Obama's decision to withdraw an invitation to Wright to avoid criticism (emphasis mine).

It was at Trinity United Church of Christ here, in the late 1980s, that Senator Obama says he found religion. Raised in a secular household, with ancestral roots running from Islam to Baptist to atheist, Obama had grown up a skeptic. But Mr. Wright's blend of scripture and social action resonated with Obama, then a young community organizer in black neighborhoods ravaged by steel-mill closings.

And when Wright preached one Sunday about the sustaining power of hope in the face of poverty and despair, Obama says he found himself in tears.

"The questions I had did not magically disappear," Obama wrote in his recent book, titled "The Audacity of Hope" after Wright's turn of phrase, of the day four years later when he made a formal commitment of Christian faith. "But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

More than the other Democratic candidates for president, Obama has made faith a centerpiece of his campaign. [...]

Wright impressed Obama, and by 1988 the younger man found himself in the pews, listening to parishioners clap and cry out as Wright spoke of "the audacity of hope" in times of suffering, Obama writes in his bestselling 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father." In Wright's words that day, Obama glimpsed the deeper meaning he had been searching for in his work with the South Side's poor, who often had little to go on but faith.

"In that single note – hope! – I heard something else," Obama wrote. "At the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story."

Four years later, after returning to Chicago from Harvard Law School, Obama joined Trinity and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith. Wright later married Obama and his wife, Michelle, and blessed the births of their two children. [...]

Some evangelical leaders have questioned how Obama can square his Christianity with support for abortion rights and same-sex civil unions. And conservatives have pummeled Wright for his Afrocentric beliefs, his equation of Zionism with racism, and his remarks on the 9/11 attacks. ("In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," Wright wrote in 2005 in a church- affiliated magazine. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.")

The night before he announced his candidacy for president in February, Obama withdrew an invitation to Wright to give the public invocation, a decision that did not sit well with some other Chicago pastors. Pfleger said Obama told him that he didn't want criticism of Wright to detract from the big day. "I told him I thought it was the wrong decision," Pfleger said in an interview.
Barack Obama: Putting faith out front, Christian Science Monitor, 16 July 2007

Obama has made his faith a key aspect of his run for the presidency, and Wright is repeatedly noted as the man who awakened that faith within him. Wright is the type of individual who Obama has continued to turn to for advice and guidance over the years, and it does make one wonder what types of individuals he would surround himself with in an advisory role if he were to win the presidency. That goes to Obama's character and judgement, and that is what is concerning many people about the revalations of Wright's "profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America."

I'm not the only one questioning this. ABC's Blotter may not be getting Obama's nuance, either.

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons. [...]

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.
Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor, ABC News, 19 March 2008

I don't expect that this will cause anyone here to look more deeply at this; in fact it may simply harden hearts. Keep in mind, though, that more scrutiny will follow this. The Rezko story is just starting, and each day there seems to be a bit more of a revelation as to how involved he was with Obama.

Best of luck to you with this guy.
 

What can I say, I have lots of friends who have differing worldviews from mine, and yes, I might look to them for advice or counsel, knowing full well that I might not agree with what they say. I, however, respect the fact that neither I nor my worldviews (religious or otherwise) don't account for ALL views that could be right or hold value.

And, let's face it, sometimes with great genius comes great opportunity for some whack-a-doodle crankiness. I am not familiar with Wright's teachings, but it appears to me that he has great power to motivate, teach and inspire. He also, in his exhuberance, also seems to go off the deep end every once in a while.

Obama has never once signaled to me that he's wont to follow Wright off that deep end.

I just think it's quite a slippery slope to say that anyone you associate with-- especially as a spiritual guide-- can be used against you. What about all those folks who sought counsel with Jimmy Swaggart? What about Pat Robertson? Talk about a crackpot!

So, perhaps I'm willing to concede the point, if you are willing to look behind all these other guys and take them to task for their spiritual elders' conspiracy theories and biggoted beliefs.
 

And somehow, John McCain is never held responsible for the reprehensible things said by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and John Hagee, all men whose 'spirtual leadership' he has lauded and whose support he has actively sought out.

hmmmm..... double standard much?
 

Mama H,

What can I say, I have lots of friends who have differing worldviews from mine, and yes, I might look to them for advice or counsel, knowing full well that I might not agree with what they say. I, however, respect the fact that neither I nor my worldviews (religious or otherwise) don't account for ALL views that could be right or hold value.

And, let's face it, sometimes with great genius comes great opportunity for some whack-a-doodle crankiness. I am not familiar with Wright's teachings, but it appears to me that he has great power to motivate, teach and inspire. He also, in his exhuberance, also seems to go off the deep end every once in a while.

How many of your friends preached to their 8,000 member congregation every Sunday? How many of those friends have preached publicly, and on recorded video, with the congregation clapping and agreeing, sentiments such as the following?

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans."

The 9/11 attacks are "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

"The [U.S.] government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

Those are the public statements of Rev. Wright, made from the pulpit of his house of God. His congregation claps, and nods, and says, "Amen." Obama chose this church over others decades ago, he has attended this church for all of those years, he has given tens of thousands of dollars to that church, and he new that that his confidant and mentor of a pastor could "get kind of rough in the sermons."

If your friends with those differing worldviews have publicly stated similar sentiments on a regular basis, with a straight face and heart-felt sincerity, and you find them to be the types of individuals that you would look to for advice or counsel, then there is no point in discussing further.

There is a difference between a decades long relationship with a bigoted and hate-filled man like Wright, and an endorsement or a few meetings with a controversial religious figure.

Obama has never once signaled to me that he's wont to follow Wright off that deep end.

But Obama did know that this pastor was a firebrand and not the best to have in public. The following is from the New York Times in March of 2007.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the popular Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama, thought he knew what he would be doing on Feb. 10, the day of Senator Obama's presidential announcement.

After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation.

But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

"Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack," Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. "One of his members had talked him into uninviting me," Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama's campaign advisers. [...]

In Monday's interview, Mr. Wright expressed disappointment but no surprise that Mr. Obama might try to play down their connection.

"When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan's views or Qaddafi's.

Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama."

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."

Obama knew what type of individual Wright was in March of 2007, yet he had him on his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee through at least November of 2007. That's at least eight months of trying to keep such a man associated with his campaign after knowing "that it's best for [him] not to be out there in public."

That goes to judgement, and for a candidate who is portraying himself as an atypical politician with better judgement than his opponents, that doesn't bode well. Further, maintaining such strong ties to a minister who exploits race in such a manner does not help to paint Obama as a candidate who can transcend race.

I just think it's quite a slippery slope to say that anyone you associate with-- especially as a spiritual guide-- can be used against you. What about all those folks who sought counsel with Jimmy Swaggart? What about Pat Robertson? Talk about a crackpot!

A politician who embraced Swaggart or Roberson and considered either of them his/her mentor for decades would be equally suspect. Which candidate for the presidency has done so?

So, perhaps I'm willing to concede the point, if you are willing to look behind all these other guys and take them to task for their spiritual elders' conspiracy theories and bigoted beliefs.

I'm willing to look at the mentors of other presidential candidates who claim to provide change, to not be a typical politician, and to transcend race. Which candidates are those, and who are their suspect mentors?

Remember that Obama has a decades long relationship with Wright. Another presidential candidate made ONE speech at Bob Jones University, and that candidate caught hell for it.

[The candidate] has taken a lot of heat, and deservedly so, for tolerating intolerance. On Sunday, stung by criticism of [a] visit to South Carolina's Bob Jones University, [the candidate] sent a letter to New York's Cardinal John O'Connor in which the [candidate] apologized for having failed to [avoid the university due to] the university's racially discriminatory and anti-Catholic policies. Yesterday John McCain denounced two [of the candidate's] backers [...] as "agents of intolerance."

Let's hold Obama to at least a similar standard.
 

TC,

McCain and Robertson aren't buddies. Robertson backed Bush in 2000 and tore into McCain as "a vicious bigot who wrote that conservative Christians in politics are anti-abortion zealots, homophobes and would-be censors." Catch that? Robertson was calling McCain a bigot.

McCain lashed back at evangelicals (including Falwell) shortly thereafter.

"I am a conservative, my friends, a proud conservative who has faith in the people I serve, but those who purport to be defenders of our party but in who -- who in reality have lost confidence in the Republican message are attacking me. They are people who have turned good causes into businesses.

"Let me be clear, let me be clear. Evangelical leaders are changing America for the better. Chuck Colson, head of Prison Fellowship, is saving men from life -- from a lifetime behind bars by bringing them the good news of redemption. James Dobson, who does not support me, has devoted his life to rebuilding America's families. Others are leading the fight against pornography, cultural decline and for life. I stand with them. I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro- life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters.

"Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. I believe in the cause of conservative reform. I believe that because we are right we will prevail in the battle of ideas, unspoiled by the taint of a corrupt campaign finance scheme that works against the very conservative reform of government that is the object of our labors. The Republican Party will prevail...

(APPLAUSE)

"The Republican Party will prevail because of our principles, because that's what it's about, my friends: principles, not special-interest money or empire or ego.

(APPLAUSE)

"The union bosses. who have subordinated the interest of working families to their own ambitions, to their desire to preserve their own political power at all costs, are mirror images of Pat Robertson. Just as we embrace working people, we embrace the fine members of the religious conservative community, but that does not mean that we will pander to their self-appointed leaders."

It appears that the two never reconciled, and even in this election cycle, Robertson backed Giuliani over McCain. In regards to Robertson, from all of the information I am finding, you are just wrong.

When May of 2006 rolled around, though, McCain started trying to make inroads to the evangelicals. Part of this attempt was by making the commencement speech at Falwell's Liberty University. In that appearance, "[t]he Arizona senator's speech was shorn of religious references and avoided controversial social issues. Instead, he focused on constitutional principles while touching on themes of humility, patriotism, respect for political opponents and forgiveness that may be relevant to his preparations to seek the Republican presidential nomination again." The point became rather moot a year after that one speech, though, because Falwell died.

There was, at best, a tepid one year connection between Falwell and McCain.

Hagee, though, you are absolutely right about. McCain should have his feet held to the fire for not rejecting the endorsement of Hagee. The MSM needs to get off of its tail and pound him on that.

That's not what Nick was writing about, though. Nick was writing about Obama's speech in response to the bigotry and hate-filled speech of his decades long mentor, and that is what I have been commenting on.

I don't hold a double standard for McCain, though. As the apparent token Conservative commenting on Nick's blog, and while I don't see McCain's relationship with Hagee equivalent to Obama's relationship with Wright, I do agree that McCain does need to be called out in the MSM for not rejecting Hagee's endorsement.

So what say you, TC? Will you call out Obama as well, or do you "double standard much?"
 

Yikes, USMC, we're not ganging up on you. At least I'm not. I'm simply making the point that if we start this game of every candidate being 100% responsible for the sometimes crackpot comments, it's a slippery slope. Lordy knows Hillary has had problems with Bill and Geraldine opening up their traps and saying some God-awful stuff. I'm not sure if you can hold her to account for those things unless she doesn't distance herself publicly from those comments (which, by the way, in the case of Bill, I don't think she really did).

Your point is taken that you feel that Obama's distancing from Wright is disingenuous. I'm saying I'm not sure that you wanted to vote for Obama from the start, so of course any perceived transgressions on his part are going to feature larger for you, whereas others who were more apt to see his virtues might evaluate the information otherwise.

And, as I said before, I think that Wright goes off the deep end sometimes. But I also can understand that... I think America and our agents have done some pretty messed-up stuff. And, though I don't think racism is endemic in our society, it still lurks behind many corners. If I were black, I might be a hell of a lot more p*ssed off about that, too... and that might inform my worldview.

That 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff is of course, pure crapola-- that goes without saying. But if you think that America has done some awful, awful things in the world, it probably isn't that difficult to make a metaphorical leap to say that we created a more polarized world, which makes us all less safe and can allow whack-jobs like Osama to be able to spew drivel and have people act on it.

However, I'm not apologizing for 9/11 (or any other, for that matter) conspiracy theorists. I'm just saying there are still lots of people out there on the right, left, and from total outer space who still espouse it. Mel Gibson, anyone?

But I am saying that I understand how and why people might "go there". I don't agree with it, and I think it's faulty logic, but I understand some of the deep emotional sentiment behind it.

And I suppose my willingness to actually listen to not just what people say, but the context of why they say it, makes me more able to understand A) why Obama might find some value in his relationship with Wright and how B) he simultaneously wants to distance himself from some of Wright's views.

It's not an all-or-nothing equation.
 

OT: Nick, did you see Andrew Sullivan's piece in Slate about "How I Got the Iraq War Wrong"? Worth a peek: http://www.slate.com/id/2187098/
 

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. [...] I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork.
Barack Obama - 18 March 2008


Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. He's built a wonderful congregation. The people of Trinity are wonderful people. And what attracted me has always been their ministry's reach beyond the church walls. [...]

I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this. [...]

[A]s of this point, I'm a member of Trinity.
Barack Obama - 29 April 2008


Senator Barack Obama has resigned his membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which he attended for nearly two decades, following months of controversy about pastors and their political views.

Mr. Obama said he and his wife, Michelle, wrote a letter on Friday to the church's pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss, explaining that their estrangement from Trinity took root in controversial remarks by the church's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who once was Mr. Obama's spiritual guide.
Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church - New York Times/Michael Powell - 01 June 2008


Fourty-two days from "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," to "[W]hatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this."

Thirty-two days from "[A]s of this point, I'm a member of Trinity," to "Senator Barack Obama has resigned his membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ."

As I said just over two months ago, "Unfortunately, Obama is just a typical politician."

And as Mirriam-Webster says, Politically expedient: What is immediately advantageous without regard for ethics or consistent principles.