From: canonfire	Date: April 29th, 2008 09:35 am (UTC)		(Link)

I watched 20 minutes of the Moyers interview before I had other things to do. Overall, he knows his stuff and he's well-grounded. An MDiv from UChicago Div School and having Martin Marty as your influential prof means something. He may have some strange views here and there (e.g., HIV spread by the gov't), but he's a preacher with his feet firmly planted in the Black American Church and the Black American experience.

As MLK, Jr., said "The most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on a Sunday morning." The media can play the race card that it wants to do oh-so-badly for Obama on Wright. Wright is that "safe" outlet.

	From: legolastn	Date: April 29th, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)		(Link)

This is pretty much my feeling. He's got some strange, if educated, views on a few things. And he has a tendency towards overgeneralization and reification in terms of race. But he's hardly the only public persona guilty of that.

	From: canonfire	Date: April 29th, 2008 09:41 am (UTC)		(Link)

What annoys me most is that Obama pulled an "I do not know this man" on Wright and left him out to dry. Wright speaks truth to power and trumps Obama's words of hope big time. Obama fell more than a few notches in my eyes when he disavowed Wright.

BTW, McCain still accepts the endorsement of the anti-Catholic Hagee. And no one seems to care about Hagee OR McCain!

	From: legolastn	Date: April 29th, 2008 07:53 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah, the the main thing you heard from the media that didn't simply fawn over his speech is that he didn't distance himself far enough and that he threw his own grandmother under the bus by comparing her to Wright. Now these same people are saying Wright threw Obama under the bus. I see a pattern here.

I've seen some coverage of the McCain/Hagee mess, but it certainly doesn't seem consistent. McCain's line is that he isn't under the spiritual guidance of Hagee so it's not the same, but in my opinion that should also make it all the more easy for him to completely disavow him. But it gets better because nothing has been made of McCain's 2006 visit to "agent of intolerance" Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Or McCain's "spiritual advisor" Rod Parsley's statements that we should destroy the "anti-Christ religion" of Islam (just one of many of his outrageous statements). This has gotten absolutely zero mainstream press coverage so far.

This doesn't even get into the connections his former rivals for the Presidential bid had.

	From: beyondbabylon	Date: April 29th, 2008 12:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I really don't get the broo-ha-ha surrounding Wright. It's a non-issue. It's less than a non-issue. What Obama's pastor thinks and says doesn't matter for the presidential campaign. At all. Who has never sat through a sermon they disagreed with? I sure have. For such a "Christian nation", we seem to be missing the point of church a whole lot and forgetting that it's not just made up of a pastor. Leaving your church is a big deal: that's your community, your family. And you can't just dump your pastor. That's the person who visits you when you're sick and takes your phone calls when you're having a crisis in the middle of the night and sits with you when your Mama dies. Whether you agree with every little thing they say or not, your pastor is an important person in your life.

Besides, Wright speaks the truth. To paraphrase Nikki Giovanni, instead of getting mad at somebody who speaks truth you don't like, how about changing the way you do business?

	From: legolastn	Date: April 29th, 2008 10:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I think there was a legitimate question of whether Obama shared the views of his pastor on certain issues. And there was a legitimate counter-question of whether these were really accurate presentations of the pastor's views in the first place (which nobody really addressed until Bill Moyers). Once those questions were answered, it was time to move on, at least as far as it relates to the Obama campaign.

	From: whobyfire78	Date: April 29th, 2008 04:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Lame.

	From: legolastn	Date: April 29th, 2008 10:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah.

	From: lord_kero	Date: April 30th, 2008 04:21 am (UTC)		(Link)

The whole situation is weak. So, the man goes to a fire-n-brimstone preacher. Why does this keep coming up? I won't deny there's a legitimate question there, but past a certain point, its just beating a dead horse. The only reason to keep trotting him out is to keep the only negative publicity that's managed to keep sticking to Obama going. Wright's obviously not out to try and help Obama at this point, and Billary's people are pressing the nutball factor just to keep the mud flowing. Reality is they've got nothing, they know it, so the only way to win is to tear Obama down any way they can. Typical tactics from the Clinton campaign. Yes, its a bit of a ding against Obama's character that he distanced himself from Wright, But the fact of the matter is he's taken WAY less bullshit shots at Hillary and done a far better job keeping his campaign on the up and up, where she's showing herself to be a catty little bitch who's only out for herself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html

	From: legolastn	Date: April 30th, 2008 05:31 am (UTC)		(Link)

It's fair to say the Clinton's are using the "kitchen sink strategy." A friend of mine who has been leaning towards Hillary has also noted that she has also been very disrespectful in her speech and facial expressions during the debates, whereas he maintains a respectful tone and posture. It is troubling. It's even more troubling that now that it has kicked into full gear this strategy seems to be working. Thanks for the link, that's pretty interesting.

	From: lord_kero	Date: April 30th, 2008 11:40 am (UTC)		(Link)

It's all she's got, and she has to know it. She can't touch him on the issues. Her entire platform seems based on a "vote for me, because he sucks" platform, where Obama's platform is based on facts, reality, reason, and an actual plan to make things BETTER. Clinton's web site is nothing but self aggrandizement and advertisement, where Obama's actually lays out, point by point, exactly what he wants to see happen.

What's funny is once upon a time, Bill campaigned from the platform of 'vote for the person who makes sense, not the one who spreads fear.' What's his wife doing? Who's the one making sense?

Once upon a time, I would have welcomed a Clinton return to the White House as a good thing, and that maybe there was a chance we could return to the heydays of the late 90s. However, Hillary has shown her true character to be nothing but the worst sort of political sludge, from the moment she carpetbagged into NY (what, she couldn't get elected from Arkansas?), to the fake 'oh Ive decided to run for President' (yeah right, that was the whole plan all along), to now she's run into real competition with real ideas, that came from real people, funded by real people. And since she can't beat it on a level platform, her only choice for victory is to tear it down. And all she cares about is winning.

	From: validateme	Date: May 1st, 2008 02:44 am (UTC)		(Link)

hillary uses the same hardball campaign strategies as most of her male peers but she's singled out for her's largely because she's a woman, excuse me, a bitch. i'll use your terminology.

sorry to have the claws come out (if i am to borrow a line from obama on hillary) but i just had to make the point.

of course hillary's going to use everything she's got to win; it's a presidential campaign. she would be stupid not to. she would also be wasting the donation dollars of her supporters if she didn't. the only way hillary will appease the obama supporters in the blogosphere is if she laid down and died.

sorry to be testy but this view irks me a bit.

	From: lord_kero	Date: May 1st, 2008 03:46 am (UTC)		(Link)

No worries. Variety is the spice of life, and debates are always good. Let me clarify my position a sec, because this point may not have been clear.

There's a huge difference between a woman of strong will and smart leadership, and someone who has no real vision, a thirst for power, and a obsession to pad her own pockets and prestige. One is a strong leader of good character that's worthy of respect, because she treats others with respect, and handles herself with class and dignity. The latter is a ruthless bitch. Big difference. A woman of strength does not == bitch.

The sort of underhanded muckraking tactic that Ms. Clinton is undertaking is utterly reprehensible, REGARDLESS of gender. True, there are those who will single her out for being a woman. There are also lots of us who could care less one way or another about her gender, and see her for the spin, the lies, and the utter nonsense that she's pulling for the sole purpose of getting to the Oval Office.

It doesn't matter what color someone's skin is, or who they prefer to sleep with, or what's in their trousers, or where they choose (or not) to pray. If their behavior is wrong, it should be condemned regardless of the race, gender, or any other factor. If they're an asshole, they're an asshole.

Just because Hillary is a woman does not entitle her to a hall pass for her behavior.

And yes, McCain is just as bad.

	From: validateme	Date: May 1st, 2008 04:07 am (UTC)		(Link)

meh. obama's said shitty things about clinton, too, and he got less shit for it. i'm unconvinced she's getting a hall pass for being a woman.

"a thirst for power"

people w/o a thirst for power do not run for president.

"...and a obsession to pad her own pockets and prestige."

politicians are not selfless public servants. neither is mr. obama. you must be part narcissist to run for office.

also, neither of these candidates exhibit any real vision.

i, too, voted for obama b/c he's running a cleaner campaign but i ultimately still think that the divide between obama and clinton is vastly overated. if obama has to run for president a second time, i think we'll see that. mobilizing formally apolitical people to vote and participate in the political system is very exciting, though, so that defaults me to obama.

	From: lord_kero	Date: May 1st, 2008 04:47 am (UTC)		(Link)

"obama's said shitty things about clinton, too, and he got less shit for it."

He has. How long did it take for him to start taking the first swipes, though? And how much fire has he come under for _not_ striking back at her more often? He's been much more even handed and level, while enduring a lot more flack, and repeats of the same attacks over and over. Were his campaign to stoop to the same level as the Clinton campaign, you'd still be hearing about Ms. Ferraro's commentary, and how long it took (and under what circumstances) for Ms. Clinton to sever those ties. But that hasn't happened.

"people w/o a thirst for power do not run for president."
"politicians are not selfless public servants. neither is mr. obama. you must be part narcissist to run for office."

You're right, to a point. There is always a question of motive. Sure, you've got to have something of an ego to run for a public office, and it's got to be a hell of an ego trip running for something like President. But in Obama's case, it's because his platform is heavy on trying to make things better for a lot of people. In Hillary's case (and this may simply be my perception), its to make things better for herself.

"also, neither of these candidates exhibit any real vision."

I disagree with you here. The points Obama lays out on his website are very direct, and have the promise of actually making a change. His track record of getting multipartisan bills through the Senate show he's capable of delivering the goods.

The points Clinton lays out on her site sound good, but her track record in the Senate shows more a history of lots of talk but fewer results. Case in point, her concept under "Comprehensive Government Reform" opens with the statement "Americans are ready for a government that puts competence ahead of cronyism." Yet, she's taking funding from all the usual sources, and plays all the same shenanigans, and tries to dodge being held accountable just like everyone else in the existing structure that she states she's going to shake up. You don't bite the hand that feeds you and stay in power very long.

"mobilizing formally apolitical people to vote and participate in the political system is very exciting"

That it is. It's even more exciting when you consider that he's the closest thing to a grassroots campaign for the White House in a very, very long time. It's one thing to run for President supported by all the usual special interests. It's a totally different story to get where he is mostly (solely?) on Joe Sixpack's dime.

Here's hoping, anyways.

	From: validateme	Date: May 1st, 2008 02:04 am (UTC)		(Link)
	fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

but this is the exact same thing that happened last time. i find it hard to believe that wright didn't know that his comments would be taken out of context again and to obama's expense. so why make them in them in the first place? the safest thing for obama to do have done originally was to completely disavow and sever all ties, instead he did the first but refrained (partially) from the second. that was an awfully nice thing to do considering the wrench wright threw into his campaign train. wright's comment about obama being a disingenuous politician who says whatever to get elected, while probably true enough, was an awfully shitty response. when you consider that obama's number one appeal is that he's not hillary, making him out to be like hillary will not win him any favors.

i was sympathetic the first time around but i've lost some sympathy with wright's present antics. as an obama supporter it disappoints me.

you do make a very good point w/ the mccain-falwell obama-wright comparison, however.

	From: lord_kero	Date: May 1st, 2008 03:47 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Hence the link to the Daily News above. He had to know exactly what he was doing, and it wasn't to help Obama.

	From: validateme	Date: May 1st, 2008 03:55 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

he secretly wants McCain to win- i'm convinced!

	From: lady_elsinore	Date: May 2nd, 2008 01:18 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Uh doubtful. But how much would it stretch the imagination to consider that maybe--just maybe--someone in Hillary's camp promised him some funds for his Church? It was someone in Hillary's camp who brought Wright to the Press Club in the first place. How hard would it be to believe that he got pissed off enough at Obama's disavowal that he's willing to go out and actively hurt him?

There's an article out today with Spike Lee suggesting similar:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2277229,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews