Is a ‘Viral Reach’ some kind of new thing? Like Bird Flu? Doesn’t sound all that pleasant and I sure don’t see the connection with Obama’s speech. I’m getting old.

Viral, as in spreading quickly as if by an act of nature. While 1.6 Million is a mere blip of the 200+ or so, it should be making the rounds the world over. Unfortunately, as of yet the spark has not quite been allowed to take flame ans there seem to be some well funded winds blowing against it.

Sitting here watching John Adams on HBO I can’t help but be make the connection in the similarities of the struggle of the people of TIBET today with the struggle our forbears endured. Think about the real fear that must have been in their minds as they pondered the declaration and the prospect of war. The disgust at their mistreatment. I can’t help but correlate it to what I’ve known of the tibetan struggle. The sentiments in the requests of the Dalai Lama to the chinese government echo those of the continental congress to the king. Even at this time when america should reflect upon it’s history and it’s actions and look around at it’s world and the effect it has had on humanity’s evolvement, it seems to be apathetic.
Trucks full of chinese soldiers today are headed towards the Tibetan highlands ready to crush the ‘rebellion’ with ‘extreme prejudice’ as it has already shown capable of. It’s so affraid of the VOICE of these unarmed people that it sends 5 divisions to the highlands and blackens the media coverage so it can do what it knows how to do. Crush human beings to bend them to it’s will!! Too bad america can’t speak because it has used the same tactics in Iraq and the media has laid down it’s just pen.

(Jed Clampett)

Sen Obama made a pronouncement on china and the tibetan problem yesterday. There was a slight blip in the online news services about it but quickly dissapeared. Seems the only one that picked up on the story was the guardian from the UK.HMMM, I wonder why that is?!? While I’m glad Mr. Obama has answered my question to some extent, I wonder why the other candidates have remained hesitant on such an important and poignant issue. Why is it that instead of becoming the issue it needs to be, it is replaced by headlines of race and innuendos?

Lord what a strange time we are living in.

That’s an odd choice of terminology TD. Originality is nice, but let’s not go over the top.

I assume you’re saying 1.6 M hits on You-Tube. How does that stack up against a Bud ad on the Super Bowl?

@#%!! Proxy Errors

I think this speech has raised a number of relevant questions. The obvious question is whether Senator Obama believed or not in the words of Reverend Wright. On the one hand, we have to wonder if Obama’s silence over his Reverend’s words was motivated by his acceptance and belief in them. This is, however, very unlikely. On the other hand, if we believe what he said in his “A More Perfect Union” speech with his repudiation of the Reverend’s words, then the question is why did he not stand up to defend his belief. Why did he not even attempt to change the beliefs of his Reverend and congregation? After all, he portrays Reverend Wright as a person of correct judgment and open-mindedness. If Senator Obama was not able to change mentalities in his congregation, is he the person to bring any type of change in America as a whole?

In fact, the problem with this “A More Perfect Union” speech is that it is a perfect case study of Obama’s campaign social contract. The Senator asks the American people to give him power, so that he can empower back the people and help them change the country. This speech very well identified the issues of contemporary racism – it is present both in mentalities of the majority (the Senator’s grandmother) as well as in minorities (the Reverend). However, the speech as, all of Obama’s speeches, failed to answer the important question: why did Barack Obama not stand up and educate his grandmother or his Reverend about the dangers of such words? Isn’t that the real cause of racism – persons who know better but turn the other way? (Isn’t that why we all upset with Senator Clinton about her vote on the Iraq invasion?)

Senator Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech was beautiful. However, we already knew the Senator was a good orator. Unfortunately, there is as little substance in that speech as in his whole campaign.

(Jed Clampett)

Perhaps that question should be posed to all americans… “why did ‘the american people’ not stand up and educate about the dangers of such words? ”

Why is it that after so many years since the children of slavery where purportedly given their liberty and decades after they were suppossedly recognized as american citizens, this debate is still relevant. Is it perhaps because, as Sen Obama stated, politicians on both sides have stirred up the sentiment in order to make political gains. In other words, your leaders have played on your fearand stupidity in order to deceive you into making the wrong choice when the right choice is so crear.

Chris, I don’t know if you ever dealt with bigoted people. I’ve had. You just can’t correct them. They will refuse to see it. Bigotry is like a phobia. It’s an irrational hatred of a group of people. Something happened to them to make them believe the way they do. It’s get to a certain point where it’s ingrained as part of them. So, you just can’t say that it’s not right to say that about that group of people. Then have that bigoted person see the light and say to you without sarcasm, “Hey, you’re right. I’ve been such an @sshole. Thank you very much.”

The point being is while Obama may disagree with what his Grandmother and his Pastor was saying. He knew them well enough to know there are more to them than just their bigotry.

JP

You know the same people I know.

But we should establish something. Barack Obama is not black. He’s also not white. On one level, that makes him transcendent. But on another, and to those folks, we’ve encountered, that makes him scarier than ever.

There was a time, I’ve read, where being a half-breed was worse than anything. I wonder if that’s still an underlying feeling amongst some. Some blacks may reject him because of his white blood, some whites because of his black blood. It’s all in how you look at it. I think he makes an excellent prospect BECAUSE he’s mixed.

And none of this has anything to do with issues. But a year from now that will be all anyone can talk about. What about the economy? What about health care? What about the war? What about the economy (yes, twice).

I want both HRC AND BHO elected Prez. I thought HRC should go first ’cause she’s older, but that’s not biggie. I just want both Monkeys off our back so we can get on with business, like the BosSox winning the series. Of course, now it’s the Cubbies. And if Barack and Hillory get elected, everyone will talk about the first hispanic, the first asian, the first gay … what? I have a feeling I’m not going to see issues discussed in my lifetime. So, best to enjoy the ‘drama.’

Here’s something interesting. Dan Schnur of NYT writes: “To his credit, Senator Obama did not attempt to excuse his pastor’s statements. But the speech was weakest when he attempted to put those statements in the context of Reverend Wright’s broader biographical experience. It’s possible to credit the reverend for his military service, his university speeches and his charitable work without endorsing his public comments. But context in politics is a tricky thing. Will Senator Obama now discuss Hillary Clinton’s vote on Iraq in the context of her full explanation of the circumstances of that vote? Will he now reference John McCain’s comments about the amount of time that American troops might be deployed in Iraq in the full context of Senator McCain’s historical references to Korea, Germany and Japan?”

I think people are making far too much of Rev Wright’s comments AND Obama’s speech. But the man has a point and BHO way see his toes pressed close to that flame.

Never thought I’d quote David Brooks, and I’m not, but he makes a good case that BHO’s momentum is waning and that HRC could make up a lot of ground in the coming weeks before PA.

He also suggests that she challenge him to pay for the FL/MI primaries 50/50. If BHO’s ‘mo’ has waned, this would be an excellet political move. Either BHO goes along, and gives HRC a change to gain big, or, if he balks, she can beat him over the head with that.

But like I’ve said all along, this thing’s going to the convention. I may have to reconnect my TV.

(Jed Clampett)

I remember watching David Brooks trying to defend the presidents stance on the successes in Iraq a few years ago when everyone knew just how bad things had gotten. That guy is merely a PR mouthpiece for the republican party. His intent is to muddy the waters. To give his ‘opinion’ and ‘analysis’ to those who have none of their own and no means or incentive to inform themselves properly(the sheeple). It saddens me to see you have taken to picking up Republican Propaganda to try and smear the senator. But noticing the tactical thread you have picked up since after super tuesday Hillary started getting creamed and resorted to the same old games, you fell right into line. And now you give voice to the republican spin machine. for shame, is this what Clinton needs to resort to in order to win access to the treasury?

Jesus Jed, a person can’t discuss any potential development without you getting all hostile. Believe me, if David Brooks is talking about it, they you can bet both camps are talking about it too.

So, just how does this ’smear’ the Senator? David Brooks, and I, have every right to speculate about events as do you about Tibet.

but if his Reverend is such a bigot, how can such a great man as Obama clam such great inspiration from him? i just don’t see how things work together here. i think he should address the real issue: why didn’t he do something? why didn’t he stand up for what he believed? if race is such an important issue and he wants America to deal with it, why did Obama only bring it up now when he is forced to do so? why didn’t he address this earlier? how should i be inspired by a man that did nothing to protect his beliefs?

PS: if indeed we are making too much of the Reverend’s words, why did Obama feel the need to make such a speech and repudiate the things he was recorded saying? Obviously Obama either trully believes that these things are offensive and wrong, or is just another politician who has to bend by what the masses think…

Chris,

All the above? He IS a politican and probably saw an opportunity in the spotlight and NO politician can resist that.

As for ‘challenging’ the Rev, I get the impression Wright was/is a father figure and speaking for myself, I would never question my father unless he was WAY over the line. And as others have pointed out, there’s a lot to what the good Reverend said. This country, as an institution, has a dismal civil rights record, the brunt of which has been felt by blacks. If I was black I’d be saying the same thing, perhaps not from a pulpit, but that’s just me. Probably everyone feels that way and talks that way.

Speaking of which, it seems I heard something to that effect, that the Reverend’s only saying in public what everyone else is saying, in the black community at least, privately. It could well be that Obama hears such things so often that he becomes innured to the impact.

I don’t feel this whole episode impugns Obama’s good name nor does it reflect badly on him. He needs these sparring matches ’cause it’s gonna get a LOT worse before it gets better if he gets the nomination.

Chris,

I’ve got a great question for you: why is this reverend important at all? Why is he more important than the sewer extremist Pastor John Hagee, who is on McCain’s religious committee and who has REPEATEDLY said catholicism is a “whore cult,” that the apocalypse needs to be brought about so that all Jewish people can either “be converted to Christianity or burned in Hell,” and that Hurricane Katrina was punishment on New Orleans for planning to hold a gay pride parade.

Here’s a question that is better than any of yours: WHY AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT JOHN HAGEE AS MUCH AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REVEREND WRIGHT?

Since you are obviously a republican operative I expect you won’t be interested in answering that question…

Someone in the bush administration violated federal law and looked up Obama’s passport information 3 DIFFERENT TIMES before anyone higher up at the state department was notified.

The same thing happened to Bill Clinton in 1992 when Bush Sr. was in office and then the aim was to find out damaging information that could be used against Clinton politically. Like father like son it would seem.

This is a violation of federal law and is a serious crime.

Had to chime in here. My father was an extremely bigoted man who grew up in the South. While I was growing up in the inner-city of Chicago, I heard him spew his hatred of anyone not white, day after day. I think he thought this was going to mold me into a man who shared his beliefs. However, it actually did the opposite. I attended school with kids of all races and religions, and became friends, and remain friends, with many of them. I never could comprehend his skewed logic. As I grew older it became clear to me that the time had come to tell him what I thought of his hatred of my friends, and by this time family (my sister married a black man, he disowned her for it.) Needless to say, it didn’t change him one bit, and he acted as if I had brought great shame to his namesake. While I never understood his bigotry, I did understand how he had come to be that way. His father was even more of a bigot, and he was from the South. I left home soon after, and never really saw him much after that. But I never stopped loving him either.

Dear Doughboy, i am surprised at your remarks and actual attack. I am not a republican, i am a democrat and i am concerned about who to vote. i thought this was a cool medium for smart open-minded people to debate. i am sorry that because i wrote something that you do not agree with you simply choose to attack me. above the box where i am typing this message it is clearly written: “Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted”. please check the blog message under which i posted my initial messages. i am appalled that you are trying to shut me up just because you do not agree with me. If indeed you are an Obama supporter, i thought his campaign was all about the debate. please enlighten me. what your message says to me is just because others do it, why shouldn’t Obama do it as well. that’s fine if you are looking for another politician like all the others, for someone aligned to the smallest common denominator. please excuse for thinking this was a place for open debate.

THE DARK SIDE OF OBAMA’S PASTOR WRIGHT

OLD PASTOR WRIGHT,
THOUGHT HIMSELF BRIGHT!
BUT GOT IT ALL WRONG,
AND GOT HIMSELF LONG!

NEW YORK TIMES SPIN,
IT STINKS LIKE SIN!
SPEWS OUT HATE,
AND YOU TAKE THE BAIT!

SO SORRY,
END OF STORY!

Chris,

Touché. I’ve noted a tendency among the truly rabid Obama supporters to treat any question of the man as an attack, which they respond to in kind. At least from their perspective.

There are no saints running for Prez, the process/system has long ago winnowed out any of that cloth. Whoever comes out of Denver with the nomination will be subjected to beatings with blunt objects and pokes in the eye with sharp objects from those fine chaps on the Right. I would rather address any issues which could be considered fodder for the Cons character assassination now, not this Summer.

The Cons are NOT going to be able to attack BHO or HRC on issues, that’s for sure. So that only leaves the person for attack. Let’s air ALL the laundry now, dirty or no.

And don’t let the responses of a rabid few get you down. After a while you get used to it and it doesn’t bother you. You’re being open and fair and that trumps all.

BD,

Tnx for that. I would have to guess that your experiences reflect that of many. Hopefully others are able to reason their way through bias as did you.

(Jed Clampett)

When I arrived in this country it was the brothers that accepted this foreigner, unable to speak well, having survived a revolution and not knowing anything or anyone about this country. While the affluent poured their disdain and reproach on anyone not fortunate enough to have exited the same orifice as they, the black people of SE TX understood better the unity of family and the power of kindness. While sometimes we allow our passion to flow through to expression, and rightly so, usually it is done for effect and to make sure the message was understood. Perhaps Rev Wright should be judged by the actions of his church and his congregations respect for him. Seems there are quite a large number of people who attend his sermons of various ethnicities who have not been offended by the pastors words as the media has would want us to believe. And if guilt by association is such and important matter in American politics, shouldn’t we scrutinize all the candidates with the same standads? Let’s look at all the candidates and see what their past relationships have been. Who has the convicted embezzler in their rolodex? Who has a close friendship with industry? lobbyists? Who associates with expersts and who associates with crooks? Why must we accept the lesser of two evils? what does it say about us when evil is all we have to choose from?

It is strange that we are so much slaves to the process as DD seems to imply. ‘That’s the way the game is played’ seems to be the adage and that makes it acceptable. When the republicant’s assaulted Kerry on his voting record in the senate and derided him as a flip-flopper. The american public accepted the tactic rather than voicing loudly their disdain for the tactic. What senator has not approved of a bill initially, only to see it mangled and distorted in commitee negotiations to where they have to reject it in order to keep it in commitee for negotiations, only to vote for it again once reconciliations are made? This is the nature of politics. Certainly much of the outcome was Kerry’s fault for refusing to explain to the ignorant american populace how negotiations in the senate work or to defend himself. He erroneously thougth defending himself would be to give credence to the falsehoods and to fall into the same negative patterns as the sith lords on the right. He miscalculated that the american people would see a weakness rather than a strength in character. Sen Obama is no John Kerry, he will not sit back and allow them to slander him in such a way without speaking truth to them. Whether or not the american people will appreciate truth and character more than vicisitudes and disparagement remains to be seen. Personally I’ve seen too much apathy from americans to hold much hope, but some of us still believe even if many have already thrown in the towel and chosen distortive tactics as acceptable and refuse to listen when spoken to in a clear, concise and intelligent manner. Sen Obama resonates with many of us because of what we perceive to be his integrity and conviction. When we listen to him speak and recognize that it’s not the same kind of talk the politicians are used to feeding us. When I hear him make the difficult statements that could derail the campaign but need to be addressed truthfully and openly. When I see how he rejects the slightest deviation from a righteous course in his staff, I recognize that this is no ordinary politician saying whatever is convenient or poll tested in order to access the seat of power merely for personal and political gains. This guy really seems like the real deal and that is why he has my support.

So if we are going to hold people to a greater standard of vetting because they are looking to gain control of our treasury and military, let’s make sure we hold everyone of them to the same deep scrutiny, otherwise we risk installing another member of the insiders club that gave us the Bushney regime and all the little helpers that have drained our treasury, destroyed the economy, tarnished our world standing and made us doubt the greatness and veracity of our nations stated goals and aspirations.

It’s time to move on from the Rev. Wright saga. But for those who cannot, you should at least see the sermon in it’s entirety. Without the Fox-news editing. If you really are honest with yourself, you’ll see the true meaning of the sermon. Its on You-Tube.

I heard the speech, I’ve read the speech and acknowledge that it was a good speech. Well crafted and well delivered by Obama. But that misses the point of why he gave the speech – because he’d been all over the MSM denying that he had ever been present when Rev Wright delivered one of his more controversial sermons. He lied and knew he would get caught out. The speech was a vehicle to admit the lie and bury it in rhetoric that most of us agree with.

MelanieL,

If that is all you took away from the speech then, I believe, you missed the point. You may have heard the speech, but did you listen?

Jed,

Nicely said and all oh so true. Except maybe the part where you inferred I don’t have any problems with the ‘game.’ I do and have said so repeatedly. It stinks and it sucks. That said, the only way to fight it is from within, or revolution. And I, frankly, have no ability in either arena. So, when I point these things out, it’s not in their defense, rather it’s in the hope that others may understand and better attack it from the two avenues I’ve mentioned. The primary system sucks. Period. The general election process sucks. Period. The funding for elections, the impact of lobbyists, the sneaky, backdoor amendments to bills. All suck. All period.

Your assessment of Rev Wright, and Deke’s right, time to move on (except the Cons won’t), was very true. We’re all guilty of some actions which could be perceived as biased. I’ve used ethnic slurs but don’t believe I’m a racist. I’ve used bitch in reference to a woman but don’t think I’m a sexist (chauvinist, perhaps). I don’t many of us can claim to have never made such an error. As you said, assess the Reverend’s work and his members. Therein lies the measure of the man.

Mel,

There’s a pretty good chance NONE of us have heard all of BHO’s utterances, but if he’s said, “I never heard Rev Wright disparage the U.S.,” I missed it. He did say, I believe, that he’s heard the Reverend make heated remarks, but never got specific. That’s being tactful. He would be showing disrespect if he said, “Rev Wright said this,” or “Rev Wright said that.” You don’t do that. Besides, that’s sermonizing, perfectly legal and, in fact, encouraged in our society. You should read some history about what’s been said in the past.

Obama gets support from a reverend that is, obviously, filled with hate toward much of America’s previous policy. And, although what he’s saying may be true, it’s nonetheless not considered ‘politically correct’ to voice those opinions in a mass forum like his (even though we operate this war in Iraq under the umbrella of freedom, which free speech is an extention of….).

John McCain gets support from a reverend that says we need to nuke Iran to bring on Armageddon (phucking joke) and ‘cleanse the world’. Let’s not forget his catholicism and homosexual remarks….

Both reverends spew hate, but Obama’s is the one who gets the most critical review????? Half of what he said could be considered fact.

One reverend says we need to stop what we’ve been doing and the other says we need to step up what we’ve already been doing………

Either way, isn’t it odd that both are spewing hate?

Chris,

It is not open minded to imply that Barak Obama cannot be great because he received inspiration from someone you call a “bigot:” it’s actually the definition of close mindedness to believe someone is a bigot and can never be anything but. It is also not open minded to condemn Obama for responding in the way he did to political attacks. If you possessed anything close to the definition of an “open mind” you would understand that the attacks on Obama for his reverend’s “racist” statements ARE ALL ABOUT RACE. If race weren’t important, Obama would not be attacked in this way and this campaign would be about ideas instead of personal attacks. Obama didn‘t make race an issue, the attacks on his reverend did. It would seem your mind is so closed in this respect you can’t even keep sequences of events straight.

I am appalled that you are so close minded you assume that NO ONE in this world who is great could ever know – or be inspired by- someone who occasionally makes bigoted statements. No one on earth fits this definition yet because of your close-mindedness you focus on Obama instead of John McCain, who was endorsed by an antisemite, anti-Catholic, anti-homosexual pastor AND APPEARED WITH HIM ON THE SAME STAGE. You can prove you are even remotely open minded by treating McCain with the same scrutiny you apply to Obama. You are not open minded so you will not.

Actually, you are so close-minded you believe it is an attack to call someone a republican. That is simply funny. Maybe you can read a bit so that you would know what an open minded discussion is in order that you may have one. Till then I’d be happy to teach you.

This extends to the media as well. If the media were even remotely covering this race objectively McCain’s endorsement by hate-filled antisemite, anti-catholic, anti-gay pastor John Hagee would get the same amount of play Obama’s reverend does.

And BOTH Obama AND McCain would have to be attacked for YEARS to make up for what the media has done to Hillary.

Face it, reverend Wright is not an issue. Those that make him one try to distract from the fact that John McCain DOESN’T EVEN KNOW WHO WE’RE FIGHTING IN IRAQ!

Reverend wright is by definition off topic during this campaign cycle. Toenail dirt is more on topic than reverend wright.

Dboy,

I’m going to have to side with Chris on this discussion, as if anyone cares, mainly because he’s asking fair, measured questions and NOT attacking anyone. You, on the other hand are attacking him, rather than his message.

I don’t believe Chris called the Reverend bigoted, rather that he, the Reverend ‘occasionally’ made bigoted remarks. His’ question(s) wasn’t so much as to what the Reverend said as to what Mr. Obama did or didn’t do in response. And I believe that question has been answered several times by others herein.

As for BHO not bringing up the race issue, that’s a little bit disingenuous. I have to believe that every time he shaves, Mr. Obama recognizes that most people would categorize him as black. I also believe Mr. Obama to be VERY smart, as are his advisers, and he recognized the day would come when he would be called on to make a speech on race. I’m sure that if that speech wasn’t written on paper long ago, it was written in his mind.

Kudos to him for that. This young man knows what he’s about, what he’s after, what obstacles lie between him and his goal and he’s preparing himself to deal with those obstacles. I’m impressed.

So, Chris had every right to ask the questions he did, and he did so fairly. I’d like to think his questions have been answered by Mr. Obama himself and others who have shared kindred observations. You, however, did not answer his questions.

(Jed Clampett)

Does hillary even have a pastor? or is she just a godless heathen?
Fair question when the candidates are being scrutinized for the message they receive from the pulpit? McCain has already shown support for Rev Hagee’s comments and ideology. We know what side of the righteousness division line he stands on. Obviously many think they know what sen obama’s theology might be. What does hillary feed her brain? Does she worship at a bank? Stock market perhaps?

F.Y.I

Wright’s speech was edited for TV. The words he used were a quote from someone else! He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.
How about lies directly told by HRC. “Under sniper fire in Bosnia.” or “How she brought women together in Ireland.” I’ve also read that it was HRC, not Obama, who told the guys in Canada that SHE wasn’t serious about renegotiating NAFTA. Also, Clinton has taken more money from Defense contractors than McCain or Obama (who’s taken none.) But these stories get no play in the MSM. Why? These are lies told directly by her, not the words of one of her acquaintances. C’mon Hillary, Do the right thing, not the Wright thing, and bow out graciously while you still can. Do it for the party, do it for America. You could still be Secretary of State or have some other role in our new government.

Jed,

Definition of hypocrsy. You criticizing me questioning Richardson’s motives for endorsing Obama on one thread while you question HRC on this thread.

Get a grip.

ever heard of paying back with the same coin? now that we’ve established that it bothers you, then we understand why you do it.

If you can cite a place where I’ve been hypocritical, I will apologize for my error.

Wait!! Cons are off limit. I will be hypocritical about Cons everyday for the rest of my life.

Dirty Dennis,

Not sure why you think Chris wasn’t attacking Obama or calling Wright a “bigot.” This is what he asked: “but if his Reverend is such a bigot, how can such a great man as Obama clam such great inspiration from him?”

That is not a “measured” question because it erroneously implies that Obama is racist. Obama has done nothing to warrant questions like that.

That said you wouldn’t know it by listening to the media today. Playing Wright’s sermon over and over without applying the same pressure to McCain’s pastor John Hagee is simply partisan. McCain was caught lying THREE times about Iran training Al Qaeda in an attempt to draw the U.S. into war with Iran and that has gotten next to zero play because it doesn’t fit into the media’s narrative that McCain is competent on war policy. Now 4000 soldiers are dead in Iraq, the economy is doing the “titanic” and all the media can talk about is Obama’s pastor. This is absolutely sickening.

It would seem the media is in the bag for McCain and excited at going along with another pointless wasteful war. Anyone who thinks the media is liberal needs to have their head examined.

Dboy,

It’s called a debate tool. You ‘pose’ a question to set apart a condition. Chris was NOT claiming Wright’s a bigot, rather juxtaposing one premise against a contradictory one.

No, the ‘media’ is NOT liberal. Nor is it conservative. At least not in their coverage. They are, however, decidedly capitalistic. They will sacrifice any ideology they might have for an extra buck. They recognize that people are a HELL of a lot more interested in Obama than in Johnnie Boy. Anything Obama does is news; nothing Johnnie Boy does is interesting.

Im tired of these right wing catholic commentators condeming Obama and Rev. Wright, its hypocritical since every pope in the last 4 decades has comdemmd America and when it had the power the Catholic church was oppressive.

Ray,

You’re too kind when you characterize the Catholic church as having been ‘oppressive.’ If there IS a heaven, a lot of Popes can only read about it.

Dirty Dennis,

What are you talking about? What does “posing a question to set apart a condition” even mean? Did you mean “contradiction?”

It is not a debate tool to take use slander as the logical basis for more slander. Wright is NOT a bigot, therefore questioning Obama’s bigotry based on his relationship to Wright is out of bounds.

Even if Wright WAS a bigot, applying his statements to Obama is out of bounds. The media doesn’t do that with McCain and the reason is racial. White people are suspicious of organized black people. If they weren’t they’d be just as angry-and full of “questions”- over McCain/Hagee as they are of Obama/Wright.

I’ll pose a similar question to you about McCain: If John Hagee is such an antisemite, how can we be sure McCain won’t turn into Hitler if he’s elected, seeing as how McCain admires Hagee so much that he went after his endorsement?

Or how bout this one with Hillary: If Bill Clinton is such a lying monster and racist, how can we be sure Hillary is not a lying monster and a racist as well, as she claims to have gained so much experience from him?

If the above “questions” are “debate tools” then you have a twisted understanding of what “open minded debate” means.

Dboy,

Perhaps I do, but I’ll leave others to judge that.

By the way, your pseudo questions are accurate, legitimate and correctly posed. And, I might add, necessary. If you’re choosing a POTUS, you should consider every possibility lest you wind up with a Nixon or Bush.

Except apparently when coming to that choice involves questioning Hillary too harshly AND not questioning Obama harshly enough.

Sorry. If you believed in the principle of asking offensive, slanderous and attacking questions of presidential candidates, you’d be just as outraged more aren’t being asked of McCain as you are about too many being asked of Hillary.

You support Hillary because you think the young people supporting Obama are idiots. Just admit it.

Dboy,

I think they young, like all the young in history, are enthusiastic, naive, idealistic and smarter than those who came before. I think their taste in clothes and music sucks, but I know that the ‘elders’ felt that way about us when I was a puppy.

As for McCain, I have expounded upon him at length in the past. Read The Nightengale’s Song. Interesting book.

So, is this your first election?

You’ve expounded on McCain in “the Past,” obviously not during this campaign which was your whole point. Could it be you want McCain to win?

Annapolis apparently didn’t teach Oliver North much, McCain either it seems. The military is probably the most overrated form of “experience” a candidate could ever have in running for president. One would think it would sober a man into not sending kids to war; not McCain. He is salivating over sending our children to die in Iran.

And it’s funny you’d think this is my “first campaign” when I know more about both the foreign and domestic issues facing this country than the only military man left in it. He’s a man who was once willing to think for himself; if you’re up on current events it would seem that now he’s so old he can barely think at all.

(Jed Clampett)

the only experience the military gives you is how to give up your individuality and to accept the commands of a higher up as gospel. It also makes murder and suicide acceptable political tools.

Dboy,

My towering modesty prevents me from repeating myself over and over and ov … sorry.

Read “The Nightingale’s Song,” by Robert Timburg. It’s all about McCain, North, Poindexter, Webb and McFarlane at Annapolis. You’ll like it. If you don’t fall asleep.

If you HAD read what I said in the past, you would know I’m an ANYONE BUT A CON man. And have actually taken heat for it ’cause I’m so ‘close-minded.’ So please, stop beating me up over McClain. Beat me up of HRC instead.