Contrary to Claims, Obama Very Close With Racist Preacher, Wright

[R.R.]

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5759.msg56405#msg56405

[Xavier_Onassis]

So, who is responsible for the oppression of Black people in the USA?

Gypsies? Chippewas? Hindus?

Has the US government given more aid per capita to White people or to Black people?

Are there a higher percentage of White people in jail than Black people?

Has the US Constitution ever permitted the enslavement of White people?

How is this statement untrue?

Please explain.

[Rich]

>>Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.<<

There you have it. All we need is some eye witnesses to come forward, and the "Magic Negro" is done. But then again, OJ was found innocent by a jury of his peers... I heard a Black woman on Meet the Press this morning explain that this sort of thing was common in Black churches. Maybe the the FBI ought to be listening in at Mosques AND Black Churches.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Maybe the the FBI ought to be listening in at Mosgues AND Black Churches.

Mosgues?

What instances of subversion and terrorism has Rev. Wright incited?
Get serious.

OJ has nothing to do with this, unless you assume that all Black people are in some conspiracy to Get Whitey.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Contrary to Claims, Obama Very Close With Racist Preacher, Wright
By Warner Todd Huston | March 16, 2008 - 15:21 ET

Many in the newsmedia are reacting with quite restraint to the revelations of comments by Obam's racist "spiritual mentor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Imagine if this were a Republican politician linked to such outrageous talk and you'll realize how the MSM has been studiously underplaying this controversy. A benefit of the doubt seems to be the rule of thumb for how the media is treating Obama, a benefit that would be denied a GOP candidate.

But, as ABC's Jake Tapper asked concerning Obama's knowledge of Wright's racist rants: What did Obama know and when did he know it? In this posting Tapper finds that Obama was distancing himself from Wright a year ago causing the question to be raised if Obama long ago wondered if Wright would be a liability? But, there is video of Obama lovingly introducing Wright even after that proving not only that Obama is very, very close to Rev. Wright, but also that he was not distancing himself from the man at all.

On June 5th, 2007, Senator Barack Obama spoke before 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University's Convocation Center. Most of them were pastors and ministers attending a conference there.

He was there to speak on mostly post Katrina issues and to criticize the Bush administration's efforts during that natural disaster. Obama tried his catch phrase of the moment, saying that a "quiet riot" might be occurring in America and he affirmed that he felt that America was a racist nation, that the reaction to Katrina had just "pulled back the screen" on America's racism. Obama also used rhetoric heavily doused with religious symbolism.

But, that boiler plate aside, there was two very interesting segments in Obama's remarks concerning his racist "spiritual mentor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. that are not getting the press it deserves. (See the video at Channel 2 News Chicago)

He was effusive in his praise and admiration for Wright, this foaming at the mouth, hate monger. This runs contrary to his late claims that he is somehow shocked by Wright's racism, or that he now disagrees with him as well as his claim that he was not familiar enough with Wright to know of his point of view.

As the speech kicked off (at 1:07 into the video), Obama introduced the Rev. Wright to the audience with these glowing and highly personal words:

And then I've got to give a special shout out to my Pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He's a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ.

Where's he at? There he is. That's him, that's him right there.

You wearing a suit today, right?

This reveals a very intimate portrait of Obama and Wright's relationship. Notice the last bit where Obama jokes about Wright's penchant for wearing an Afrocentric style of dress and that his wearing of a suit at that event was uncommon. These are the remarks of a close friend to another loved intimate, not the words of a man making perfunctory comments.

Later in his comments Obama mentioned Wright again.

You know, I've been on a journey trying to get at the truth that question for a long time. I mention Rev. Wright... I first met Rev. Wright when I moved to Chicago after college.

And that's where I met Rev. Wright and started going to Trinity United Church of Christ and he helped me on another journey and introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. And I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things that I was too weak to accomplish myself, maybe he could accomplish them for me if I placed my trust in him. And I learned that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things when they believe in him and they come together and are guided by him.


So, we see that Obama obviously had a close, long-term relationship with Wright not a casual one where Obama might have missed the Reverend?s long-standing agenda.

It is also interesting that Obama's rhetoric was so steeped in evangelical Christian rhetoric. Isn't a ?fanatic? Christianity one of the charges so often leveled by the left against president Bush? Don?t they so often say that he is somehow too religious? And, how often did we hear from the MSM how ?controversial? Bush (or any Republican) was for delivering a speech before Bob Jones University?

And remember, Bush just went to make a single speech at Bob Jones University and the media slammed him for months afterward. Yet, Barack has had an intimate, 20-year relationship with Wright who has vehemently called for God to damn America and the media yawns at the news.

In light of the criticism of Bush?s injecting ?too much religion? in his presidency or that his administration is just like a ?Christian Taliban?, it is also a legitimate question to ask, where are those same accusers when this 2007 speech by Barack Obama is so filled with religious fervor? Where are the anti-religious left and the so-called separation of Church and Staters at now?

In fact, this entire speech is filled with nothing but class warfare, expansions of social programs, raising the minimum wage, typical great society type junk all couched squarely as a civic responsibility enmeshed with Obama's view of Biblical precepts.

Now, as far as what Obama knew of Rev. Wright's racist comments and when he knew it, ABC's Jake Tapper is right on when he notes that Obama had dis-invited Wright from delivering the public invocation at his candidacy announcement more than a year ago. This obviously reveals that Obama had begun to distance himself from Wright before he announced formally for the presidency. It is plain that Obama knew of Wright's problematic ranting long before his sudden claim that he is shocked by Wright's past rhetoric.

Unfortunately for the truth, when the questions were finally put to him on March 14th, Obama played dumb saying, "I wasn't in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn?t feel comfortable there."

Even back in April of 2007 The New York Times quoted Wright that he'd already talked with Barack about his controversial relationship with the ranting Reverend.

"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Mr. Wright said with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen."


This fully reveals that Wright understands that his views are controversial, that Barack was fully aware of them, and that they are both complicit in trying to cover up these facts in order to fool people into a false perception of the truth.

But, as the video from Chicago?s Channel 2 shows that, until recently, Obama never did fully separate himself from Rev. Wright.

With all the proof of how Barack Obama has been so close to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. for the last 20 years, it stretches credulity to imagine that Obama never heard of Wright's hatespeech before. And as Wright blames whites for all the ills of the black community, while Wright claims that America deserved 9/11 and that whites created AIDS to kill blacks, Obama has the gall to claim that it?s everyone else stirring the racial rhetoric.

Watch this speech by Obama and see who is stirring the racial rhetoric. During his own campaign, Obama has cleaned up Wright's racist hate but make no mistake that the message that Wright has so often bellowed from the pulpit is nearly identical to Obama?s on the campaign trail. Obama has learned well from Rev. Wright. He?s learned well, indeed.

The conservative blogosphere is aflame with Obama?s links to Wright. But the biggest question is: will the Mainstream Media let this controversy die, will they decide it?s ?old news? like they do so very often, or will they pursue it, connecting the dots, like they should?

What do you think?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/16/contrary-claims-obama-very-close-racist-preacher-wright

[Xavier_Onassis]

He should be arrested for nodding!

How dare he nod!

[BT]

If Matthew Yglesias is correct in his analysis and I think he is:

    Obama's going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset . . . . Since emerging onto a larger stage, it's been the reverse and Obama's consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign's launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don't listen to, etc.

Then what Reynolds says is also true:

    The "real" Obama, in other words, probably looks a lot like the "real" person inside most politicians -- somebody who mostly cares about Number One and will do and say what it takes to get elected. The problem for Obama is that Bill Clinton, who ran as a likable rogue, could get away with this sort of thing to an extent that someone who runs as a force for "unity" and "a new kind of politics" can't, since this looks a lot like -- well, actually it looks exactly like -- the old kind of politics.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2008/03/where_we_are_th.php

[Xavier_Onassis]

Perhaps you have mistaken the role of the politician for the role of messiah.

No one runs for president that does not have a rather large ego. McCain has one, so do Hillaryu and Obama. This does not make them unfit to be president. I imagine that any of them will be better than Juniorbush. and they won't have a VP as powerful or as dickheaded as Cheney, either.

[BT]

Perhaps you mistook the post.

What I am seeing is that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary. And that goes a long way towards explaining the increase in attacks on Obama from the Hillary camp and RW pundits.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It looks to me like most of the anti-Obama stuff is coming from Republicans. Other than the big, stupid flap from Ferraro, anyway.

The Rightwingers have been kindlinbg Hillary hatred since before 1988, and it looks like they are covering their bases by attacking Obama, or making it look like Hillary is attacking him. If he retaliates, then he's justy another politician, if not, then he suffers the sad fate of Kerry, who didn't attack the Swiftboaters and was seen as a wimp.

But the net truth remains the same: if you want war, vote McCain. If you want healthcare to get even worse, vote McCain, if you want more Fascist judges, vote McCain.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP
Seek to prolong bitter battle
By Scott Helman
Globe Staff / March 17, 2008

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.

But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.


Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their b?te noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."

Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.

Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.

"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."

Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."

In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.

"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."

Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.

"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."

Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.

It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."

"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.

"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.

"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

 

[fatman]

More supporting evidence for the wisdom of a one day, one vote national primary.

[Amianthus]

More supporting evidence for the wisdom of a one day, one vote national primary.

I know plenty of people who register Democrat so they can vote in the Democratic primaries, then vote straight Republican during the election. I also know plenty who do the opposite.

Tactical voting has been around a long time.

[Christians4LessGvt]

fatman generally I agree something must be done
the democrats have a battle that imo is tearing their party apart
the republicans basically allowed a few small populated states decide who the nominee was
and disenfranchised republican voters in hugely populated states

one problem i see, is i think the primary system is good in one way
when the current system works it is like the March Madness Playoff system in basketball
it allows weakness and strengths to be fully vetted

(ps: democrats in 2000 crossed over in mass to vote for McCain in the primaries to try and slow the Bush train)

[Xavier_Onassis]

ps: democrats in 2000 crossed over in mass to vote for McCain in the primaries to try and slow the Bush train)

An act that can best be described as patriotic.
Too bad it did not derail it totally.

A President Gore or a President McCain would have been infinitely better than the dunderheaded Juniorbush, the worst president ever.