Another pastor disaster for Obama

[Keukasmallie]

Obama will survive these transparent attempts to smear him and elevate Hill'ry.

 

Hill'ry's campaign can now be characterized as the ships leaving a sinking rat.

[Kelly the Dog]

My ridiculous example did not mention killing anyone, just that the 'friend' was a member of a racist organization. What's the difference between the Klan and Wright/Pfleugers racist views?

As big as the Grand Canyon. As big as the difference in political policies between John McCain and Barack Obama.

 

Your other point about advisors is very true. But there is zero chance that Barack Obama is considering Reverend Wright or Michael Pfleger, or anyone who thinks anything like them to be on his cabinet. These are pastors. They say crazy things in those black churches. Their intention is to get a rise out of people.

[Alaska Darin]

So some dude said something stupid and now we're supposed to get all up in arms about it.

 

Hey Joe, ever turn that eye towards some of the incredible losers associated with the Clintons over the course of their public lives? Yeah, ol' Senator Clinton has quite a track record of low life amigos.

 

Just when you think the bar for patheticness has been lowered to it's absolute pit, PJ shows up with a backhoe to clear some more ground. Good job.

[Alaska Darin]

As big as the Grand Canyon. As big as the difference in political policies between John McCain and Barack Obama.

Not really. Jesus Pete.

Your other point about advisors is very true. But there is zero chance that Barack Obama is considering Reverend Wright or Michael Pfleger, or anyone who thinks anything like them to be on his cabinet. These are pastors. They say crazy things in those black churches. Their intention is to get a rise out of people.

God has turned into quite the idiot rallying point. I'm sure he's pleased.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not really. Jesus Pete.

 

God has turned into quite the idiot rallying point. I'm sure he's pleased.

Sorry, but I associate the KKK with burning crosses and lynchings and that blacks are not people and should be killed. That, to me, is an enormous difference, and not even in the same ballpark, especially to what Pfleger said.

[Bill from NYC]

So some dude said something stupid and now we're supposed to get all up in arms about it.

 

Hey Joe, ever turn that eye towards some of the incredible losers associated with the Clintons over the course of their public lives? Yeah, ol' Senator Clinton has quite a track record of low life amigos.

 

Just when you think the bar for patheticness has been lowered to it's absolute pit, PJ shows up with a backhoe to clear some more ground. Good job.

 

Not only that, I actually agee with the Rev. in terms of his comments about Hillary feeling entitled. In terms of that subject only, where was he wrong?

[Wacka]

Pfleger is a catholic priest. They are not supposed to be involved in politics. JPII made all priests all over the world quit their political posts or get kicked.

I have never see a Catholic priest act like him.

 

 

The next good "friend " to hit the fan is Resko. Obama does a sweetheart deal, so he can can buy a piece of land, he's convicted (or will soon be-I haven't kept up), and owes 700 large to Vegas.

 

You are judged on the company you keep.

[Alaska Darin]

Sorry, but I associate the KKK with burning crosses and lynchings and that blacks are not people and should be killed. That, to me, is an enormous difference, and not even in the same ballpark, especially to what Pfleger said.

All of which was incited by some dumbass standing up on a pulpit getting other dumbasses to act. One begats the other. C'mon. You're smarter than that.

 

Racism is racism. Every fire starts with a spark.

[Kelly the Dog]

All of which was incited by some dumbass standing up on a pulpit getting other dumbasses to act. One begats the other. C'mon. You're smarter than that.

 

Racism is racism. Every fire starts with a spark.

It depends on what you're talking about. There are two different tracks to most things like that. You're right, on one track, it is fair to say lying is lying, cheating is cheating, killing is killing, drugs are drugs, racism is racism, and you're right.

 

On the other track, what I was referring to, was the one that says there are levels to things. Drugs aren't drugs. I wouldn't mind my friends or kids or sibling smoking pot once or dozens or hundreds of times, but I totally mind them doing heroin once. The KKK to me, and a lot of people is not just racism. What the idiot white preacher said on the pulpit is not going to incite black people to go literally kill whitey. Racism is not racism in that respect.

[Chilly]

I would bet any amount of money I could get my hands on that if Barack Obama sat down and wrote a list of the 100 closest people in my life it would not include Micheal Pfleger. From all I have been reading he has known the guy peripherally for 20 years. The AP wrote "While Pfleger is not nearly as close to Obama as Wright had been, he has donated to the candidate's state Senate and presidential campaigns and sat on a Catholics for Obama committee until a few weeks ago. When Obama was in the Illinois Legislature, he helped land more than $200,000 in state grants for outreach programs run by Pfleger's church."

 

I'm sorry, but that association makes me think no less and no more of Obama. Should I go find a pastor in Chicago he knows with a sterling reputation and commend Obama for knowing him because that shows sterling judgment on Obama's part, and all of the great things this pastor does somehow reflects on Barack?

 

Which is fine. If Obama comes out and explains that this was the full extent of his relationship, everyone should drop it. If Obama's response is "don't look at that, its a distraction", I have an issue with it.

 

Quite frankly, I thought Obama's response to it was very well, and as long as he doesn't call it a "distraction" or anything like that, I'm happy with his response.

 

Where I seem to disagree with you is that there are times when guilt by association is a reason to be concerned, and there are times when it is not a reason to be concerned. Simply examining a situation or a relationship is not a distraction, but a look into whether this is a time when we should be concerned or not.

 

Obviously, with this pastor, that isn't the case.

 

The Reverend Wright issue is a completely different story. To me, that is newsworthy. It was fine to look deep into that relationship, because it was a deep relationship.I was satisfied with how Obama portrayed it. It made sense to me. I understand how his critics could doubt it, that's fair. I think a lot of his critics lied about what Obama said, but that is fine, too, that happens in politics, the twisting of people's words. It did bother me that very few people actually took the time to watch what Reverend Wright actually said in that blasphemous sermon but that is me. It was a story and a juicy one. Frankly, I don't think that a pastor's "political" views are the same as his religious views, and I don't think that because Wright said those outrageous inflammatory things that Obama needs to disown him.

 

That bold statement is the one I take issue with. How do you know whether a relationship is deep or not until you look into it? Why should a candidate not have to explain a relationship that he had with a person? His entire life and judgment are under public scrutiny, and asking him about a known relationship is fine.

 

Does the media take it too far a lot of times? Sure, they do, and with that I'd agree with Obama about. But I feel that Obama is being disingenuous when he labels stuff like Wright as a "distraction", when it is a perfectly valid thing to look into and ask him about. It gives me the impression that he isn't simply labeling distractions distractions, but that he is using labels the exact same way liberals criticize Republicans: If you're on the left, you're a far left, evil evil liberal. That is not change, that is the same old politics that I'm used to.

 

This is just my opinion but I happen to think you are a very good poster here. For you to bring that particular thing up makes me think less of you, because it reeks of sensationalist gotcha politics. Like I said earlier, if you really thought of what you are saying, you're making the accusation that Barack Obama is sympathetic to terrorists that bomb Americans, and somehow supports it.

 

Quite frankly, I don't think there is much to the Ayers stuff, from the media's investigations into it. But, when asked about it, instead of explaining what happened, he tried to brush it off as a "distraction". No, Obama, asking you to clarify your relationship with a member of the Weathermen in a debate is a legitimate question. If, after clarifying his relationship with Ayers, and what he says is true, then bringing it up in future debates would be a distraction.

 

Please understand that my negativity on the situation isn't because he has some loose connection to Ayers - its that when a legitimate question was asked of him in a debate, the only debate it had been brought up in, instead of addressing it, he brushes it off as a distraction.

 

I have people that I have worked with over the years that I am "friendly" with that have done some terrible things in their life. I'm sorry, but it has 0.00000% to do with me, and says nothing about me other than we have worked together on some projects.

 

Correct. If you were running for President under a more open-politics and more fair-campaign ticket, and were asked abut such a relationship, I would expect you to say just that: "I worked with xxxx for 10 years in Hollywood, but didn't know him outside of a business relationship."

 

I consider myself as "in-the-know" when it comes to news as the average American. I hadn't heard of the Ayers relationship before the debate. I did not think it was an unreasonable thing to ask him about, but instead of addressing his relationship with Ayers, he primarily brushed it off as a distraction. This answer, especially when running on a more open and reform politics campaign, bothers me greatly.

[PastaJoe]

After getting to watch the whole video of the latest pastor disaster at Obama's Trinity United church and not just a short clip and the transcript, what is even more disturbing than the ravings of the pastor is the reaction of the people in the church. These people are lunatics the way they jump up and applaud racist comments. How can Obama continue to associate himself with such nutjobs? Imagine the outrage if someone in a white church mocked a black man and said he was upset that he lost because he's black and thought he was entitled to affirmative action, but had it taken away by a white woman, and the congregation jumped up and applauded.

 

Where are the other black pastors who should speak up and say that that church is not representative of what goes on in other black churches (at least I hope not). If Obama forged his beliefs with the nuts in that church, it really calls into question his judgement and what he truely believes. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence says otherwise.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

[DC Tom]

Not only that, I actually agee with the Rev. in terms of his comments about Hillary feeling entitled. In terms of that subject only, where was he wrong?

 

He was wrong in blaming it on the color of her skin. She doesn't think she's entitled because she's white, she thinks she's entitled because she's Hillary.

[Kelly the Dog]

Which is fine. If Obama comes out and explains that this was the full extent of his relationship, everyone should drop it. If Obama's response is "don't look at that, its a distraction", I have an issue with it.

 

Quite frankly, I thought Obama's response to it was very well, and as long as he doesn't call it a "distraction" or anything like that, I'm happy with his response.

 

Where I seem to disagree with you is that there are times when guilt by association is a reason to be concerned, and there are times when it is not a reason to be concerned. Simply examining a situation or a relationship is not a distraction, but a look into whether this is a time when we should be concerned or not.

 

Obviously, with this pastor, that isn't the case.

 

 

 

That bold statement is the one I take issue with. How do you know whether a relationship is deep or not until you look into it? Why should a candidate not have to explain a relationship that he had with a person? His entire life and judgment are under public scrutiny, and asking him about a known relationship is fine.

 

Does the media take it too far a lot of times? Sure, they do, and with that I'd agree with Obama about. But I feel that Obama is being disingenuous when he labels stuff like Wright as a "distraction", when it is a perfectly valid thing to look into and ask him about. It gives me the impression that he isn't simply labeling distractions distractions, but that he is using labels the exact same way liberals criticize Republicans: If you're on the left, you're a far left, evil evil liberal. That is not change, that is the same old politics that I'm used to.

 

 

 

Quite frankly, I don't think there is much to the Ayers stuff, from the media's investigations into it. But, when asked about it, instead of explaining what happened, he tried to brush it off as a "distraction". No, Obama, asking you to clarify your relationship with a member of the Weathermen in a debate is a legitimate question. If, after clarifying his relationship with Ayers, and what he says is true, then bringing it up in future debates would be a distraction.

 

Please understand that my negativity on the situation isn't because he has some loose connection to Ayers - its that when a legitimate question was asked of him in a debate, the only debate it had been brought up in, instead of addressing it, he brushes it off as a distraction.

 

 

 

Correct. If you were running for President under a more open-politics and more fair-campaign ticket, and were asked abut such a relationship, I would expect you to say just that: "I worked with xxxx for 10 years in Hollywood, but didn't know him outside of a business relationship."

 

I consider myself as "in-the-know" when it comes to news as the average American. I hadn't heard of the Ayers relationship before the debate. I did not think it was an unreasonable thing to ask him about, but instead of addressing his relationship with Ayers, he primarily brushed it off as a distraction. This answer, especially when running on a more open and reform politics campaign, bothers me greatly.

Fair enough. I have followed a lot of this probably more closely than I should have or needed to. It's my opinion and recollection that "the distraction" you speak of came after days and days if not weeks and weeks (it was actually months and months since it first came up) of the same thing over and over. Obama felt and said over and over and over the same thing, which was, basically, I wasnt there for this stuff, I dont agree with any of it, he has said SOME stuff in my presence but not nearly that bad, and I knew he was retiring, so I didnt feel the need to leave the church. He said that same thing, the same way, repeatedly, but people kept on asking the same questions that he had already answered. That is the distraction, because it took away from all the important questions that needed to be answered. He even said it was fair game. The "distraction" was not looking into the relationship, the distraction was repeatedly asking the same questions already answered.

[SilverNRed]

Even 99% of what Reverend Wright actually says is very acceptable if not gospel to even his and Obama's harshest critics. Most if it is about God and your faith and helping the poor and your neighbor. And yet they completely utterly disregard the 99% and just associate the inflammatory 1% to someone that to my knowledge has never even come close to saying or standing for any of that. In fact, everything points to just the opposite.

We're back to the mythical "99%" of what Rev. Wright said? Seriously, no one (especially not here) can say they've heard 99% of what he's said so that's a lousy argument to fall back on. Wright is seriously a loon. And if that wasn't obvious from the videos, it really should have been after he came back on the scene and acted like a 13 year old in an old man's body. Even Obama cut ties at that point.

 

Stop defending these jackasses. The worst part of this Obama thing is that there are intelligent people that I respect who are suddenly enamored with a politician and willing to go to great lengths to defend him and the stupid people he associates with.

 

Obama is just a regular politician. He's nothing special. And yet all the stupid things he says and all the really bad decisions he's made in the past get absolutely no traction. His complete lack of experience and naive foreign policy statements should make him the least fit to lead out country of the remaining three. But no one cares.

[Bishop Hedd]

Just in obama quits church.

[Kelly the Dog]

We're back to the mythical "99%" of what Rev. Wright said? Seriously, no one (especially not here) can say they've heard 99% of what he's said so that's a lousy argument to fall back on. Wright is seriously a loon. And if that wasn't obvious from the videos, it really should have been after he came back on the scene and acted like a 13 year old in an old man's body. Even Obama cut ties at that point.

 

Stop defending these jackasses. The worst part of this Obama thing is that there are intelligent people that I respect who are suddenly enamored with a politician and willing to go to great lengths to defend him and the stupid people he associates with.

 

Obama is just a regular politician. He's nothing special. And yet all the stupid things he says and all the really bad decisions he's made in the past get absolutely no traction. His complete lack of experience and naive foreign policy statements should make him the least fit to lead out country of the remaining three. But no one cares.

I actually happened to watch a couple of the entire sermons by Reverend Wright and I can honestly say that 99% of EVEN THE WORST ONE would be totally acceptable if not gospel to most of his critics. Not to mention that there are 20 years of these sermons and only 4-5 two minute Youtubes of the really bad stuff.

 

Obama just quit the church. Frankly, I didn't think he should have, unless there are things going on there I haven't read about, and their probably are. He made a political decision to cut ties. I understand why he would do it but personally, I don't think it was necessary. It will probably help him in the long run though.

 

Yes, he's a politician. So was Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush and Bill Clinton and GW Bush. But two were very good and two were very bad. Right now I think that Obama is a very good politician. It's too early to tell for sure. We will soon find out.

 

Frankly, right now, without ever being Commander in Chief, I have a lot more confidence in Barack Obama's abilities in foreign policy than either Bush 41 or 43 or Clinton. He couldn't be much worse.

[Wacka]

Getting crowded under the wheels of the bus. Is his wife next???

 

 

There are rumors of tapes of her giving a "Wright -like" speech.

[Alaska Darin]

After getting to watch the whole video of the latest pastor disaster at Obama's Trinity United church and not just a short clip and the transcript, what is even more disturbing than the ravings of the pastor is the reaction of the people in the church. These people are lunatics the way they jump up and applaud racist comments. How can Obama continue to associate himself with such nutjobs? Imagine the outrage if someone in a white church mocked a black man and said he was upset that he lost because he's black and thought he was entitled to affirmative action, but had it taken away by a white woman, and the congregation jumped up and applauded.

Maybe Senator Hillary will be able to "re-enfranchise" these people with another program that won't work. Ever wonder why this predominantly Democratic block feels the way they do? Or is it too hard to actually look at the product of all the failing social experiments you assclowns are so proud of?

Where are the other black pastors who should speak up and say that that church is not representative of what goes on in other black churches (at least I hope not). If Obama forged his beliefs with the nuts in that church, it really calls into question his judgement and what he truely believes. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence says otherwise.

Probably in the same place the Muslim Imams are. Hanging out, staying above the utter fuggin' stupidity that you and your ilk continue to spew in hopes of getting something that only exists in fantasyland.

 

I can't tell you how much enjoyment I'm getting out of your continuing meltdown. Thanks for that.

[SilverNRed]

I actually happened to watch a couple of the entire sermons by Reverend Wright and I can honestly say that 99% of EVEN THE WORST ONE would be totally acceptable if not gospel to most of his critics. Not to mention that there are 20 years of these sermons and only 4-5 two minute Youtubes of the really bad stuff.

I read the entire transcripts of some of those sermons too and I think the guy is a complete loon. The more you hear from him, the worse he comes off. And his performance in front of the press last month confirmed that the guy is exactly what he looked like on YouTube.

 

And I don't mind repeating this: The WORST part of those videos is the crowd's reaction to the racist, paranoid stuff. Even when Pfleger is giving his angry, bizarre race-baiting speech last week, the congregation is standing up and cheering every line. That's the kind of church this is; the thought that it was just Rev. Wright saying something silly "1%" of the time doesn't work. And this is the type of environment that Obama wanted to be in for 20 years? To bring his kids to?

 

Barack quit the place about 20 years too late.

 

Frankly, right now, without ever being Commander in Chief, I have a lot more confidence in Barack Obama's abilities in foreign policy than either Bush 41 or 43 or Clinton. He couldn't be much worse.

And I have no confidence in his abilities. The guy made some crack early this month about how the translators we use in Iraq could have been used in Afghanistan. They speak different languages. Can you even imagine if Bush said something like that? But Senator McDreamy says it and no one cares. The guy is a !@#$ing stupid quote machine but everyone still praises him for his eloquence.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

And I have no confidence in his abilities. The guy made some crack early this month about how the translators we use in Iraq could have been used in Afghanistan. They speak different languages. Can you even imagine if Bush said something like that? But Senator McDreamy says it and no one cares. The guy is a !@#$ing stupid quote machine but everyone still praises him for his eloquence.

Sure he makes gaffes, then quickly apologizes for his mistake and moves on. When it happens with McSame, his campaign tells you're wrong, that he meant something else.