Obama In a Nutshell
Posted by Shannon Love on August 5th, 2008 (All posts by Shannon Love)
Like a lot people, I’ve tried to create a cohesive picture of who Obama is and what he stands for. After watching him throw long time supporters under the bus, observing his penchant for personal secrecy and listening to his plans to resurrect the windfall profits tax, I think I’ve distilled a single sentence description.
Obama: the policies of Carter, the ethics of Clinton.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Shannon, let me quibble.
Policies of McGovern, more like.
I don’t think he has the ethics of Clinton. If he were just a greedy rogue, I would be less worried. He is more of a true believer. That worries me more.
I thought this piece, via Instapundit, was a very good assessment of Obama.
A little flowery, but it seems to be on the money.
My concern is what happens when the infinitely transformative man, the man of permanent plasticity, meets the solid and unsentimental demands of the office. Merely shifting shape won’t change the objective reality. I think his response will be anger at his political opponents, and anger at anything that does not conform to his current “identity” and its needs. The result is likely to be a frustrating and ineffective presidency.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
This piece by Jonah Goldberg on Obama as a “post-modern” thinker, is also good.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Not to get into a big thing over this, but I would match Obama’s ”
twists and turns” against those of Your Special Guy–McCain, and see who has turned again and again and again the most.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Jonathan,
I think Clinton was dominated by an urge to be on top. I think the concern for money came second. I see Obama in the same mold. In comparing him to Clinton I had in mind the same strange ability to occlude his past and the many whiffs of smoke coming from the old Chicago machine. Like Clinton, I think he views what is good for him as being what is good for the country. Phrased another way, he thinks that him having power is such a positive that it justifies him doing almost anything to get and keep that power.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Fred Lapidies,
I am not concerned over Obama’s policy shifts but rather his disloyalty to old friends. I think he used Wright when it was convenient for him to win in Illinois and then he disowned him when he became inconvenient. That to me points to a lack of character. He either should have shunned Wright from the beginning or stuck with him.
Being a friend of Obama appears to be like riding in the James Bond Ashton-Martin with the ejector seat with Obama in the driver’s seat reading to press the button the first time his passenger looks to cause him any problems.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“Plasticity”, yes.
He strikes me as did John like Kerry in one way; That is that there’s just not much “there, there”, if you know what I mean. A central thoughtful, non-political core is lacking or severely undeveloped. McCain, for all his being something of a slippery weasel, at least has some substance.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I can’t speak for Shannon but there isn’t a lot of conservative support (and no libertarian support) for McCain. The most popular McCain web bumper sticker I see is “F**k it, McCain.” That is the most support conservatives can muster for the man.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Obama has perfected the strange political combination of piazzi and doom and gloom. I never saw the appeal in the man. He is running for President like he did for Illinois State Senate - stay positive and say nothing. Mostly he is an empty suit that has a whole lot of no policy prescriptions for the country.
My prediction for November: McCain 56%, Obama 44% with McCain carrying California. Oh yes, the Clintons will covertly be helping the Senator from Arizona.
Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana
Danny L. McDaniel
August 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“McCain 56%, Obama 44%”
I spent four happy years in Indiana. I made a bet in early 1992 with several of classmates at IU law school that George W. Bush would lose to whoever the Democrat was because he broke his “no taxes” pledge. I made four bets, each for a bottle of Makers Mark bourbon. They could not conceive of Bush losing. Unfortunatley I won. We had a “drown your sorrows party” on Clinton’s inauguration day.
Hoosier Republicans can go their whole lives and never meet a Democrat, other than Evan Bayh, of course.
Hoosier Republican predictions of GOP electoral performance are always way off.
If Obama picks Bayh, he may even carry Indiana. What a horrible prospect, to see Indiana go blue.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
It’s not Obama himself that worries me so much as the company he keeps and the political/cultural movement he represents.
The good news is that Obama has managed to turn this election into basically a referendum on him, and by extension a referendum on his fellow travelers as well. That’s why I think he will lose, and possibly lose badly.
The bad news is that while Obama must only be defeated once, those fellow travelers and their movement will be back to try again in 2012. And again in 2016. And again in 2020. And again in… you get the idea. One of these times they’ll finally get lucky, and the rest of us will be screwed.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Lex, should we therefore baptise him “Odobama”? :D
August 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Curious, not too long ago people were saying Obama was wrong not to immediately throw Rev. Wright ‘under the bus’…now you’re saying he is too eager to throw people under the bus?
Anyone bother to notice how quickly Phil Grahm got tossed under that bus by McCain?
August 6th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Boonton,
Curious, not too long ago people were saying Obama was wrong not to immediately throw Rev. Wright ‘under the bus’…now you’re saying he is too eager to throw people under the bus?
You assume that there was an acceptable outcome either way. Obama’s long term and intense association with Wright put him in an inescapable catch-22. If he did not denounce him, he faced be seen as a racist demagogue in disguise. If he did denounce him, he risked appearing fickle and disloyal.
He put himself in that bind because of the cynical and narcissistic way in which he views others. When Wright could help Obama gain a start in local politics, Obama embraced him and his message. When Wright became a drag on his national ambitions, Obama dumped him in a humiliating manner.
The route of personal integrity would have been to either never embrace Wright in the first place or, once having done so, refused to jettison him in the face of criticism. In latter case, I would have argued that such an association invalidated him as a candidate for the presidency but I would have respected his loyalty and integrity.
Having integrity means paying short-term personal cost. Obama seems unwilling to pay those cost.
If Obama wins, I think we will see him betray a lot of political allies. He will soon find that he has little support and that no one trust him to stick to deals. We will see a reprise of the first 2-3 years of the Clinton administration.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“When Wright could help Obama gain a start in local politics, Obama embraced him and his message. ”
Actually Obama embraced him but not his message…which was essentially what he said in his famous race speech…you can have people you love..that are family or close enough to be family yet at the same time know their ‘message’ is totally wrong.
Do you have any evidence that Obama actually embraced Wright’s message early on in his career? Please be specific if you can.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“Do you have any evidence that Obama actually embraced Wright’s message early on in his career? Please be specific if you can.”
Obama went to Wright’s church every Sunday, with his wife and kids. He is not deaf. He heard what was being said. If he disagreed with it, he could have gone elsewhere. He didn’t.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“Anyone bother to notice how quickly Phil Grahm got tossed under that bus by McCain?”
– Or his first wife, for that matter.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Booton,
Do you have any evidence that Obama actually embraced Wright’s message early on in his career?
Wright’s church is a non-denominational, evangelical church. In those churches. the minister is the message of church. The congregation itself appoints the minister.
Belonging to the church is an explicit endorsement of the ministers message. I have seen people leave such churches expressly because they didn’t want to be associated with the minister message. If Obama disagreed, he should have left and found another church.
Think of it this way: If Obama was a white Republican would you accept that he did not endorse the views of the minister of the church he belonged to for 20 years?
August 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So your evidence consists of guilt by association and ‘failure to denounce’?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
This guy Boonton just turned into a troll.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Re: McCain’s first wife.
-McCain publicly acknowledged years ago that he behaved badly toward her.
-McCain took financial responsibility for his ex-wife, who has had many medical problems, after their divorce.
-McCain’s ex-wife says only good things about him publicly.
-One of the former Mrs. McCain’s children (by a previous marriage) is employed as an executive at the current Mrs. McCain’s beer distributing company.
Even if McCain is the world’s biggest jerk, and even if his ex-wife hates him (and none of us knows what the dynamics of his first marriage were really like), he is capable of admitting error and has taken responsibility for his behavior as best he could. This is a flawed record but it also reveals some good qualities. And McCain has stayed married to his second wife. On balance I would prefer him as President to Obama, who is arrogant, claims never to doubt himself, speaks of “Minister Farrakhan,” is ignorant about history and economics, and changes his positions with the opinion polls. This doesn’t mean that I like McCain, it means that I think he is the lesser evil. I would rather vote for someone like Phil Gramm or Steve Forbes, but that’s not the choice we get. As a wise man said, better a third-rate fireman than a first-rate arsonist.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Obama’s record as a first-rate arsonist in training.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I don’t think you can equate McCain’s evolving positions with the
expediant flipping of Obama.While McCain has changed his mind on say drilling for example,it was a change that occurred over a period of time after changing conditions.Obama on the other hand will change positions from literally day to day.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Perhaps I am a troll but you haven’t addressed my question. Obama must publically denounce his minister or else that is equilivant to supporting every position his minister has no matter what? I have plenty of family members whose statements would look pretty horrible if I ever ran for office. Can you tell me now, supporters of individual freedom, am I obligated to dissociate myself from them or do I have to make a public declaration that I denounce them?
Isn’t it kind of ironic how you’ve basically embraced the worst of political correctness.
Now I’ll ask again, do you have any evidence that Obama embraced Wrights message either as a teacher or politician? Or is your only support his supposed failure to denounce in a manner that you have deemed to be PC?
August 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
You want another term with George Bush policies, with the America in the global stage falling further down? EU has taken over and the value of the dollar has steadily declined. Americans are more in debt than ever. We are fighting a war where we should have been in the first place. Osama is on the loose in another part of the world whose president Bush has supported. McCain promises to keep what Bush started. That’s what you want? And he also proposes to start more nuclear plants!!!! You must be out of your mind. Obama is a breath of fresh air, he knows how technology works in today’s world, he’s open minded, he has an image that swung America up the charts on the global stage, he is the man for tomorrow, he is the man of the hour. He inspires. We want a president who inspires, who is a visionary. Obama is that man. Please vote for Obama! Visit WHYOBAMA08.ORG!
August 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
That someone would not be uncomfortable with Rev. Wright’s message is worrisome; on the other hand, that someone could give the amount of time (20 years), money (tens of thousands in one year alone, not counting the largesse from the government that came through Obama’s work), and, most of all, gratitude (taking Wright’s sermon for the title of his autobiographical book) to Wright and then not be considered or consider himself in agreement with Wright’s primary message is even more disturbing. The lack of discomfort reflects an amazing inability to contemplate what such sermons would feel like to someone not among the anointed - a pathology inappropriate in anyone representing a larger group. The lack of connection with a core, on the other hand, implies another stonishing pathology. Perhaps neither Boonton nor Ricvan should be encouraged, but their inability to see these distinctions is worrisome.
Shannon, your equations actually cheered me up. In the back of my mind has far too often been the image of the Russian’s attitude toward Kurtz. That exaggerated the reactions to that great model European before he’d revealed himself as the quintessential “hollow man.” True believers of Obama, too, describe the vague visions of this man of tomorrow.
I’m no fan of Phil Gramm, but coupled with a certain self-servingness is his honesty - about himself, about what works, about the economy. McCain may not be wise - about campaign finance, about the economy. But he is also honest. Gramm was not politic; but the question in terms of whether there is a there there is was McCain rejecting the core values that led him to choose Gramm not just as a friend but as an advisor? I suspect Gramm is a good deal farther on the path that many of the Chicagoboyz would admire than is McCain, but that does not mean that McCain was pretending to be what he was not - nor that his views in the future will be quite different. It could well be that is true of Obama as well, but if so, we are left with the troubling sense that Wright truly describes the “vision” Aiken Blue would have us admire.
And people who are absent from votes as often as Obama was and who vote present as often as he can hardly argue that they are being tarred by their associates - my associates do not always agree with me but I am proud to call some people my friends and that pride arises from my respect for their vision, their character, their wit. Certainly, Boonton’s sense that family and Protestant ministers are in the same category either misunderstands churches or families.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
“I have plenty of family members whose statements would look pretty horrible if I ever ran for office.”
I bet you haven’t been putting money into the offering plate where your nutty relatives preach those messages for everyone to hear, and I bet you don’t consider those people your “mentors”. There’s a big difference between “I have a relative who’s a nutjob, and we all ignore him at family gatherings” and “I spent 20 years listening to, and having my kids listen to, a nutjob in a leadership position.” I don’t think anyone would think poorly of you for having a crazy uncle, but they would think poorly of you for spending two decades listening to a crazy pastor, mentor, coach, or other leader.
It’s like they say, you can’t pick your relatives, but you can pick your friends. Obama’s choice of friends shows a disturbing pattern — he seems to intentionally associate with a lot of bad people, to speak extremely highly of them, and only “denounce” them in the most halfhearted terms when they become a political liability.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Obama must publically denounce his minister or else that is equilivant to supporting every position his minister has no matter what?
That depends on your answer to the following question: If a white presidential candidate went to a KKK church for 20 years, would you accuse this white candidate of being racist? Or would you simply accept his proclamation that he accepted the minister as a man but not his teachings for 20 years?
I have plenty of family members whose statements would look pretty horrible if I ever ran for office.
I don’t doubt it. However, you can’t possibly equate the church you choose and the family into which you were born.
Isn’t it kind of ironic how you’ve basically embraced the worst of political correctness.
No, it’s not ironic because that’s not what’s happening. What’s ironic is you’re willing to cut Obama break because he’s black. You’re a racist.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
You want another term with George Bush policies, with the America in the global stage falling further down?
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but America is not an actress trying to maintain an image. There is no “global” stage. Do you even have the remotest clue why the dollar is weak?This is the kind of BS you get when actors start believing they are somehow competent political commentators.
EU has taken over and the value of the dollar has steadily declined.
The EU has taken over what? Antarctica? Mars? Venus? What has the EU taken over. What the hell is that supposed to mean?
We are fighting a war where we should have been in the first place.
WHAT?!!
Osama is on the loose in another part of the world whose president Bush has supported.
Osama wouldn’t be on the loose at all if your boy, Clinton, had bombed him when he had the chance. All this is courtesy of you lefties.
McCain promises to keep what Bush started. That’s what you want? And he also proposes to start more nuclear plants!!!!
I’d rather let McCain “keep what Bush started” than let Obama propagate what Karl Marx started. Does that answer your question? I’ll bet you’re one of those half-educated lefties who screeches about foreign oil and our “addiction” to oil but never wants to see the only viable alternative for much of our oil demand - nuclear energy. I have news for you, sparky. The promised land of the lefties (a.k.a. France) gets 76% of its electricity from Nuclear Power plants. OH HORROR! And do you know what the biggest mass killer in France was this century? A heat wave.
Obama is a breath of fresh air, he knows how technology works in today’s world, he’s open minded, he has an image that swung America up the charts on the global stage, he is the man for tomorrow, he is the man of the hour. He inspires. We want a president who inspires, who is a visionary.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, he inspires me. He inspires me to vote for anyone but him. So, make up you mind, sparky. Is he the man of the hour or is he the man for tomorrow? What about the day after? Know who else was a visionary who swung his country “up the charts” and all that jazz? Vladimir I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin. I would have to agree with you - Obama is right up there with them.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
dittos to what methinks said. But why not, I’ll have a go at it also.
“# Boonton Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
So your evidence consists of guilt by association and ‘failure to denounce’?”
You were called a troll because your question is silly. Look, guilt by association is when you’re arrested for bank robbery because they guy you sit by at work was caught on tape in the act, and there’s no evidence against you other than that you sat next to him and chatted occasionally.
Tell me, if McCain had sat in a church for 20 years and listened to anti-black rhetoric would you be so forgiving?
Of course Obama should have walked out of that church a decade ago and denounced his minister. I would have had the situation been reversed.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
“You were called a troll because your question is silly.”
He was called a troll because his question had already been answered, and he pretended not to understand the answer.
That is not participating in a conversation, it is being obnoxious for its own sake.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:42 am
That depends on your answer to the following question: If a white presidential candidate went to a KKK church for 20 years, would you accuse this white candidate of being racist? Or would you simply accept his proclamation that he accepted the minister as a man but not his teachings for 20 years?
No I wouldn’t. On the other hand, if a white candidate was close to an older man who was essentially an Archie Bunker I would accept such a proclamation. Actions speak louder than words, what actions of Obama indicate his POV is one of anti-white racism? Being that Obama himself is half-white that would have been a very strange position to embrace (not saying it would be impossible, but I think it’s fair to ask for a little more evidence than simply ‘failure to denounce’ which sounds like something a Stalinist would be accusing a Trotskiest of).
I don’t doubt it. However, you can’t possibly equate the church you choose and the family into which you were born.
Nonsense, the family member I’m thinking in particular of is my father-in-law’s brother(s) and one of their sons. I’m not under any obligation to be friendly with them or even associate with them. I could, if I choose, opt to reject them entirely and spurn their company and friendship…which I have done with other family members who are a lot closer in relation than that.
I choose not too because while I don’t share Obama’s religion I share its perspective that all humans are fallen. There are no ‘good men’ who have no faults and there are few bad people who don’t have some redemptive qualities. I’ll take my in-laws as family members although I’d never give opt to give them political power. For all his faults, the man did help Obama convert to Christianity & to people that take Christianity seriously that would be a gift that is even more important than what is given to you by your family.
I think part of being black in America is the reality that members of the older generation are going to have perspectives that were shaped by a much worse time in American history. Sure, sure, we should all overcome & forgive and move on. You feel free to tell that to my in-laws and I’ll tell it to Wright. In reality it is human nature that the older generations cling to their bad ideas as much or more as their good ones and the younger generations are wise to give a measure of deference to that. What was that old quip about death being the greatest thing for scientific advancement because it removes the old guard and makes room for new scientists with novel theories? This is probably more pronounced with blacks than whites because whites, being a supermajority, can spend a lot of time never interacting with blacks but few blacks can live their lives oblivious to whites. It’s quite easy to have an Archie Bunker in your family who only talks like Bunker on rare occassions.
No, it’s not ironic because that’s not what’s happening. What’s ironic is you’re willing to cut Obama break because he’s black. You’re a racist.
Wow, I can only say I defer to your clearly superior knowledge of who I am and what I would do in various hypothetical situations you invent in your imagination.
He was called a troll because his question had already been answered, and he pretended not to understand the answer.
I was called a troll because people would rather be patted on the back and told their expression was profoundly insightful and intelligent rather than challenged to give up specifics. Coming upon a claim on a blog called Chicago Boys with a post that claims Obama tends to throw his supporters under the bus I assumed the writer was talking about something other than the Wright affair which everyone and their mother has chewed over long ago. Being that Obama was from the area of Chicago I thought perhaps this was in reference to some local observations of his career before the focus of the Presidential race. So far I hope the famed Chicago School of Economics has something a bit more to offer than this.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
No I wouldn’t. On the other hand, if a white candidate was close to an older man who was essentially an Archie Bunker I would accept such a proclamation.
And - allow me to be the 100th person on this thread to point this out for the 100th time - if that were the relationship, then it would not be a problem. It isn’t. Your inability to see that does not change the facts.
Wow, I can only say I defer to your clearly superior knowledge of who I am and what I would do in various hypothetical situations you invent in your imagination.
Just basing it on what you say. No break for the white racist, but a big break for the black racist. If that doesn’t make you a racist, then we’ve been calling the KKK racist for nothing. Knowing you has nothing to do with anything, but nice try at diversion.
Incidentally, you can write as long a tome on friendliness in families as you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you don’t seek out family members of your own free will (except spouses) but you do seek out ministers and friends. If you don’t understand that (and you clearly don’t), I can’t help you.
I was called a troll because people would rather be patted on the back and told their expression was profoundly insightful and intelligent rather than challenged to give up specifics.
You were called a troll because you were given the bloody specifics repeatedly and you never understood any of them. I’ve had plenty intelligent discussions regarding Obama with people who prefer him because they at least had intelligent things to say. You just rehash the same thing over and over again and pray that somebody is foolish enough to agree with you just because you won’t stop repeating yourself.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Just basing it on what you say. No break for the white racist, but a big break for the black racist. If…
I didn’t write anything about white racists so how do you know I would apply a double standard? Or are you referring to the things you imagined me writing?
Again, I can only defend myself, not the imaginary version of myself that exists in your head.
And - allow me to be the 100th person on this thread to point this out for the 100th time - if that were the relationship, then it would not be a problem.
So the relationship is minister of a Church…explain why this is different? Again if one is serious about religion you are confronted with the same issue as a family member. In the Catholic faith, you really don’t have much of a choice as to what church you go to unless you’re willing to move or travel outside your neighborhood. Many protestant denominations indirectly embrace a ‘church shopping’ metaphor (keep going to you find one that ‘fits you’) but people who take it seriously do not always find that to be a good idea. If you take Christianity seriously the person who brings you to the faith plays a role that is even more important than family.
More to the point, you ignore the real issue which is that good people can have flaws…very serious flaws. What’s interesting about Obama’s argument is that he refused to reduce people to political correctness while you insist upon it. The essence of his position on Wright was “he’s a man whose done a lot of good both for others & myself, I’m not going to turn my back on that but his position on race is old school and just wrong”. Your position is that this is ‘throwing him under the bus’. The only logic I see in this is a long term ‘failure to denounce’ equals total agreement therefore to ever express any disagreement is some type of betrayal.
Incidentally, you can write as long a tome on friendliness in families as you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you don’t seek out family members of your own free will (except spouses) but you do seek out ministers and friends. If you don’t understand that (and you clearly don’t), I can’t help you.
You are as free to reject family members as you are anyone else. AS I pointed out, and I’m hardly unique, the family members I’m closest too are not dictated by blood closeness. If the ethic you’re promoting is that you can’t be close to people that are ‘bad’ then there’s no logical reason to make an escape clause for family.
You were called a troll because you were given the bloody specifics repeatedly and you never understood any of them. I’ve had plenty intelligent discussions regarding Obama with people who prefer him because they at least had intelligent things to say. You just rehash the same thing over and over again and pray that somebody is foolish enough to agree with you just because you won’t stop repeating yourself.
Actually I was never given specifics. I suggested the ‘throw supporters under the bus’ line was bout Wright. In 14 I asked for specifics to back up the assertion that Obama embraced Wright’s message as opposed to Wright the man. You guys are still trying to figure out if there’s a difference….so far you seem to be asserting such a difference can only exist for close family members. It’s very ironic that self-styled defenders of freedom would essentially be arguing that there can be no distinction made between ideology and individuality or that such distinctions can only be made if blood is the same.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Ohhh, BTW, I’ll ask again. Are there any examples other than Wright to support the “throws supporters under the bus” assertion? I’m sorry if I missed 100rds of people issuing 100rds of examples that I ignored during the first 32 posts of this thread.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“If you take Christianity seriously the person who brings you to the faith plays a role that is even more important than family.”
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1, wrote:
My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
The person who brings you into the faith is not particularly special in a theological sense, though they’re often someone you forge a deeper friendship with — often growing and learning together, challenging each other to walk with Christ more each day. In the case of Obama/Wright, we have many indications that they were close friends and no indication that there was ever a challenge to move on from the old racist ideas (while I’m not a fan of the argument from silence, here it applies — if Obama had been known to question Wright’s racism, his campaign would make sure we knew that.) Even Obama’s eventual “repudiation” of Wright took the form of “his comments aren’t helpful” rather than “he’s totally wrong”. People are fallen, but that doesn’t mean you should accept them teaching racist views from the pulpit for 20 years, even — nay, ESPECIALLY — if they are a close friend. But Obama seems to have done just that, not repudiating Wright’s views at all but simply distancing himself.
Beyond Wright, Obama has forged friendships or partnerships with a number of questionable individuals. Just this morning, Mazen Asbahi (linked to the Muslim Brotherhood) resigned from the Obama campaign. Michael Pfleger is another nutjob priest associated with Obama. Obama speaks highly of Louis Farrakhan. How about Obama’s foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (notorious for complaints about the “Jewish Lobby”)? There’s also William Ayers… need I go on? The point is, Obama seems to have intentionally gotten close to a lot of racists, radicals, nutjobs, etc. He seems to view a lot of those people as role models and mentors. That’s scary.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
… also, Obama was the first candidate to call for Don Imus to be fired after his “nappy headed hos” comment.
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
“He didn’t just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.”
- Obama, to ABC News, April 11 2007
So Obama has a problem with Imus feeding those stereotypes, but stayed in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years? Boonton, you don’t see this as the least bit problematic?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
That typical white woman.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Boonton, you don’t see this as the least bit problematic?
Clearly, he does not. Nor can he keep track of his arguments and the rebuttals to them.
Booton, if you want answers to your repetitive questions in your latest post, just reread the thread. If you don’t find the answer to your questions, then we have a pretty good idea what kind of confused mind carries water for Obama in all “57 States” that he visits as he talks about the good old days when he was a U.S. senator. Whatever, I’m done dancing round the Mulberry bush with you.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
No, Obama is not at all a racist.
Quoting Obama will prove it!
From his book “The Audacity of BS”
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
“I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”
“I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community.” (just before he disowned ‘ole Jeremiah)
“The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…”
“That’s just how white folks will do you.”
August 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Booton,
In the Catholic faith, you really don’t have much of a choice as to what church you go to unless you’re willing to move or travel outside your neighborhood.
That is rather the nub of the issue. Wright’s and Obama’s church was a independent, non-denominational, evangelical church i.e. one without any hierarchy or authority beyond the church congregation itself. Belonging to such a church is an wholly voluntary act. Indeed, had Obama simply move to another town, he would have had to find an entirely different church to attend.
People not members of one of the hierarchal churches can choose from hundreds if not thousands of independent churches. They make such choices for no other reason than that the church’s message and mission speak to them. Joining an independent church is an explicit statement that one agrees with the Church’s views. Obama took it a step further, calling Wright a mentor and referring to his moral guidance often.
We are forced to conclude one of two things about Obama: (1) Either he neither saw anything wrong with Wrights views and is lying when he now says that he does or (2) he rejected Wright’s views but cynically used his association with the church to build his local political career. Neither case speaks well for him.
You are as free to reject family members as you are anyone else.
Sadly, I am sure you believe that. Leftist as a population self-report that they feel relatively little connection with their families as compared those on the Right. Leftist believe that others should be jettisons when they become inconvenient. Social conservative believe that blood creates involuntary obligations we cannot put down. As such, the views of family members do no reflect upon the character of the individual because the individual did not choose that relationship.
When Obama compares his voluntary, self-serving association with Wright to that of family, it implies that he views his relationship to his family as just as easily severed as his relationship to Wright. He implies that it is okay for people to view their families as expendable when they interfere with one’s personal agendas.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
This one is my favourite Obama quote.
“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it.”
August 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The person who brings you into the faith is not particularly special in a theological sense, though they’re often someone you forge a deeper friendship with — often growing and learning together, challenging each other to walk with Christ more each day. In the case of Obama/Wright, we have many indications that they were close friends and no indication that there was ever a challenge to move on from the old racist ideas …
In fact we have no indication because, well, how would we? Unless these two conducted their friendship over a myspace page there’s not going to be a running transcript of their conversations together anymore than ‘we’ (the public) can know much about your personal friendships aside from what you choose to reveal publically. At this point, though, it kind of falls into what I feel isn’t relevant. Obama isn’t running for minister and I don’t feel its my place to judge whether he should have challenged his senior more directly or if it was ok to excuse him as an old dog that would never learn a new trick.
Even Obama’s eventual “repudiation” of Wright took the form of “his comments aren’t helpful” rather than “he’s totally wrong”.
So then where’s the ‘throwing under the bus’ part?
The point is, Obama seems to have intentionally gotten close to a lot of racists, radicals, nutjobs, etc. He seems to view a lot of those people as role models and mentors. That’s scary.
concrete examples please? If you are asserting he views these people as role models and mentors it should be easy to demonstrate how their nuttiness draws to his policies and positions both now and in the past.
So Obama has a problem with Imus feeding those stereotypes, but stayed in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years? Boonton, you don’t see this as the least bit problematic?
I agree, Obama should not hire Wright to be on his staff or in his administration. Come to think of it, if I win by write in vote I too will not put my father-in-law in charge of anything.
methinks
No, Obama is not at all a racist.
Quoting Obama will prove it!
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
“I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
Ahhh, I see. Any black person who ever thought about race (or at least admits to ever thinking thoughts about race beyond the standard “let’s all get along perfectly”) is racist. Tell me again why this isn’t just an off-beat variation on PC crap again?
Shannon
That is rather the nub of the issue. Wright’s and Obama’s church was a independent, non-denominational, evangelical church i.e. one without any hierarchy or authority beyond the church congregation itself. Belonging to such a church is an wholly voluntary act. Indeed, had Obama simply move to another town, he would have had to find an entirely different church to attend.
You do understand, though, that even among non-demoninational evangelical churches the idea is that the church is a community to which you belong. It’s not like, say, a political party to whose leader you pledge allegience. Of course Obama would have had to change churches if he moved to a different town (or one too far to commute)….you do change communities when you move. That’s not exactly stunning news.
Sadly, I am sure you believe that. Leftist as a population self-report that they feel relatively little connection with their families as compared those on the Right. Leftist believe that others should be jettisons when they become inconvenient. Social conservative believe that blood creates involuntary obligations we cannot put down
Ahhh yes, I must hate my family because I’m a leftist. I notice rightists as a population enjoy distorting the truth of what other people say and you’re a fine example. I point out that Obama felt as though Wright was as close as family. You argue that anyone bad should be dumped unless their family because you can’t choose your family. I point out you can choose to dump even family if the matter is important enough and I also point out that obligations do not always follow blood bonds (specifically I and many others have tighter bonds with some family members than others and this is not due to closer blood). From this you deduce I am saying you can jettison your famil