Why did he choose to strongly condemn him now during the primaries and leave the church after so many years, if he believed in the constitutional right of the priest?

Politics.

Yet because of that whole incident, Obama did give his "A More Perfect Union" speech, which went from an expected rebuttal/expedient exorcism of the Wright shit, to that of flipping the topic into that of race and religion in America. When Republicans like McCain(!) and Newt Gingrinch called it brave and praised it (if more subdued compared to the liberal/Democratic rejoicing), I think you did something right.

To quote my old political science professor, win or lose the election, that speech will be included in rhetorical text books for years to come.

There's this thing, oh what's it called? Damn. Oh yeah, Politics.

An old essay written by someone at the Ashcroft Center, from 2004 after Obama gave his star-making DNC keynote address, and its interesting in retrospect:

Barack Obama: A Republican Soul Trapped Inside a Democrat’s Body

by: Lucas Morel

With unity as the mandate for the Democratic Convention, a little known State Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, took the ball and ran so far with it that this listener thought he was witnessing Obama’s conversion to the Grand Old Party. Remove all the references to John Kerry, along with the not-so-veiled digs against Bush, and the remaining speech would have fired up a Republican audience.

Touting his home state as "the land of Lincoln," praising the Declaration of Independence as "the true genius of America," and repeatedly affirming that Americans "don’t expect government to solve all their problems," Obama sounded less like the Democratic Party and more like the current president. Even his comments on education, which emphasized parental responsibility and higher student expectations, were right out of Bush’s playbook. Add his concern that Americans couple their devotion to individualism with a belief that "I am my brother’s keeper," and Obama looked like a cheerleader for compassionate conservatism.

That Obama spent most of his speech singing the glories of America must have shocked the Democratic elite. Instead of mouthing the multicultural platitudes of Jesse Jackson’s Democratic Party, Obama pledged allegiance to "one American family." He went so far as to exclaim, "There’s not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America—there is the United States of America." Jackson stood up and applauded at all the right moments, but he was clearly sitting down and harrumphing on the inside.

Despite his call to unity and hope, Obama established his Democratic bona fides through several criticisms of George Bush’s presidency. But these amounted to just so many throw-away lines and "straw men" arguments. Republicans have little to fear that any of these blows will land when the gloves come off after the convention. Bush has not used "faith as a wedge to divide us," spoken or acted as if war was "the first option," or ignored unemployment or "the health care crisis." And if Obama really thinks the Bush presidency has been "this long political darkness," then Jimmy Carter’s quagmire of a presidency becomes a political black hole.

Obama is widely referred to as a rising star in the Democratic Party. But if Barack Obama, whose first name means "blessed of God" in Swahili, is destined to be God’s gift to Democrats and Republicans alike, he will need to show how the principles of equal freedom and opportunity lead to the policies he has espoused so far as a state senator. His support of Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, tax increases, and increased gun controls—none of which were mentioned in his 15-minute ode to American exceptionalism—says more about his Democratic roots than his seemingly Republican convictions.

Can Obama’s political diversity leaven the Democratic Party? Time will soon tell, given that he is running unopposed for the U.S. Senate. One scenario is that a few years of "going along to get along" with the likes of Daschle, Clinton, and Pelosi will lead him to shed his Lincolnian rhetoric in exchange for a fast-track promotion to a cabinet-level position or even vice-presidential consideration.

For now, his proclamation of a "politics of hope" contrasts greatly with the typical pessimism of the Democratic Party. That it played so well with the Democratic rank and file bodes well for the immediate future of American political discourse.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/morel/04/obama.html

If you were running for any office SB, would you accept a donation from a known terrorist?

He had big time bad judgement when he went into that mans house for that meet and greet.

Live long and prosper, Barack.

I hate the guy, but Michael Moore years back did a movie called THE BIG ONE, where through phoney organizations existing only on paper, he donated money to several Presidential campaigns in 1996.

For example, "Pro-Choicers for Pat Buchanan" (when he ran for the GOP nomination that year), he gave money, just to prove that despite ideological differences or where it came from, all those campaigns would eat it up.

And besides, boxing promoter Don King (who's killed certifiable at least 3 people) donated money to Bush in 2004. Where were you Mig?



JFK got the endorsements of several Segregationist Governors deep in the South during the 1960 Presidential primaries/Election.

My point? Politics

Mig, if you can't get past the Reverend Wright thing, that's your right. But as a New York City Catholic and a strong advocate of Judaism, I have to ask, how come you didn't answer the question about Palin? By your way of thinking, if Obama is guilty by association to Wright, Palin is an anti-semite.

I know I would, but I would say that if I returned it I was giving a known terrorist money to fund terrorist activities so it'd be better for everyone if I just kept it. And the votes would pour in.

Like I said, I don't ask for a background check on every single person I encounter. I sit on several boards and committees in my community and I have no idea what the others on these boards (some with as many as 30+ members) were doing when I was EIGHT. Nor would it occur to me to ask. Again, it's silly to hold something this insignificant against Senator Obama.

That was wrong as well. She should've got up and left mad as a hornet.



I'm sorry I didn't know about it. It is wrong for anybody to accept money from someone like that.

Obama is a politician. He's better than some, worse than others. But ultimately he is a politician. Anyone who gets in the way of his goal of attaining the White House is going to be expendable on some level. That's not a criticism of Obama by any means. I think all politicians at that level would behave in the same manner.

As far as the substance and manner of what Wright said, the sci-fi writer, producer and screenwriter Steven Barnes gave a cogent analysis of the reasons -intellectual and emotional-why Wright made the points that he did and why Obama may have attended that church. Of course this was written before Obama threw Wright under the bus but the points Barnes makes are still valid. The thing to keep in mind is that to understand is not to agree.

http://darkush.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-reverend-wright.html

A piece on the Ayers issue written by a leading "Obamacon" (Republican for Obama) in Andrew Sullivan:

The far right is obsessed with the question of Bill Ayers, much more obsessed than with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Palin farce or the financial meltdown. Their obsession is unseemly but it is not, alas, without any basis in truth. I find Bill Ayers' refusal to disown his use of political violence in the 1960s to be repulsive. If I were forced to meet him, I would not shake his hand. Obama's fault, however, is not being a terrorist sympathizer, as Palin absurdly declares to mob cheers. Obama's fault is in being a go-along-to-get-along Hyde Park liberal. You can see why he made the decision not to wreck polite liberal society in Chicago by calling out these former thugs. But I do not admire him for it. It's a corner he cut. He deserves to be criticized for it - if not in the fascistic way Hannity does it.

But the question of association raises broader questions.

I don't think I could serve on a board with Ayers in good conscience. But neither could I serve on a board or participate in an organization that employs a war criminal. John Yoo is such a war criminal, a man who gave oral consent to war crimes and then provided phony legal cover for torturing suspects. He is responsible for policies that have led to the death-by-torture of well over a dozen individuals that we know of, and the brutal torture of countless more. Without Yoo's green light, and willingness to make a mockery of the rule of law by signing off on torture, these people would be alive or susceptible to real and reliable non-coercive interrogation. If Obama deserves some censure for consorting with Ayers, why is there no censure in Washington or Berkeley for consorting with a war criminal?

Why is Ayers anathema and Yoo not?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/ayers-and-yoo.html#more

Well, that debate was pretty non-eventful. So much for McCain "taking off the gloves tonight".

I live for this stuff, but I found it to be rather routine. McCain's $300 billion mortgage renegotiation plan was interesting because it's always intersting when a candidate starts coming his opponents way. That plan is not going to go over very well with many Republicans.

I thought the town hall format sucked, and Brokaw was terrible. McCain was supposed to be the "Town Hall Specialist", but I thought clearly Obama was much more comfortable and relaxed tonight. McCain looked like he didn't want to be there. Even the talking heads on TV are noting how McCain ran out of there as soon as it was over, and Obama was still there 15 minutes after it ended, still talking to the people in the crowd.

I like what Obama said about those CEO pigs who took that lavish vacation. Make them give the money back.

Can you believe the balls on those AIG scum?

THAT ONE!

The McCain temper at it's best.

I think scum is too nice of a word.

I didn't find it quite as boring as a couple of you. Gosh, what does that say about me??? I think the media is the one who wanted a brawl. That's all they've been talking about all day.

I thought Obama easily won. He seems to be getting better each debate. I agree that McCain looked like he didn't want to be there, and this is suppose to be his "setting". I didn't like the way he referred to Obama as "that one" (Note: I see it's just posted)when he was rambling about who voted for what. I did like and agree with Obama's answer on Health care being a "right" and I like how Obama prioritized the issues he'd put first.

I really think though (and am hearing on the news) that these two don't like each other. I think Obama is respectful and McCain comes off has kind of mean. Right at the end of the debate, be quickly shook Obama's hand and left the stage.

TIS

I did too. Wow, we agree on something!

But you all agree that McCain won, right? right TIS?

Ha ha.... No SVSG, I'll let you be the McCain Cheerleader.



TIS

CNN Result Polls

Who is better to handle...

Iraq
Obama: 51%
McCain: 47%

Terrorism
Obama: 46%
McCain: 51%

Economy
Obama: 59%
McCain: 37%

Financial Crisis
Obama: 57%
McCain: 36%

----------------------------

20 points on economics and finances, and the Economy is the #1 issue to a polled 60%+?!?!?!?!?!?!

Miracles do happen huh?

Before someone claims that was a left leaning poll, it was a controlled poll made up of 38% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and the rest Independents.

McCain Wouldn't Shake Obama's Hand



What a dick.

The real McCain: