Is Obama Really Outraged?

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Is Obama Really Outraged?

Post by JackC » Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:41 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

So Obama now says that he is truly "outraged" by the good Rev Wright's remarks.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.
. . .

"What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said.


Of course, all that Rev Wright did was to say, and thus make clear he believes, all the very same things that caused all the fuss in the first place. So what has changed?? Nothing really. I suspect what really gives rise to Obama's puported "outrage" is that Wright just wouldn't "get with the program," go away and shut up until after the election. Obama just didn't expect Wright to particpate this way in the "national discussion of race" that Obama said we needed.

Obama has no choice but to take a strong stand at this point, but it is transparent that this is just pure politics. He knew what Wright was all about for a long time. He knew all along that Wright's had a "world view that contradicts" what Obama says his own worldview is. Still, he wasn't so "outraged" as to leave Wright's Church, or even distance himself in any way from Wright, then.

These changes in position just don't make a bit of sense. That is the trouble when your own arrogance and your confidence in your own intellect and powers of oratory make you think that you can simply talk your way out of anything.

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17643
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Post by Chalkperson » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:00 pm

In the hillbill's circle he is known simple as 'The Rock Star'... :wink:
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Ted

Post by Ted » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:09 pm

By not outright divorcing himself from Wright's Trinity Congregation Obama is still somewhat endorsing the leanings and preachings of its pastor. Excoriating Wright as an individual doesn’t cut it
There is hemming and hawing going on here that will IMO continue to cause Obama trouble.
He needs to completely disavow his allegiance to Wright’s church and somehow convince voters that he wasn’t a willing listener to Wright over the last 20 years. I'm not quite certain how or if he can do that.
Last edited by Ted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:11 pm

That's not going to be enough to make this whole issue of what Obama really thinks about America and her role in the world go away. He hangs out with Chomsky loonies, his most avid support somes from people who think Chomsky didn't go far enough, and he's got no record of moderate politics. What's a voter to think?
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Steinway
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by Steinway » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:33 pm

Chomsky has more brains in his little finger than any one of your favorite rightwing Republicans that you admire so much.

Why don't you try to talk about the really important issues that Americans will have to deal with in November, instead of the insignificant crap you're clinging on to so desperately.

Thankfully, whatever Democrat gets the nomination , the Republicans are going to be the losers.

You have a few more months to dig up some dirt, an ability the right wing is quite adept at.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:41 pm

Cliftwood wrote:Chomsky has more brains in his little finger than any one of your favorite rightwing Republicans that you admire so much.
Perhaps in linguistics, but not in foreign policy and international relations, the arena in which he desperately seeks recognition. To the professionals, he's a joke. And that's a fact, Jack.
Why don't you try to talk about the really important issues that Americans will have to deal with in November, instead of the insignificant crap you're clinging on to so desperately.
Because voters repeatedly demonstrate that issues are less important to them than character. Issues are based on facts that change when the candidate takes office. For example, you can forget either of the Democratic nominees evacuating Iraq like we did Somalia and Lebanon. However, character rarely changes.
Thankfully, whatever Democrat gets the nomination , the Republicans are going to be the losers.
You and the increasingly frantic Bob Beckel just keep basing your strategies on that idea. :lol: Why is McCain still a contender if it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate? His numbers should be in the toilet. They aren't. Why? Because you guys can't run a generic Democratic against a real Republican. You have to run a real candidate. Neither one of the ones you got is a shoe-in because they both have high negatives.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:47 pm

Cliftwood wrote:Chomsky has more brains in his little finger than any one of your favorite rightwing Republicans that you admire so much.

Why don't you try to talk about the really important issues that Americans will have to deal with in November, instead of the insignificant crap you're clinging on to so desperately.

Thankfully, whatever Democrat gets the nomination , the Republicans are going to be the losers.

You have a few more months to dig up some dirt, an ability the right wing is quite adept at.
What does Chomsky's intelligence have to do with whether he is right about political issues??? Do you think that simply having a brilliant intellect is any guide to wisdom, justice or a better world? I suspect that if we measured all the IQ's of the political leaders in history, the evil and corrupt ones have been just as smart as the good, decent and just ones.

But this attitude may explain Obama a little. He is an extremely gifted brilliant man. His intelligence and his personality, and also the fact that he is black, have gotten him a very long way. At Harvard law, he no doubt was fully aware that he was destined, if he so chose, to be a political leader.

But that doesn't tell you what he really believes. If he absorbed all the left, anti-US rantings of Chomsky and some of the law profs at Harvard, he may well just be spinning all this stuff about being a "unifier". He is smart enough to know what he can and can't say to succeed politically. His voting record is nothing other than a typical left liberal. The problem is there is so little information about him that you just don't know.
That's why the Wright stuff is so damaging.

Steinway
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by Steinway » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:20 pm

"Issues are less important than character??"

If that were true, how could Bush and Cheney have been elected and re-elected?

I think that the American people are fed up with the monumental mess the Republicans have given us and that issues like the $470,000, 000 daily cost of the Iraq war, health care, recession, the crisis in the real estate market, and fuel costs..to name a few.. are going to have a devastating effect on the American voters.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:15 pm

Cliftwood wrote:"Issues are less important than character??"

If that were true, how could Bush and Cheney have been elected and re-elected?
Well, there's plenty of post-mortems of both elections, so you can answer that question for yourself by consulting the literature. I will simply say, "Just look at their opponents." I realize leftwing elites find this difficult to grasp, but neither Gore nor Kerry were appealling enough. Gore should have had 2000 in a walk off. Instead, he bungled his campaign badly, appealing to boutique advisors like Naomi Wolfe to constantly remake his image into one favored by leftwing elites, not lunch-bucket Reagan Democrats. Whatever possessed the Dems to pick a northeastern liberal, an image more reviled among the electorate at large than even that of the southern conservatives, with a dodgy war reputation to run in 04 is simply beyond comprehension. In the end, people knew what they were getting with Bush and Cheney and found that more comfortable.
I think that the American people are fed up with the monumental mess the Republicans have given us
Yes, yes. So we are constantly told by the pollsters, especially Democratic pollsters who like to pretend there's no difference between the people who think Iraq is a disaster and want out now and the people who think we can win the war if the Dems weren't purposefully frustrating success so they can can win elections. On my major issue, foreign policy and national security, Bush-Cheney's record is far better than that left to us by Clinton-Gore.
and that issues like the $470,000, 000 daily cost of the Iraq war, health care, recession, the crisis in the real estate market, and fuel costs..to name a few.. are going to have a devastating effect on the American voters.
There is no crisis in the real estate market. I'm sure you have an elementary grasp of math, so you could probably figure out that when 7% of the real estate market is in trouble, that leaves 93% that isn't. But like the AIDS activists, the Democratic fear mongers are trying to convince the 93% that not only are they at risk but that the only solution is massive government intervention. I'm opposed to any action in that situation and so was John McCain for a brief nanosecond before he discovered that a woefully ignorant electorate still votes. Fuel prices are the consequence of market forces in oil, abetted by self-destructive environmental policies foisted on this country by one of the Democrats' favorite constitutencies, combined with an aggressive agricultural lobby that has sold a disasterous bill of goods to a nubile Congress.

Devastating? Com'on. This is not the Depression or WW2. Things are mildly uncomfortable for some, bad of a tiny few, and pretty good for most of the people who vote. Let's try to maintain a semblance of realism rather than fall for the rampant hysteria that out-of power Dems feel.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

RebLem
Posts: 9020
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:22 pm

1. I don't think Americans want to vote for a man (McCain) who is 6 years older than the Grand Coulee Dam.

2. Barack Obama is conservative on some issues. He favors the death penalty, for example, and, in fact, was a leader in reshaping the Illinois death penalty statue so that it could pass constitutional muster and avoid the kinds of procedural errors that had led Republican Governor George Ryan to commute the sentences of all death row inmates and to suspend executions in Illinois. And way back in law school, it was the conservatives who chose him as the editor of the Law Review. His opponent was a doctrinaire lefty who refused to allow any conservative input into the content of the Review. Obama promised not to do that, and he kept his word.

3. I have a feeling that Barack Obama is not disclosing the complete truth about his relationship with Trinity UCC, but not in the way most people seem to suspect. I suspect that he is the sort of fellow who involves himself a great deal in the social service ministries of the Church, but does not attend worship services more than 2-4 times a year, a lot less than he lets on, without really saying so. And about this point that you ought to hear on the street about what Wright said at church, even if you didn't attend the last Sunday--the Obamas live at 5046 S Greenwood, and the church is at 400 W 95th street, about 6 miles away, not really in his neighborhood at all. So, the idea that he would not hear about things by word of mouth is entirely credible.

4. Obama has not separated himself from Trinity UCC because Jeremiah Wright has retired as pastor, and the church has a new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III.

5. MSNBC's reportage on the issue today has relied heavily on one of their black reporters, Tamron Hall, who lived in Chicago for 10 years and says she was an occasionally attendee (about a half dozen times) at Trinity UCC. She says she never heard any of the sort of things that have been the principal complaints against Rev. Wright. That seems to be pretty much the testimony of virtually everyone who has ever actually been there--that these kinds of rants were extremely rare. Furthermore, Hall said that when she came to Chicago, she had heard from black colleagues and others she trusted that Trinity UCC was one of really only two mostly black churches in the Chicago area that had large congregations and significant involvement in various social service ministries. Most of what Obama has said about his reasons for involvement with Trinity UCC--his reasons for joining and his reasons for staying--have had to do with its social service ministries, not the theology of its pastor(s).

6. Barack Obama is the kind of guy who lets a lot of stuff just wash off his back. Lots of white people who may occasionally betray some prejudice or bias without really being bad people appreciate that. He's the kind of man who will cut you a lot of slack. But there seem to be lots of folk who want him to cut folk to his right a lot of slack, but don't want him to cut any slack for people on, say, his black nationalist left. You can't have it both ways. If you want slack cut for you, you have to let him cut slack for others. That's the way it works, folks.

Posted on April 29th, 2008, the 271st day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:42 pm

While it gets far less attention, I remain more disturbed by the Ayers-Dohrn association.

There are relatively recent tapes of Ayers that show he still basically believes the same things he did back in the late 60s (and I'm sure she does too). They just have learned to avoid committing violent crimes in pursuit of those things; while of course not regretting the violent crimes they committed and didn't properly pay for in the past.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Steinway
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 am
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Post by Steinway » Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:46 pm

"Things are mildly uncomfortable for some, bad for a tiny few, and pretty good for most people who vote".

Corlyss, I hope your man McCain says that line, word for word, in every speech he gives to the American people. :lol:

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Post by Teresa B » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Cliftwood wrote:"Issues are less important than character??"

If that were true, how could Bush and Cheney have been elected and re-elected?
Well, there's plenty of post-mortems of both elections, so you can answer that question for yourself by consulting the literature. I will simply say, "Just look at their opponents."
I really have to go with Corlyss here, case in point: My secretary, who by all common sense should have voted for the Democrat, voted for Bush because, and I quote, "I just can't vote for a guy with a face like Kerry's."

And the Noam Chomsky thing. Is Obama truly in that camp? Despite my basically liberal leanings, again I must agree that although a brilliant linguist, his spewings on the fringe left are ridiculous, and sound like they were recorded in the 60's.

Go, Hillary.
Image

Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:05 pm

RebLem wrote:1. I don't think Americans want to vote for a man (McCain) who is 6 years older than the Grand Coulee Dam.
So we are told almost nightly by the Democratic strategists. By that analysis, he shouldn't be as high as he is in the polls, regardless of whether this is too early or whether the Dems haven't decided which of their weak candidates they want to run.
2. Barack Obama is conservative on some issues. He favors the death penalty
Well, that's just sensible, like his stand on guns. He wouldn't get anywhere in national politics calling for an end to either. So is Hillary for the death penalty. In fact, that's the problem the Dems have and why all this stuff about character is allowed to play so long: there's not a dime's worth of difference twixt them except whose high negatives are worse.
I suspect that he is the sort of fellow who involves himself a great deal in the social service ministries of the Church, but does not attend worship services more than 2-4 times a year, a lot less than he lets on, without really saying so.
That puts the lie, then, to the image he's trying to create as a Democratic elite man of faith. He wants it both ways: that's just one of his dilemmas. He wants us to think he had no idea what Wright was saying for years, but he knew enough to call him and tell him not to attend his coming out party in 07. He wants us to think he's a regular church-goer, but he had no idea of the palpable lies Wright was spewing from the pulpit. As you note below, he can't have it both ways. I'll give you that Michelle was probably the real church goer in as much as she is completely in synch with Wright's hateful view of the US. Still, as long as Wright is out in public promoting sales of his dvds and sermons and securing his reputation while attacking the people Obama needs to win over, Obama's going to have a problem.
4. Obama has not separated himself from Trinity UCC because Jeremiah Wright has retired as pastor, and the church has a new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III.
A handsomer and younger man, just as much a raving lunatic as Wright is, or he wouldn't have succeeded him. His disclaimer in March that the rhetorical excesses of Wright's black liberation theology was essentially just entertainment is most certainly true, but how is it substatnially different in content from KKK meetings?

I'll tell you what is most troubling about this whole Wright issue: Obama knows what he should do, and he can't do it. IOW he can't make decisions. And the longer this goes on, the more he refuses to denounce the persons of Wright and Ayers and all they stand for, the more obvious it becomes that, like Bush, he values loyalty and constancy over decisive action to change course.
5. MSNBC's reportage on the issue today has relied heavily on one of their black reporters, Tamron Hall, who lived in Chicago for 10 years and says she was an occasionally attendee (about a half dozen times) at Trinity UCC. She says she never heard any of the sort of things that have been the principal complaints against Rev. Wright. That seems to be pretty much the testimony of virtually everyone who has ever actually been there--that these kinds of rants were extremely rare.


With all due respect to the Halls of the world, it sounds an awful lot like the alleged 90% of black churches which don't subscribe to the theories that Wright promotes are getting to the UCC congregation with their dismay and their pleas to get off the front page.
Most of what Obama has said about his reasons for involvement with Trinity UCC--his reasons for joining and his reasons for staying--have had to do with its social service ministries, not the theology of its pastor(s).
I think the real problem is that Obama charted a particular political course for himself, one that involved black organizations because he wasn't black enough to win their support with his elitist background and he was too black to win the support of working class whites as an initial base. He's stuck with his choice in both senses of the word.
6. Barack Obama is the kind of guy who lets a lot of stuff just wash off his back.
Another reason for alarm reflected in Obama's vagrant musings on foreign policy. If it were Obama who had been a marine in the last 20 years, instead of Wright who was one 44 years ago, he probably wouldn't be having many of the problems he now has. The marines would have made a decisive man out of him.

Still wishing I had Colin Powell to vote for . . .

PS: I'm glad to see you back. I was beginning to get concerned because I hadn't seen you in a few days.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:08 pm

Cliftwood wrote:"Things are mildly uncomfortable for some, bad for a tiny few, and pretty good for most people who vote".

Corlyss, I hope your man McCain says that line, word for word, in every speech he gives to the American people. :lol:
:lol: backattcha. Yes. I do too. A more educational version, with charts and graphs and powerpoint presentations. Look how much Perot was able to accomplish with his very low tech graphs: put the budget on the frontlines of public policy discussions in a way that all the Republican scolding couldn't do. But of course we both know McCain will do no such thing. He'll pander. It's what politicians do.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:13 pm

Teresa B wrote: I really have to go with Corlyss here, case in point: My secretary, who by all common sense should have voted for the Democrat, voted for Bush because, and I quote, "I just can't vote for a guy with a face like Kerry's."
I have a brother-in-law who is far from a Bush fan but viewed Kerry as such a terrible alternative that he felt like he had no choice but to vote for Bush.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:16 pm

Teresa B wrote:I really have to go with Corlyss here, case in point: My secretary, who by all common sense should have voted for the Democrat, voted for Bush because, and I quote, "I just can't vote for a guy with a face like Kerry's."
You'd probably like Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? It came out after the 04 election and has become the new brightest thing in the Dem playbook. I know how your secretary felt. There's a guy that could be Kerry's twin brother who does ads for Countrywide mortgage finance company. I can't stand to look at him or listen to him. Everytime I see him I think unkind things about the Democratic leadership. Al From is the only one who understands where the Democrats have to be, while Bob Borosage, Thomas Frank, and George Lakoff are the ones who get listened to.
And the Noam Chomsky thing. Is Obama truly in that camp? Despite my basically liberal leanings, again I must agree that although a brilliant linguist, his spewings on the fringe left are ridiculous, and sound like they were recorded in the 60's.
That is what enquiring minds want to know. To date, there has been no substantive answer to the question.

Chomsky never left the 60s. He's confident they will come round again and he will be fashionable again in places other than Berkeley.
Go, Hillary.
Image
:twisted: Most assuredly.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

greymouse
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:42 pm
Location: MI

Post by greymouse » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:34 pm

Corlyss_D wrote: Yes. I do too. A more educational version, with charts and graphs and powerpoint presentations. Look how much Perot was able to accomplish with his very low tech graphs: put the budget on the frontlines of public policy discussions in a way that all the Republican scolding couldn't do. But of course we both know McCain will do no such thing. He'll pander. It's what politicians do.
Sorry to tangent here, but I really agree with this remark about Perot. As goofy as the man was, he actually made quite a positive mark in 90's policy without getting elected. Both Clinton and the 94 freshmen felt required to respond in different ways to his pressure. And it came down to the clarity of those pie charts.

As for McCain, he is far better than most Republicans on the spending issue, but yeah he'll pander a bit anyway.

greymouse
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:42 pm
Location: MI

Post by greymouse » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:47 pm

Obama is always awkward on defense to the point of being hard to watch. It's a problem with these feel good dream candidates - they take the hits much harder. Clinton doesn't have these problems. Nobody expects her lifelong associates to be warm fuzzy people. I'm sure she has plenty of Jeremiah Wrights in her life, but they won't make a dent in her poll numbers because she's already taken those shots and absorbed them. Her appeal has never been her likability.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RebLem and 8 guests