Wright is Just Part of Chicago Politics For Obama

[doeton]

The sad thing is, Hillary is the ONLY candidate left whom we actually know well enough to know where she stands. She doesn't flip flop (don't give me any Iraq bullshit, she voted based on the information given to her, just like everyone else); she's stubborn as a mule. Like her or not, we know what to expect from a Hillary Presidency.

"It cannot be American policy, period," Clinton (D-N.Y.) told debate moderator Tim Russert, who asked if there should be a presidential exemption to allow the torture of a terror chieftain if authorities knew a bomb was about to go off, but didn't know where it was.

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC "Meet the Press" appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: "If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law."

She said then the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_hillary_flipflops_contradicts_bill___her.html

 

[doeton]

The sad thing is, Hillary is the ONLY candidate left whom we actually know well enough to know where she stands. She doesn't flip flop

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900855_pf.html


http://brainshavings.com/2007/11/edwards-campaign-ad-shows-hill.html

http://www2.nysun.com/editorials/hillarys-latest-flip-flop/

yeppers...she's a real mule.

 

[jreeves]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900855_pf.html


http://brainshavings.com/2007/11/edwards-campaign-ad-shows-hill.html

http://www2.nysun.com/editorials/hillarys-latest-flip-flop/

yeppers...she's a real mule.

Yeppers....Obama....Corporate lobbyist will not fund my campaign....Well only some corporate lobbyist can fund my campaign....LMAO


I will take away tax breaks for the rich and return money to the middle class....Well the middle class can pay for me capital gains taxes and eliminating the Social Security tax cap.....

I blast Clinton and Edwards for voting for the authorization of war in Iraq. But I say before the campaign starts that I don't really know how I would have voted if I was in the Senate......

Just a few of Obama's hypocrisies
The list is growing.....

 

[SingingMongoose]

What a coincidence. An American politician with the middle name "Hussein" is being painted as some kind of fantastical terrorist Trojan horse.

I don't trust Obama, because I don't know Obama.

Then stop pretending you do. You're making all kinds of wild assertions (including the completely meaningless "He doesn't seem to respect American traditions." What traditions are you referring to, and how has Obama "not seemed to respect" them? Furthermore, why on earth does that even matter?). You can't have it both ways.

This reminds me of the old "Bush seems like a guy I'd like to have a beer with." I still can't believe people who claim to be rational adults actually care about such silliness. The stakes are too serious to be judging a candidate because he doesn't seem to like hot dogs and baseball.

You know, no one has actually backed up the assertion "You can't go to the guy's church for 20 years and not agree with him!" It sounds legit at first, but let's stop and think objectively for a moment. Wright has definitely said some awful stuff, but has he said enough to fill up 20 years of preaching? To even fill it half-way? Exactly how much time has he actually spent saying stuff like "God Damn America?"

I don't claim to know the percentage of Wright's sermons that have served up his craziness, but if it only comes out once in a while, I don't see why Obama can't think "Wow, that was awful, but I still like most of what he preaches."

Think for a minute - we're all extremely opinionated people. Can you honestly say that your political sensibilities have never been offended by a friend (who you didn't break ties with as a result)? I mean seriously offended, like a racist remark or something on par with Wright's stuff. Is it so hard to believe that Obama liked only most of what the rev. said? Is it not, in fact, incredibly unlikely that he would agree with everything Wright said over 20 years of sermons?

Maybe this is confusing to those who can't handle more than one idea at a time - but honestly, I think the real reason people are in a tizzy about Reverend Wright is because they're looking for a swiftboat to rescue them from the turbulent river of change. This whole thing strikes me as very contrived, artificial dirt piled on by Barack's frustrated foes.

 

[Jon]

Mongoose, have you READ the things on the Trinity United Church's website? It speaks of an allegiance to Africa, which the website claims is their "native land." This is the allegiance Obama made by attending that church for 20 years.

Furthermore, Obama himself said AFTER the Wright controversy that he was planning on leaving the church if Wright did not step down as minister. It took him twenty years to make that claim? Convenient, since he titled one of his books after a speech Wright made. Even more convenient, he waited until the world realized what a piece of garbage Wright is before he cut ties with him.

Then stop pretending you do.

I don't pretend to know the guy, I know what I hear about him, things that are facts. He has ties to Wright. He has ties to Farrakhan. He's a Chicago politician. Those three things are three things that tell me I can't trust him. And, sadly, those are about the only three things anyone knows about him.

 

[Annie]

What a coincidence. An American politician with the middle name "Hussein" is being painted as some kind of fantastical terrorist Trojan horse.



Then stop pretending you do. You're making all kinds of wild assertions (including the completely meaningless "He doesn't seem to respect American traditions." What traditions are you referring to, and how has Obama "not seemed to respect" them? Furthermore, why on earth does that even matter?). You can't have it both ways.

This reminds me of the old "Bush seems like a guy I'd like to have a beer with." I still can't believe people who claim to be rational adults actually care about such silliness. The stakes are too serious to be judging a candidate because he doesn't seem to like hot dogs and baseball.

You know, no one has actually backed up the assertion "You can't go to the guy's church for 20 years and not agree with him!" It sounds legit at first, but let's stop and think objectively for a moment. Wright has definitely said some awful stuff, but has he said enough to fill up 20 years of preaching? To even fill it half-way? Exactly how much time has he actually spent saying stuff like "God Damn America?"

I don't claim to know the percentage of Wright's sermons that have served up his craziness, but if it only comes out once in a while, I don't see why Obama can't think "Wow, that was awful, but I still like most of what he preaches."

Think for a minute - we're all extremely opinionated people. Can you honestly say that your political sensibilities have never been offended by a friend (who you didn't break ties with as a result)? I mean seriously offended, like a racist remark or something on par with Wright's stuff. Is it so hard to believe that Obama liked only most of what the rev. said? Is it not, in fact, incredibly unlikely that he would agree with everything Wright said over 20 years of sermons?

Maybe this is confusing to those who can't handle more than one idea at a time - but honestly, I think the real reason people are in a tizzy about Reverend Wright is because they're looking for a swiftboat to rescue them from the turbulent river of change. This whole thing strikes me as very contrived, artificial dirt piled on by Barack's frustrated foes.

and it was Obama that brought up his middle, Muslim name.

 

[jillian]

and it was Obama that brought up his middle, Muslim name.

And?

 

[Annie]

And?

and the implication that it's because 'everyone against him' is seen as promoting him as Muslim. Wasn't so.

 

[jillian]

and the implication that it's because 'everyone against him' is seen as promoting him as Muslim. Wasn't so.

You see anyone who is "for" him using his middle name or initial?

 

[Annie]

You see anyone who is "for" him using his middle name or initial?

Personally I don't do so either, however it did start with Obama, so if not liked, it was his own fault.

 

[jillian]

Personally I don't do so either, however it did start with Obama, so if not liked, it was his own fault.

I'm not sure how it was his "fault". Ask yourself if you see people using McCain's middle name for any purpose. Then ask yourself WHO are the people using Obama's middle name or initial. Then ask yourself *why* they're doing so.

 

[Annie]

I'm not sure how it was his "fault". Ask yourself if you see people using McCain's middle name for any purpose. Then ask yourself WHO are the people using Obama's middle name or initial. Then ask yourself *why* they're doing so.

If he didn't want that used, he never should have brought it up. Sorry Jillian, while I find most of those that play with that a bit childish, he made if fair game.

 

[jillian]

If he didn't want that used, he never should have brought it up. Sorry Jillian, while I find most of those that play with that a bit childish, he made if fair game.

Kathianne... what a bunch of BS. You think it's ok to use someone's middle name as a propagandist tool?

Good on ya babe.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne... what a bunch of BS. You think it's ok to use someone's middle name as a propagandist tool?

Good on ya babe.

And I find those that are whining about this type of thing childish. Really.

 

[Dogger]

If he didn't want that used, he never should have brought it up. Sorry Jillian, while I find most of those that play with that a bit childish, he made if fair game.

That's totally disingenuous. Obama knew the extreme right-wing would make an issue of it, because they include some vicious, nasty, soulless subhuman bastards (see, Swiftboat Liars for Bush). And he knew it would be worse if he appeared to be hiding it. Explaining the meaning and origin of his name does not grant them license to distort it into a question of his patriotism, his loyalty or his Christian faith.

 

[Annie]

That's totally disingenuous. Obama knew the extreme right-wing would make an issue of it, because they include some vicious, nasty, soulless subhuman bastards (see, Swiftboat Liars for Bush). And he knew it would be worse if he appeared to be hiding it. Explaining the meaning and origin of his name does not grant them license to distort it into a question of his patriotism, his loyalty or his Christian faith.

Really now, that's not what he did:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VmNjFmYmRkZGUyNmE3Mzg1ODY3MWU5MWExMDI0YTY=

"Well, I think if you've got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that's a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush."

Answer: Barack Hussein Obama.

Bret recounts:

Sometime before Barack Obama's middle name slipped into the realm of the unmentionable, it was supposed to be a selling point of his candidacy. "Well, I think if you've got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that's a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush," Mr. Obama told PBS's Tavis Smiley on October 18, 2007. "If you believe that we've got to heal America and we've got to repair our standing in the world, then I think my supporters believe that I am the messenger who can deliver that message."​

03/12 12:28 PM

 

[Dogger]

Really now, that's not what he did:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VmNjFmYmRkZGUyNmE3Mzg1ODY3MWU5MWExMDI0YTY=

So? We saw different occasions where Obama mentioned or talked about his name. Neither of which justify the ugly smears regarding his patriotism, his loyalty or his Christian faith.

 

[Annie]

So? We saw different occasions where Obama mentioned or talked about his name. Neither of which justify the ugly smears regarding his patriotism, his loyalty or his Christian faith.

Sorry, but one does not logically get from name to patriotism/loyalty, that has to do with the other lame argument over pins and pledge. The problem with the Christian faith I think has much less to do with his name than his choice of mentor and reasons for.

 

[Ravi]

This is getting taken out of context.

Tavis: They would look at the U.S. differently for what reason or reasons?

Obama: Well, I think if you've got a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, that's a pretty good contrast to George W. Bush, to start with. Somebody who's lived in a foreign country, somebody who knows what it's like to see family members in dire poverty, somebody who has a grandmother who lives in a village in Africa without running water and without heat and without indoor plumbing - a village that's been devastated by HIV/AIDS.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200710/20071018_obama.html

 

[Dogger]

Sorry, but one does not logically get from name to patriotism/loyalty, that has to do with the other lame argument over pins and pledge. The problem with the Christian faith I think has much less to do with his name than his choice of mentor and reasons for.

It's all part of the narrative. They use his name, together with the other garbage, to support bogus claims that he's a Muslim and that he isn't a real American.

In the interview you linked, Obama implied that his name would show the world that Americans are not ignorant, petty, narrow-minded morons. Are you openly challenging that assertion, or seeking to disprove it by example?