Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Why did Obama choose Trinity?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Obama has again repudiated the words of Jeremiah Wright, this time in much stronger words that before. But, as usual, the questions about the previous extent of the relationship remain unanswered.

Noam Scheiber at TNR's "The Stump" begins to peck at one of the questions, on a deeper look at the Wright/Obama relationship, which needs to be answered and to this point hasn't.

"Why'd Obama Join Trinity in the First Place?"

We know, having read some accounts that part of it had to do with gaining street cred with his work as a community organizer among churches. It only makes sense, and he was advised by a pastor to pick church if he wanted to be truly effective.

And there's a second theory which Scheiber points to as well:
Obama, as the product of a racially-mixed marriage, in which the black father was almost entirely absent, had spent his whole life groping for an authentic identity. Wright offered Obama both the father and the identity he never had.
In fact, I'd guess it was a combination of both - but there's more, and here's where it gets interesting. Scheiber quotes a passage from David Mendell's Obama biography that is revealing. First about Wright:
Wright earned bachelor's and master's degrees in sacred music from Howard University and initially pursued a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago Divinity School before interrupting his studies to minister full-time. His intellectualism and black militancy put him at odds with some Baptist ministers around Chicago, with whom he often sparred publicly, and he finally accepted a position at Trinity. ...
So the aspect of black militancy, as we've seen it reflected in Wright's words and, as he's admitted, is based in James Cone's "black liberation theology". This was well known from the beginning. It is nothing new, but certainly something rarely talked about in the MSM. Very few, if any, news outlets bring this topic up even while Wright continually touts the connection with Cone's theology.

Also note the claim to "intellectualism". Although for most, a pastor who claims that AIDS was a government plot to kill blacks, would hardly fall in the realm of an intellectual, Wright was apparently considered to be more so than other black pastors of the time. As you'll see in this next passage, that is one of the primary reasons Obama was attracted to the church:
Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday. Even if some blacks consider Wright's church serving only the bourgeois set, his ministry attracts a broad cross section of Chicago's black community. Obama first noticed the church because Wright had placed a "Free Africa" sign out front to protest continuing apartheid. The liberal, Columbia-educated Obama was attracted to Wright's cerebral and inclusive nature, as opposed to the more socially conservative and less educated ministers around Chicago. Wright developed into a counselor and mentor to Obama as Obama sought to understand the power of Christianity in the lives of black Americans, and as he grappled with the complex vagaries of Chicago's black political scene. "Trying to hold a conversation with a guy like Barack, and him trying to hold a conversation with some ministers, it's like you are dating someone and she wants to talk to you about Rosie and what she saw on Oprah, and that's it," Wright explained. "But here I was, able to stay with him lockstep as we moved from topic to topic. . . . He felt comfortable asking me questions that were postmodern, post-Enlightenment and that college-educated and graduate school-trained people wrestle with when it comes to the faith. We talked about race and politics. I was not threatened by those questions." ...

But more than that, Trinity's less doctrinal approach to the Bible intrigued and attracted Obama. "Faith to him is how he sees the human condition," Wright said. "Faith to him is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life. That's far more important than beating someone over the head with Scripture that says women shouldn't wear pants or if you drink, you're going to hell. That's just not who Barack is."
So, per Mendell, having decided he needed the street cred, Obama was faced with picking a church with which he would be most comfortable. I.e. a church which would fit his already formed liberal beliefs and, as Wright admits, most comfortably address his "postmodern, post-Enlightenment" questions.

Now I'll leave it to you to decide if this is "elitist", but it certainly is telling. It also helps confirm Billy Hollis's contention about where the left is today:
I have severe disagreements with conservatives, but I can at least find room for argument because we are both children of the Enlightenment. Today’s left springs from post-modernism, and contains the internal contradictions of that philosophy as an integral component. You can’t even argue with the left in a way they will accept unless you already accept the preposterous assertions of post-modernism.
That is the man described by the reverend Obama now denounces and claims isn't the "same man" he knew previously.

Says Scheiber:
So, if you buy Wright's account—and it rings pretty true to me—it was his intellectualism and social progressivism that won Obama over. Certainly it's hard to imagine that someone like Obama, who came from a progressive, secular background, would have felt genuinely comfortable in a socially conservative, anti-intellectual church. The problem for Obama is that the flip-side of these virtues was a minister with a radical worldview and a penchant for advertising it loudly.

Which, put another way, means that Obama's decision to join Trinity was probably the opposite of cynical. Trinity was the place where, despite the potential pitfalls—and he must have noticed them early on—Obama felt most true to himself.
I think Scheiber's deduction here is most logical and it touches on the controversy which surrounds Obama, Wright and Trinity.

Scheiber, apparently taking flak in the comment section, then tries to weasel out of that inconvenient conclusion - for a liberal - in an update:
Update: Just to clarify, by "felt most true to himself" I mean "most true to himself as a worshipper." The point is that the pastor who made him feel most welcome as a worshipper probably also made him pretty uncomfortable politically.
To which I say - nonsense. It was a fit in both areas, at least at the time he joined. It is going to be extremely difficult, given Mendell's passages, for anyone to believe the fit wasn't almost perfect in both the spiritual and political areas.

In the beginning of this "search", Obama was exploring the spiritual, however, on the political side, he'd been acting on his beliefs for years. Wright, as anyone can see, comes as a whole package, and if Wright was indeed a father figure as well as a mentor, he pressed both the spiritual and political (again, look at the social concerns which attracted Obama to the church to begin with) with equal fervor.

He didn't show up at Trinity as a 'worshipper'. As mentioned, he showed up there initially to gain street cred to help him with his job. But he also chose a church that most comfortably fit his political beliefs before he ever began his religious journey. And that church based its theology on black militancy. That fact is why people continue to question his denials about not believing the things espoused by Wright when it is clear that what Wright is espousing isn't at all recent, but instead an integral part of the church Obama joined from the beginning.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
A local Philadelphia TV station reported this morning that Wright will be giving an address in Philadelphia in the next week or two (they said sometime in May).

So perhaps Obama will be able to deny Wright a third time so as to allow Wright to be properly crucified.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
If the presense in the Church was entirely pragmatic, he would have terminated that relationship shortly before or after taking his Senate seat. He didn’t. Atleast over most of the 20 years, it was a social/political match.

—————————

Obama’s camp isn’t stupid or prone to static or prideful conclusions. They know full well that Obama’s past refutations are not working well enough.

And I have to wonder about Wright in the past acknowledging that Obama may have to refute him to get elected. For people supposedly prepared, they are not handling it well.

So I question if the emotion and theatrics we see are genuine. If Obama distances himself from Wright in a more dramatic presentation, is there thought that may make it more convincing?

Call me jaded, but I’m just wondering if we’re being "bamboozalled".
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
So perhaps Obama will be able to deny Wright a third time so as to allow Wright to be properly crucified.
Great. All we need is another freaking martyr.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
Call me jaded, but I’m just wondering if we’re being "bamboozalled".
I’m kind of reminded of Troopergate, when Clinton’s womanizing history first started leaking out of The American Spectator and into MSM. Take little steps away from the problem and Bubba Constituent might not notice as much as if you take a great leap away from the problem. It’s especially effective if MSM lets the issue die with every little step, like the Republicans let them do with Clinton.

The trouble for Obama is the MSM isn’t letting this die. Part of the reason, I believe, is Bill Clinton’s successful South Carolina gambit. He managed, at significant loss of personal prestige and standing with blacks, to get Bubba Constituent to notice that Obama wasn’t just the Democratic candidate with the new feelgood message. He also happens to be black.

Man, that had Carville written all over it.
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
... spent his whole life groping for an authentic identity.
Oh please. You come equipped with your authentic identity. Any ’identity’ you have to ’grope’ for is just a sham to fool the rubes.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
I think Obama is a complex man and he joined Trinity because it filled a number of needs: political, street cred, black identity, father figure, intellectual, community, emotional, and yes, even spiritual. I’m not sure what predominates overall—maybe that shifts in and out, hence the vague, floaty, can’t-touch-bottom feeling I get when I try to figure Obama out.

However, like McQ, I don’t buy the TNR characterization that Obama was fulfilled as a worshipper but uncomfortable with Wright as pastor. Obama had already worshipped Malcolm X as a young man and Wright fit that mold so brilliantly that Obama practiced performing Wright’s sermons to learn oratory.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
"I did not have sexual relations with that Pastor..." /fingerwag
 
Written By: Douglas Black
URL: http://
I don’t know what you look for in a congregation to worship with, but I’ve never joined one because of the man in the pulpit. The other people in the pews are the most important thing.

That said, calling Wright an intellectual is the last thing I would expect from anyone that wants to be taken seriously. Prime example is his claim that oral tradition/learning is peculiarly an African style, in contrast to European "style"; to illustrate which he calls on that notable work of Congolese authorship, the book of Psalms. Also of subSaharan origin, apparently, are such early works as the Cattle Raid of Cooley, Beowulf, Kalevala, the Eddas, the Chanson de Roland, and the Iliad, all of which were composed and recited aloud well before they were committed to written form. Also on the list we can put the Vedas and the Mahabharata, the Dhammapada, and the Chinese Book of Odes.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://kishnevi.wordpress.com/
Obama is a born con artist, who found a mentor. Obama didn’t want his own church. He wanted his own country. (Again, rent the film Nightmare Alley for the dramatic presentation of the type.)

After a day to reflect on it, here’s the sort of conversation I think happened between Obama and Wright, whether a year ago or a week ago:

Obama: O.K., so you just go out there and do your thing, and I’ll reject you with my usual calm and restraint, like I had thought deeply about it.

Wright: Do you want me to lay it on thick?

Obama: Thick enough.

Wright: O.K., then, remember that I love you.

Obama: And remember that I love me, also.

[they both have a skittering chuckle]

Wright: Just get the power, baby.

Obama: I will bring home the power.

——-
Note to huxley: You might be getting that can’t touch the bottom feeling about Obama because his surface is the bottom. To paraphrase Firesign Theatre: you get that "thin, thin sixteen milimeter shell, and on the inside it’s all id."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I think what the Democrats fail to realize is that most Americans are uncomfortable with the whole idea of "Politically Correct"... However, the one saving rule that we have all used to swallow it is - it cuts both ways. I wouldn’t want someone saying or doing the same in the reverse.

The problem for Obama - he is the reverse - the reverse of Rush Limbaugh on ESPN, the reverse of everyone from Jimmy the Greek to Don Imus who has ever been told that this portion of their career was over.... It didn’t matter how they apologized - the answer was you must be removed from that role.

Obama - you can apologize a thousand times, sacrifice your Grandmother on the altar of - its just like - but guess what - it’s time to go home.

This is why I refer to Obama as fatally flawed - there is nothing he can say and nothing he can do in six months that will make this OK.

No one thought in advance to check on his church - most Americans would never have imagined that Black Liberation Theology would be at a Methodist church... had someone realized this, his behind the scenes support might have been reigned in early, and we’d be talking about someone like Richardson as running against Hillary....

but now the Dems are saddled with two weak candidates - it’s fantasy (note in SciFi Fantasy is often associated with Horror) but if the Obama meltdown continues the best thing that could happen to their ticket is to go off the board to an ’unknown’ at the convention. I could totally see it as a way to keep out Hillary, since in theory Obama’s supports would still control the nomination - not Hillary and they appear to have Richardson onboard...
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
Here’s another question. Have you ever been wrong about a person you thought you knew? I bet you have. I know I have. And I can distinctly recall someone here at QandO being wrong about a person.
I remember Jon Henke’s frequent coupling with Glenn Greenwald and one of his fans “Mona” (I remember “Mona” even being a guest blogger here). Time and time again, Jon was left defending Greenwald and Mona from the frothing commenters here at QandO. But after a few unforgivable screeds from Greenwald, Jon was forced to reconsider the honesty and credibility of whom he once commonly defended. In short, Jon was wrong about the guy. Jon once thought Greenwald to be the honest impartial he hoped he would be.

Now Jon’s relationship with Greenwald is nothing compared with the relationship of Obama and Wright. And it is reasonable to assume that a twenty year relationship with someone is ample time to harvest the full bounty of viewpoints. But like Jon’s opinion of Greenwald, isn’t it possible that at one time, Obama thought Wright to be the man he hoped he was, and later discovered Wright to be the man that he actually is? Or, like Greenwald, Wright’s positions and motives had degraded over time.

We do not know the extent of that twenty year relationship. We do not have an attendance record for Obama from the church. No one can honestly say what Obama actually knew of the man. People often cite that Wright baptized Obama’s children… well, do you think Wright was screaming “God damn America” during that ceremony? Or during Obama’s wedding Wright was screaming “US of KKK” or whatever? Isn’t it at least possible that Obama really never knew of the extent of Wright’s insanity?

The problem Obama had, is that he tried to have it both ways, like most politicians. After Wright’s rantings were made available, Obama with his speech in Philly basically said, “Yeah, my old buddy is crazy, but aren’t we all a little crazy? And I’ve got just the prescription. … And he’s my friend, whatayagunnado? … Right?”

But that didn’t work. Few were buying it. And Wright’s latest show gave Obama the opportunity he needed. Because, maybe if Wright came out and said he was wrong and sorry for the words he said, it may have died out. Who knows? If Wright had blamed it on Alcohol or something, things would be different. Now, with Wright’s traveling sideshow, Obama had to say, “Yeah, that motherf*cker is bib crazy.”

It just might work. Of course it won’t work on McQ or others on the Right, they never liked him to begin with. And, despite Obama never once used any rhetoric even remotely similar to Wrights, this latest repudiation gives them no cause to even consider the fact that Obama might actually hold views that differ from Wright’s.

Obama has little hope in gaining the support of peoples like McQ. No matter what he says. But that is not who Obama needs to court. All he needs to do is persuade a few in the middle and he’s golden.

And those few in the middle are holding prime real estate. Which is why we are seeing so much about the Wright episode from guys like McQ. It is that real estate that McQ and others need to farm. You see, even without Wright, Obama’s views are enough for those on the Right to dislike Obama. But the majority of Obama’s views, for better or for worse, are actually held with the majority of Americans. His views on health care and Iraq are far more in line with the majority of Americans than McCain’s are.

The Wright episode is being viewed as Obama’s Achilles heal. Little wonder as to why Wright has been mentioned in at least 32 QandO blog posts. Thirty-freakin-two!!

And again, though Obama has never once used any rhetoric even remotely similar to Wrights, that doesn’t seem to stop most of you here from calling Obama a racist.
Which brings us to this,
Now I’ll leave it to you to decide if this is "elitist", but it certainly is telling. It also helps confirm Billy Hollis’s contention about where the left is today:
Also in Hollis’s contention is the statement about the Left, “You can’t debate such people.” Well I contend that despite the fact that Obama never once used any rhetoric even remotely similar to Wright’s, people effortlessly brand Obama – as something most reviled in polite conversation – a racist; You can’t debate such people.

Look, I’m not voting for Obama. There are plenty of areas where Obama and I disagree, but having a good friend who is hateful crazy ranks dead last among those areas.

Hell, I have a friend who thinks the moon landing was a hoax and that the government had something to do with the Murrah building bombing in OKC. I think he’s nuts. But he’s a decent, fun loving guy who’d give you the shirt off his back. And I’d stand beside him.

But of course, I have the luxury of not running for president.

Well… at least not until 2018. Then it’s Pogue for Prez, baby. Don’t worry, I’ll email you guys the information on where to order buttons and bumper stickers. It’ll be a libertariantopia dreamland under my rule.

One of my first acts as executive, is to mandate that all transportation vehicles be gold plated carriages that must be fueled by either stardust, or be pulled by unicorns.

POGUE in ‘18

Also, free beer.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I’ve been talking to some of my liberal friends. They are willing to entertain my exposition of Obama problems, and even admit that my points are interesting and pose valid questions, but somehow it doesn’t go any farther than that. They get good feelings about Obama, that he’s really a good guy who wouldn’t do anything bad if he were president, besides the Republicans are terrible, and that’s the end of the discussion. All the questions about why Obama chose a black power church and what that mean are left hanging.

Of course, these are committed blue-staters who despise the Iraq War, so they are no more likely to vote against Obama than I am to vote against McCain in the general.

As usual it comes down to swing and independent voters.


 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Here’s another question. Have you ever been wrong about a person you thought you knew?
And you use Mona of "I met her on-line, but never in person" (maybe an on-line email relationship of a few months) as comparable with a guy you knew for 23 years and claim as your spiritual mentor?

Uh, yeah, that’s about as credible as Obama’s "granny was scared of a black guy" so she’s just like Wright comparison.

Yeah, you can be wrong about a Mona, but it is not at all the same is saying it took you 23 years of close personal contact to suddenly realize you were wrong about Wright ... especially since it is clear Wright never tried to hide what he was.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I’ve been talking to some of my liberal friends. They are willing to entertain my exposition of Obama problems, and even admit that my points are interesting and pose valid questions, but somehow it doesn’t go any farther than that.
Of course, it isn’t your liberal friends who are going to decide the election, so what they choose to buy into really isn’t that relevant.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Oh, and ...
Of course it won’t work on McQ or others on the Right, they never liked him to begin with. And, despite Obama never once used any rhetoric even remotely similar to Wrights, this latest repudiation gives them no cause to even consider the fact that Obama might actually hold views that differ from Wright’s.
As a person I had little problem with Barack Obama. In fact, buying into the earlier "above the fray" candidate spin, I thought he was a breath of fresh air. My primary opposition to him is his ideology. He’s a liberal with socialist tendencies. And, I think he’s inexperienced - his time is somewhere around 2012 after he’s actually done something.

But, unlike you, I’ve actually taken the time to get into this much deeper than you obviously have (or if not, I choose not to ignore the implications of his associations as you have).

Wright is precisely who Wright says he is. He makes no excuses or bones about it. So given that, and given Obama’s choice of association (for 23 years), I have to wonder if we really know who Obama is ... post "he’s-above-the-fray" spin of course.

Your problem is you don’t want to look behind the curtain, and that’s fine, but you ought to at least be honest about it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
And you use Mona of "I met her on-line, but never in person" (maybe an on-line email relationship of a few months) as comparable with a guy you knew for 23 years and claim as your spiritual mentor?
Couldn’t stop your knee from jerking?

Did you miss this,

Now Jon’s relationship with Greenwald is nothing compared with the relationship of Obama and Wright. And it is reasonable to assume that a twenty year relationship with someone is ample time to harvest the full bounty of viewpoints.
Obviously.
Your problem is you don’t want to look behind the curtain, and that’s fine, but you ought to at least be honest about it.
I was. Look again. “Look, I’m not voting for Obama. There are plenty of areas where Obama and I disagree, but having a good friend who is hateful crazy ranks dead last among those areas.”

Dead last on my reasons.

Thirty-freakin-two times you’ve brought up Wright, McQ. Which is fine of course, it’s your blog. You wanna look behind the curtain? Seems like you’ve been pulling on that yarn so long that the curtain no longer exists.

What do you expect to find behind the curtain? A wizard out to destroy the white race? Or something more plausible of which you already knew, a politician willing to do and say whatever it takes to get elected?

I would think it to be obvious. Obama was a part of the church to help him get elected to state office and beyond. Now Obama’s chickens have come home. He intends to slaughter them now.

Typical politician, wouldn’t you say?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Couldn’t stop your knee from jerking?
No, actually, I thought better of you and figured you’d just used a bad comparison. However it appears you knew it was bad and used it anyway. That says a lot more about you than me Pogue.
I was. Look again. “Look, I’m not voting for Obama. There are plenty of areas where Obama and I disagree, but having a good friend who is hateful crazy ranks dead last among those areas.”
And that makes the point I’m trying to make. If you consider him nothing more than some remote "friend" then you’ve missed the bus. This isn’t about a "friend" - this is about something much deeper which has been going on for two decades. That’s the curtain you need to be looking behind - not the strawman you’ve constructed.

I would think it to be obvious. Obama was a part of the church to help him get elected to state office and beyond. Now Obama’s chickens have come home. He intends to slaughter them now.

Typical politician, wouldn’t you say?
Of course - in fact, that’s what I’ve been intimating for some time. But there’s also a past he doesn’t want looked at to deeply and that has me intrigued as well as having me want to look even deeper.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Here’s another question. Have you ever been wrong about a person you thought you knew? I bet you have. I know I have.
Problem is, Wright is a pastor who follows Cone’s Black Liberation Theology, and has done so long before Obama joined the congregation.

Obama’s been in the congregation 22 years, donated 20-odd thousand dollars, had his children babtized there, had Wright as an advisor on his campaign, etc.

It is obvious that Obama either had to know about Wright’s views, in which case he shouldn’t be pres, or else he’s clueless, in which case he shouldn’t be pres.

Add in this:

1) Obama’s unreformed terrorist buddy.
2) His wife’s anti-american commetns.
3) His commie blogger.

and it just gets worse . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Well I contend that despite the fact that Obama never once used any rhetoric even remotely similar to Wright’s, people effortlessly brand Obama – as something most reviled in polite conversation – a racist;
I don’t think racism is the concearn here. I’m more concearned about anti-Americanism, myself.

And yes, he hasn’t said anything anti-American, he’s not dumb enough to do that. He hasn’t said much of anything of substance, one way or the other. But his wife, Ayers, Wright, his official blogger, anti-american all . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
What it all boils down to, is do you believe that Wright accurately represents Obama?

Here’s what you have to work with…

Does Obama’s obscurely defined 23 year involvement in a church headed by Wright outweigh the fact that there is no evidence that Obama himself has never said or written anything even remotely resembling the views in question of Wright? Does it outweigh the fact that there is no voting record from Obama that resembles anything Wright is screaming about? Or any current rhetoric from the Obama campaign that resembles Wright?

I believe the only reasonable answer is NO. There just isn’t enough evidence to assume that Wright accurately represents Obama.

One can speculate, as if to look into Obama’s soul, that his cloudy relationship with Wright is reason enough to look upon Obama as a racist or anti-American. But it would have to remain a distant observation. Next you can discuss if Brad Pitt is really still in love with Jennifer Anniston.

The only reasonable assumption IMO, is that one can at least question Obama’s judgment for keeping an involvement with a man that must have, and according to Obama’s own admission, shown himself to be at least controversial.

That’s all you reasonably have.

But isn’t it more plausible, that because there is NO evidence of Obama actually sharing views with Wright over all the years Obama has been writing and publicly speaking, that Obama saw the popular black Trinity church as a stepping stone for a black man seeking state office and beyond?

Isn’t that more plausible?

Come on. Be honest.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Does Obama’s obscurely defined 23 year involvement in a church headed by Wright outweigh the fact that there is no evidence that Obama himself has never said or written anything even remotely resembling the views in question of Wright?
A) it isn’t "obscurely defined". He’s been very specific as to what Wright meant to him and his family and B) unless you’re totally incurious, you want to know the extent to which that Wright’s influence had in Obama’s life.

So to say:
I believe the only reasonable answer is NO.
... is to ignore growing evidence that Obama isn’t being completely truthful about the relationship and what he did hear in the church and what, if anything he said or did about it.

That’s a judgment question. Either he was completely unaware of Wright’s theology and propensity to preach it or he’s simply hiding something.

As he says, "that’s a legitimate political question". And of course it begs the question as to why so many of those like you refuse to look.
One can speculate, as if to look into Obama’s soul, that his cloudy relationship with Wright is reason enough to look upon Obama as a racist or anti-American. But it would have to remain a distant observation.
One can speculate the moon is made of green cheese, but it doesn’t make it so no matter how hard you wish. I can’t look into his soul, nor can you, so that means we have to ask questions, and for those running for president, demand answers.

I simply don’t understand why you’re so reticent to do so - or, in reality, maybe I do.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I simply don’t understand why you’re so reticent to do so - or, in reality, maybe I do.


Perhaps I just don’t understand what you’re asking.

What are you asking?

Is Obama a secret racist? A secret anti-American?

What is your question?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I believe the only reasonable answer is NO. There just isn’t enough evidence to assume that Wright accurately represents Obama.
A lot of this hinges on what you mean by "represent". I doubt that Obama shares Wright’s more radical views, but he obviously has some common ground. That’s still more than sufficient to disqual Obama for the office he is seaking.

And we really need to add in all the other questionable associations Obama has. Ayers and the like. And when you add in his wife’s comments, you hardly get a warm fuzzy that Obama is someone who really cares for this country.
The only reasonable assumption IMO, is that one can at least question Obama’s judgment for keeping an involvement with a man that must have, and according to Obama’s own admission, shown himself to be at least controversial.
That’s not the only reasonable assumption. It’s an assumption on one end of the scale: it assumes the best possible case for Obama’s character.

The other end of the scale is that Obama in fact shares Wright’s ideas of race, the US, etc. That’s a reasonable assumption as well.

The likely assumption fall somewhere in between.
But isn’t it more plausible, that because there is NO evidence of Obama actually sharing views with Wright over all the years Obama has been writing and publicly speaking, that Obama saw the popular black Trinity church as a stepping stone for a black man seeking state office and beyond?
It is very plausable he saw it as a stepping stone. However, he could have gone to a mainstream black church, as well.

The "lack of evidence" that Obama shares Wright’s views is a dubious argument. He obviously shares some views, or else he would have found another paster. And a smart politician isn’t going to publically announce views such as Wright’s.

What you are doing is asking us to take Obama’s word on this. I will go by his choice of associations instead.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
What is your question?
Well if you look at the top of this you’ll see:

"Why’d Obama Join Trinity in the First Place?"

And despite all the quibbling going on here, it is still unanswered. The answer to that question then allows us to answer other questions concerning judgment and character.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"The other people in the pews are the most important thing."

One would think that there would be a certain amount of agreement between pastor and congregation wrt theology, etc. Or do you think that it was just the closest church to their homes?

"Prime example is his claim that oral tradition/learning is peculiarly an African style, in contrast to European "style";"

True. It’s more a pre-literacy style. You do the best you can with what you’ve got.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Well, someone asks, "do you really think Obama is a racist?"

My answer to that is "who cares?" It’s not my job to look into Obama’s heart. I can only go by his actions. He’s twenty years in attendance at a racist church with teaching based in racist "black theology."

Why am I supposed to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt about who he is?

I go by what he has done, not by what he says he has done or who he says he is.

I know that he has lied about what kind of church he attends. He has pretended that it is not as radical as it is. He’s now on his third rear guard action against the facts about Wright and the church.

But my concern isn’t based on whether or not I would vote for him, but whether he should even be in the running for the presidency.

I don’t think that someone who is essentially saying "I just attended those Klan meetings, I never lit any of the crosses" as his explanation for why he was there listening to Wright meets the cut-off standard for President of the United States.

But the final killer for me is that he takes his daughters there.

If all that this comes down to is that he’s a politician on the make, then he ought to at least keep his kids away from Wright’s, and James Cone’s, influence.

The whole thing makes me sick, the putrid racism, the slick nauseating con that’s at work, the evocation of white liberal guilt, the BS hope and change rhetoric, the messianic populism. Makes me want to vomit.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Well if you look at the top of this you’ll see:

"Why’d Obama Join Trinity in the First Place?"

And despite all the quibbling going on here, it is still unanswered.
You have my answer,
But isn’t it more plausible, that because there is NO evidence of Obama actually sharing views with Wright over all the years Obama has been writing and publicly speaking, that Obama saw the popular black Trinity church as a stepping stone for a black man seeking state office and beyond?

But obviously that answer isn’t good enough for you. You reckon there to be a deeper reason.

What’s your answer?

a) Obama is a racist
b) Obama is anti-American
c) Obama is an anti-American racist
d) Obama saw a stepping stone in a south side Chicago church popular with blacks
e) None of the above

Can you pick one?

Obama can’t. Why? Because he’s a BS politician and any of those answers would sink him.

Without any direct evidence that Obama is a,b, or c, I’m going to have to put him with every other politician who does something stupid and go with d and not vote for him just like I planned to.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The answer, Pogue, is that there is no answer: a candidate for President of the United States can have no answer to the question of why for 20 years and counting he worshipped at a church whose teachings are based in the racist "black theology" of James Cone.

Worse still, there is no suitable answer to why he exposed his daughters to the "black theology" of Trinity Church.

If Barack Obama was running for Chicago alderman he might be able to scoff at the question and give some half-hearted, dismissive answer.

But he wants to be President of the United States. So, I just want to make it clear one more time: there is no answer.

In other words, it disqualifies Obama.

And, by the way, racism is anti-American, so it’s no surprise that the grievance-mongering racism of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright redoubles that with a freight train of anti-Americanism, just as white Christian Identity zealots despise America. It’s an obligation of overt racialism to detest American greatness in order to keep the grievance alive.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider