Whoa! Have you been drinking?

I was away for several days and return to find that you devised (wrongly) my motives and felt the need to accuse me (falsely) of conspiring some evil scheme for abbreviating Obama’s name. An abbreviation used by others before. Twice in this thread and yet you didn’t go berserk on anyone but me!?

That screams double standard.

And what was all that gibberish about everybody…?

Please stick to the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

Why do you say BHO? Is Obama too much to type?

If you wonder why hardly anybody takes you seriously around here, it’s because of meme spreading like this. Please, cut it out. Call the guy by his last name or his first name please and quit playing this crypto-islamic, right-wing game. It’s nonsense and you know it.

A few weeks ago a Justin did a “post” from a Youtube video shot in bumbly f#$k america somewhere. It was a bunch of southern women at a Pentecostal or Baptist church or something. If you remember that “short” then you may understand the root problem……many people in the USA don’t understand race and racism…..they simply think they are right, or that their color is the right one, or their god is the true one - there is no discussion but they aren’t intellectually capable of having the discussion. Those are the people that need to be reached. They never will be though - 142 years later and the attitudes have only marginally budged……..that’s ignorance on an epic scale. Historically, changes at that level only came through massive revolution, not necessarily violent but massive none the less.

And I’m tired of arguing too, so I’ll just add that basically what happens in these ongoing disputes is that each person is going a bit too far, and things get more and more heated until neither party (or none of the parties) are being ‘moderate’ any longer- despite trying to put a moderate veneer on it with nicer language.

So plain that it’s dumbfounding to see Obama supporters don’t get it or refuse to get it.

Michael’s words, imo, cut to the core of what Obama said. I came to the same conclusion as I heard BHO talk.

He admitted in that speech that he was present when “some controversial statements” were made. Perhaps, not on the dates of the videos. But does it make any difference?

Yes and everyone here understands the inference, but not everyone is ready to accept it, so they parse words and accuse others of twisting and taking things out of context.

Albeit, it is the Obama’s crowd that is doing that.

I still say the analogy is apt- because just as you didn’t base your negative filter of Michael’s comment on his general personality/character, I don’t think Michael does that in regard to Obama either.

C, if Michael’s repeated commentaries on Obama aren’t talking about his personality/character, especially when he calls Obama “fake” or “Messiah”, then what is Michael talking about?

Also, let’s remember that Michael said this in response to my initial post…

Whatever happened to disagreeing without assigning ulterior motives to people?

Yes. Because Michael sets the standard for disagreeing with Obama while not assigning ulterior motives.

In reality, he consistently voices the most uncharitable interpretations of what Obama says, and then he’s surprised when a fellow moderate blogger questions his motives? A bit naive, don’t you think?

Now, I accepted Michael’s explanation because he finally spoke to it. But I still contend that what he says is false. Obama admitted nothing that you all are suggesting, and you can continue to parse individual words and reconstruct Obama’s sentence if you want, but I’m no longer playing this game. It’s tiring, and I’m done with it.

Less than a month ago, in an interview, Obama said that he didn’t feel that his church was particularly controversial.

Tuesday in his speech he said: “Did I hear controversial statements? Of course.”

How do you reconcile those? Either:
1. He’s referring to controversial statements that are only mildly controversial, not “particularly controversial”
2. He thinks that random controversial statements which aren’t mild are still part and parcel of religious oratory in churches all across America.
3. He knows very well that there is reason for his church to be viewed as controversial, but his statement in the interview meant that it’s not controversial because it’s been given the stamp of approval by certain academic institutions, and because there are plenty of other black churches which preach similar things. Sort of an “everyone does it, and even though it’s wrong the authorities are looking the other way so it must be OK” defense.

I don’t think any of those interpretations are very positive, with #1 being the only one that is even remotely acceptable. But unless he clarifies exactly how controversial the statements he heard were, there’s plenty of room to doubt whether he’s really being straight with us. If he wants to excuse himself for inaction on the basis of not knowing about the real inflammatory/unacceptable stuff, he needs to go further in explaining ALL that he heard that was controversial, and why those controversies were only the OK kind instead of the get-up-and-walk-out-to-the-nearest-exit kind.

The degree to which black liberation theology embraces things that are of the latter category, and the fact that Obama knew that Wright was controversial enough that he needed to begin distancing himself at the start of his campaign (despite keeping him as a key advisor, but not putting him out there in public) seems to support the idea that he knew more than he’s directly admitting.

As for the parsing- I think everyone is parsing, just in whatever way they think fits with their general opinion of Obama. And the reason we’re all parsing is that he was too ambiguous (and some of us parse THAT to mean that he was intentionally ambiguous.)

At best one could say that Obama was attempting to create a false impression. To see this in the way you want it seen requires a torturous parsing I believe few will be willing to undertake.

At this point, and after all of this parsing, all I have to say is we’ll see what the voters think. My guess is that your version is FAR more torturous than mine, and people, as a whole, aren’t going to believe that Obama was in that church when similar things were uttered.

We shall see…

As I’ve stated, your arguments weren’t lost on me, but until Michael said it himself, there was no way I was going to concede my point. And there was no way I was giving either of you the benefit of the doubt either. Not after everything he’s written, and not after you both keep excusing his obviously intellectually dishonest behavior.

I admit to being less than charitable with my interpretation, but that’s why i said in my original post either he wasn’t paying attention (which is true) or he was distorting things on purpose.

He says he wasn’t saying Obama was actually in the pews now, and I’ll take him at his word. But he does still contend that Obama was in the pews when he heard similar things, and there’s nothing to back that up. So Michael is wrong either way. He’s just not purposefully wrong. And as I’ve stated, given the pattern he has displayed at PoliGazette with regards to Obama, I feared that could be the case.

He doesn’t have to use the word “similar” for there to be a presumption of similarity-both sets of remarks are being mentioned with the same descriptor. The question of course is how similar were they?

You believe it covers:

A) The questionable statements being linked to in various blogs,

AND B) any similar statements ever made privately between Wright and Obama, but NOT

C) Any similar or identical statements made in a public situation in Obama’s hearing.

It doesn’t fly. At best one could say that Obama was attempting to create a false impression. To see this in the way you want it seen requires a torturous parsing I believe few will be willing to undertake.

You just basically admitted that you misunderstood Michael’s comment, but chose to read it in the worst possible light and cast it either as sloppiness or a willful lie.

Ironically, what you accused Michael of in his reading of Obama is exactly what you just did to Michael. And you admit it’s because of the context of what you believe about Michael (that he’s biased against Obama), just as any negative slant that Michael might put on his views on Obama might be….

because of the context of what he believes about Obama.

Gee, funny how that works, huh? People view other people through a particular lens, based on how they judge their words and actions as a whole. Those who judge the whole person as good and honest will hear or read words from that person one way, while those who judge the whole person in a more negative way will read in a less charitable fashion and won’t give the benefit of the doubt.

In any event…

Michael! Hello finally. I had been waiting for you to actually answer this point yourself, and what it tells me is heartening. No, you weren’t lying, but you didn’t do your homework once again.

So let’s talk about what you’re saying now…

You say he said he admitted hearing something similar. He did not.

In fact, the only time the word similar shows up in his speech is here…

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.

He did say he heard controversial comments, but taking the leap from that to saying he ADMITTED he heard something similar to what was on the video is not one you can credibly make.

Frankly, maybe I should have just chalked it up to the fact that English is your second language, but because you’ve been so pointedly obsessing on Obama and throwing every single meme you can at him to see if it sticks, I didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt. That’s something us Americans do when we see a pattern…we don’t ignore it.

Also, your “Obama is a lawyer” argument is a laughable fallacy. Try that one out of Jason and see where it gets you.

As I’ve said before Michael, on the topic of Obama especially, you play fast and loose with the facts, and often pick up a lot of right wing talking points in the process. It’s intellectually dishonest and THAT is the reason I proposed the either/or scenario about you either not paying attention/or lying.

Oh, and concerning Ron Paul…

Ron Paul And Family Drew Income From Newsletters
Ron Paul’s Newsletters Authored By Lew Rockwell
Abandoning Ron Paul

And just to be clear, if you had actually been reading my blog while I was writing about him, you’d know that while I was intrigued by his candidacy I never said he was my candidate.

Again, another detail you failed to notice.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/19/175155/361

Let’s keep it in perspective! And let’s change the subject to show that right wing Christian preachers say things that are just as incendiary! Nothing to see here…move along, move along.

At the very least, you’d think that people would be calling for TUCC’s tax exemption to be revoked, since there’s absolutely no doubt that Wright has repeatedly violated the law on campaigning for a candidate from the pulpit. Lots of conservative churches have been cited for much lesser offenses.

If this guy actually gets elected, my pocket-book is going to be looking a some “weary years.”

You are reading Michael’s sentence to mean a claim that Obama was present in the church on the dates of some or all of the videos that have surfaced (youtube, or leave that out and just say videos, whatever.)

I read Michael’s sentence differently. In fact it never occurred to me to read it the way you did until I began to understand why you weren’t backing off of this. I guess I can see your interpretation of it now, and to some extent I’d say that maybe Michael’s syntax was awkward- so I’ll take a stab at rewriting the sentence structure and see if this makes sense to you:

“Obama finally admitted that there were times when he was in church that he heard Wright say some of the same things we saw him say on video.”

Do you see now? When Michael wrote “when he said some of the things we saw,” I don’t take that to mean Obama admits to being present on the specific day/time the video was being produced, but rather, other times when he said those same things that we saw/heard. “When he said” those things isn’t a specific date/time- and presumably these were things that Rev. Wright said on more than one occasion. So Obama could easily have been present on other dates/times than those dates/times that the videos were shot, and he still heard the things that we saw on the videos.

Let’s say, hypothetically, Wright said on 2/3/04 that the US govt created the AIDS virus to kill black men, and Obama was there on that day.

Then on 3/6/05, he repeats this (but worded differently- so not the exact same statement) on camera. Obama’s not there that day. An excerpt of this turns up on YouTube.

Thus, Obama was in Church when Rev. Wright said the things we saw on the video, but he can truthfully claim that he didn’t hear the exact statements that are the cause of this controversy.

Obama now admits to being there and hearing controversial things. Michael presumes that it is the same sort of controversial things that Obama’s admitting to hearing, that we heard on the video. Thus the hypothetical I wrote above is the type of timeline/scenario Michael’s claiming.

The reason that’s the harshest possible interpretation, of course, is that Obama’s admission also has other possibilities- that perhaps Obama heard him say that HIV is a plague on black men and our govt hasn’t done enough to counter that. That’s a controversial statement, but not of the same nature as the conspiratorial one. I’d allow for these kinds of possibilities (though the cynic in me leans a bit closer to Michael’s interpretation, because I think it’s stretches credibility to think that all of Wright’s over-the-top views were expressed on days when Obama wasn’t in attendance.)

You’d also allow for that other explanation. Which is why I said that it’s a fair charge to say that Michael applied the harshest possible interpretation- he overstated it. Overstating isn’t lying, it’s just a refusal to give the benefit of the doubt when you don’t believe there’s reason to do so.

Of course, the media could help clear this up by asking Obama to be more specific about what he did hear that was controversial. I’ve seen a few instances where Obama listed some things- but I’ve also seen that he’s waffled quite a bit on those questions so it becomes an issue of needing to know EXACTLY what he heard that he felt was controversial, in its entirety- not for him to cherry pick and say that ‘calling for divestment from South Africa’ is an example, but for him to answer straight up a question like “Did you ever hear Rev. Wright make a statement that would be controversial because it was racist or antisemitic in nature?” or “Have you read the works of theologians that Rev. Wright takes his teachings from, like James Cone and Dwight Hopkins, and if so, what are your thoughts on the black liberation theology that they preach? Is this an example, in your opinion, of a wrong and divisive philosophy?” “In hindsight, do you regret that you didn’t speak up at your church against that, or perhaps that you didn’t take the time to learn enough about the full body of work of Rev. Wright, given that you are now saying that his angry teachings are not only wrong but divisive, and that it is critical for us to move past that anger?”

Until those questions are asked and answered, I’m not able to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t hear some things that crossed the lines of what should be tolerated, no matter what his personal relationship with the pastor was and no matter what other good works he felt were being accomplished.

As Rich said- people say things more than once. I read Michael’s comment not to mean that Obama has now admitted to being physically present on the specific dates that the videos were filmed, but instead to mean that Obama has now admitted that he was present when Wright said some of the things (a repetition of those statements) that were on the videos (but he heard them on different occasions- otherwise, what did he mean when he said “of course” he heard controversial things?)

Of course that’s what I meant Christine, as anyone who reads my post and who isn’t obsessed with Obama and being offended realizes. Justin does a marvelous job defending people, sadly he has to ignore reality in order to do so; but that’s no pro (and he has some kind of strange obsession with what I write, but that as an aside).

Seemingly Justin doesn’t understand that Obama is a lawyer - trained as such at least - and that when he says he didn’t hear certain specific comments, that doesn’t mean or even imply that he didn’t hear similar comments. Now, he has admitted that he has heard similar comments; controversial comments. That’s all we need to know.

Also because this fellow went to Black Liberation Church for over 20 years; the things Wright said are an important part of that ideology (whether Justin likes it or not).

By the way Justin, how did it go defending Ron Paul after the famous pamphlets?

There is NOTHING in Obama’s original HuffPo piece that limits his statement to the YouTube video(s). Obama never even specifically mentions YouTube. Limiting it to YouTube was something YOU added.

Nothing that limits his statement to the videos?

Well, here’s what Obama said in the HuffPo piece (emphasis mine)…

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

So then, what other statements did Wright say that were the cause of this controversy? What other statements prompted Obama to write that post, to go on the news shows, to make the race speech? Different statements on other videos that were played hundreds of thousands of time on YouTube and the networks? Because if you have those, I’d love to see them; as would the rest of the world.

And you’re right C Stanley. I still don’t get it.

Michael wrote:
“Obama finally admitted that he was in Church when Wright said some of the things we saw him say on video.”

Not:
“Obama finally admitted that he was in the church when the videos of Wright that we saw were made.”

You read it as though he said the second sentence. He didn’t.

I honestly can not believe you are, in good conscience, attempting to give cover to what is obviously a false statement. There’s no excuse for this.

Uh, no excuse, because there’s nothing to need an excuse for.

As Rich said- people say things more than once. I read Michael’s comment not to mean that Obama has now admitted to being physically present on the specific dates that the videos were filmed, but instead to mean that Obama has now admitted that he was present when Wright said some of the things (a repetition of those statements) that were on the videos (but he heard them on different occasions- otherwise, what did he mean when he said “of course” he heard controversial things?)

That’s what I mean by harshest interpretation: Michael infers that Obama’s admission is that he heard comments of the same nature as what we’ve all seen. You (again, my presumption) would argue that he isn’t admitting that- that he’s only saying he heard controversial things, but not as controversial as those things.

Now I see that you have read Michael’s comment in a way that puts a different meaning to it. You’ve apparently been under the false assumption that he was claiming Obama was there on the specific dates of the videos and that’s why you’re calling his statement a lie.

Gee, I guess all of us sometimes use the harshest possible interpretation of other people’s words, huh? In Micheal’s case, he infers that Obama’s admission was a bit more damning than it actually was. In your case, your interpretation of Michael’s words led to you posting a smear on his integrity.

ugh

Aaron: For the anti-Israel (and I feel anti-Semitic) Rev. Wright you can go here.

Folks, I put it to you…how can you read that statement and say that Michael didn’t claim Obama finally admitted that he was in Church when Wright said some of the things we saw him say on video.

So C Stanley, to answer your question very clearly…YES, I’m officially claiming that’s what Michael said, because it’s as plain as day right here in front of everybody in his own words.

And by the way, “harshest way possible”? I honestly can not believe you are, in good conscience, attempting to give cover to what is obviously a false statement. There’s no excuse for this.

I will officially say that MVDG did not claim that Obama admitted that he was in the pews when Wright made the YouTube sermons.

Here’s what MVDG did write, which you ought to know because you quoted him:

Also interesting to see that he finally admitted that he was in Church when Wright said some of the things we saw him say on video. He denied that at first.

So I’ll turn your question back on you. Are YOU officially claiming that Michael claimed that Obama admitted to being in the pews during the YouTube sermons?

What is your issue here? Obviously you can say that Michael’s reading it in the harshest way possible, by saying that Obama’s now admitting to hearing the same sort of stuff that’s in the videos (and you, I presume, would say that Obama hasn’t gone that far with his admission, he’s only saying that he heard some other stuff that wasn’t as bad.) OK, accuse him of that if you’d like (though you and others are equally guilty of giving the softest possible interpretation of every contradiction.) But how is that a lie?

Over at “protein wisdom” Karl covers it well: “In short, even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his statements condemning Wright’s worst comments, Obama’s own words mark him as a follower of Black Liberation Theology or its standard Marxist version. As such, Obama’s election would mark a triumph for the Religious Left on a scale never attained by the Religious Right. Yet those who never hesitate to decry the threat of Theocons or Christianists in American politics are not only silent about this turn of events, they seem to be rooting for the election of our first Theolib or Black Christianist president.”

Isn’t that ironic? That worries me!

Here’s what I asked…

Yes or No: Did Michael claim that Obama admitted to being in the pews during the “YouTube Sermons?”

Here’s what you said…

Yes, as presented by you, the logical conclusion would have to be “no”. But it is based upon false premises (i.e. that Obama made it clear he was ONLY talking about the YouTube video and NOTHING else…expect private utterances as well…or, based upon your logic, if he WAS there but wasn’t seated in a pew but instead STANDING in the back. LOGICALLY, I’d have to answer “no” to that as well.)

So I just want to confirm this, you are officially saying that Michael did NOT claim that Obama admitted that he was in the pews when Wright made the YouTube Sermons, correct?

I’m a middle-aged Hispanic woman, a life-long Democratic, laid off last summer, without health insurance. I should be in the bag for Hillary, but she lost me years ago when she co-sponsored that flag-burning amendment. I stopped making excuses for the Clintons right then and there, realizing they really did intend to do exactly what the right-wing media had been claiming for years; get Hillary (and Bill) back into the White House, at any cost.

So I went with Biden, then a bit less enthusiastically, Edwards, I was way too cynical to think Obama had a chance. From what I’ve seen, America is just not ready for a “black man” as president. There are too many fears and resentments left, and “I Have a Dream” is still just that, for at least another generation, if my more optimistic friends are right. I hope they are.

Finally I listened to him, and against my better judgement, I started to believe. After awhile I began to believe he actually had a chance to be nominated and elected, but I came back to reality pretty quickly. I spent a good many weeks raging over the political machine that I knew would eventually prevail, especially when it seemed they had succeeded into turning Obama into one of them, just another politician. Then I came to accept the fact that he would have to be the Second Coming of Christ in order to have a real shot at the presidency, and even then it would be dicey (Black Jesus, anyone?)

As for furthering his chances at winning the nomination or the election, I don’t think the speech will make much of a difference. Most people aren’t listening that closely, or have already made up their minds, or they aren’t in the state/demographic that will ultimately decide the election.

But in my opinion the speech DID make a difference. On a personal level, it was incredibly moving. I listened with tears streaming down my face as he described his grandmother, and I recognized in his words my own parents, my own life. It brought back so many painful and poignant memories, touched so deftly on the conflicts and contradictions I’ve lived. My parents grew up being looked down on by the “anglos”, as we called them back in Texas, and somewhere along the way my mom and dad learned to regard “colored people” the same way anglos had regarded them. They are the kind of people who will never vote for a black man for president. And yet I love them, even when they cringed when I brought my mixed-race boyfriend to meet them the first time. To hear someone talking about this stuff out loud, with eloquence and authority, in a way that was not judgmental but instead embracing and uplifting, was an overwhelming experience for me, one I am still coming to terms with.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard, my experiences, and my reaction to the speech, were not unique. It may all seem self-indulgent and inconsequential, and in terms of this election, it probably is. Those of us who were so moved by his words were probably going to vote for him anyway. But it restored my hope, knowing that America can still produce a great mind who can help us find greatness in ourselves. That is the definition of a true leader to me, and it’s what America really needs right now. But until America decides to stop buying presidents the same way it buys hamburgers, we will end up with something less, something that can be pre-packaged into bland 30 second soundbites complete with flag-pins. After Obama’s speech, I promised myself that I wouldn’t give up believing we will have change. Cynicism is a cop-out, a way for the bad guys to win. No matter what happens this November, I’ll believe and work for change. If it doesn’t come this election, it will come next time. Or the time after that. But it will come.

I actually posted this in the wrong thread, sorry Justin.

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of thos sujegated, specially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill of one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which wile training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teachs them to thing in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”

So, while it is permissible to chase “middle-incomeness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness”: If we avoid the snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright, the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

This is a document that BHO must have read and knew about and it is clear: Wright equates the U.S. to an evil totalitarian regime which enslaves and tries to kill blacks. Every black ill is the result of whitey. Unbelievable.

Yes or no, did Michael say Obama admitted to being in the pews during the “YouTube Sermons”?

What you present is basically Obama’s argument anyway, just with a different timetable. (And, in a sense, Obama did do something like this by disinviting Wright to campaign events starting last year.) I think Obama would still have political troubles because of the sheer length of time and closeness of his association with Wright. Obama’s ability to “make this just go away” is pretty limited. So whether you don’t think this reflects badly on Obama’s judgement (ala Justin), or you think it does (ala yours truly), or even if the whole thing makes you queasey (ala Alan), it might not matter in the end. Its out there, its not going to go away, and Obama made a tactical blunder in attempting to tap dance around it.

Any reasonable attempt to say what you are suggesting would go something like: “I wasn’t there when Rev. Wright made gave that particular sermon.” That would be both clear and unambiguous. And BECAUSE it is clear and unambiguous would lead to the envitable follow up question…which Obama tried like hell to avoid. At best it was a cynical prevarication.

Yes, as presented by you, the logical conclusion would have to be “no”. But it is based upon false premises (i.e. that Obama made it clear he was ONLY talking about the YouTube video and NOTHING else…expect private utterances as well…or, based upon your logic, if he WAS there but wasn’t seated in a pew but instead STANDING in the back. LOGICALLY, I’d have to answer “no” to that as well.)

So how has this advanced matters any?

It still looks like you called Michael a liar for no good reason.

If not thought provoking it’s at least been comment provoking, no?

Haha, no, it was thought provoking alright, but I’m not sure it provoked the right thoughts from me.

To me, your argument comes across a little like a variation of “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

No Rich, it’s actually quite simple. All I need you to do is answer the following question with a simple Yes or No: Did Michael claim that Obama admitted to being in the pews during the “YouTube Sermons?”

I look forward to your answer.

That’s why i’m an econ major not english :P

@Rich

For the sake of argument lets say he heard them, via recording or something a year ago, someone showed it to him, and he released a statment about them, as he said he did, by then Wright was about to retire and he had already been with the church for yrears and already had a friendship with Wright, so he had seen the good of Wright, and in his opioni it outweighd a few crazy comments

I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity

If someone pointed out Obama did hear these things, but they were said at a different venue, would it be fair to call that person a “liar”?

isn’t there a differnce between what a lawyer and what the average voter might say in that situation? Since Obama is presenting himself to VOTERS isn’t that the standard he should be evaluated by?

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.

Now, I dont think it is unreasonable to read that as a more blanket statement than you are allowing. When I read soemthing that says, “When these statements first came to my attention” I read it as covering all such incidents. The implication was given that Obama never knew Wright held such views before a week or so ago. That is simply false. To me, your argument comes across a little like a variation of “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” (And if the discussion is covering the political implications of all this I hardly see how that looks like a winning strategy for Obama.) In this context calling Michael a liar seems beyond harsh.

Justin and Dennis — fair enough. We see this through different eyes. I’m trying to understand why people are reacting so negatively to the speech and I thought Rich layed that out clearly. If not thought provoking it’s at least been comment provoking, no?

I don’t usually critique grammar here, but you would really help us out if you used some periods instead of all commas.

It would only tell us something if Obama showed any inclination that he shares the views or sat in the church when those words were spoken, we already know he wasn’t in the church when the stuff on youtube/the MSM was spoken, nor has he shown any evidence that he shares the views, in fact what he said on tuesday was totally different, his speech was courageous because rather than doing the politically easy thing of throwing Wright under the bus and moving on, he defended the man, but not the views

Definitely no need for an apology. And it wasn’t that I was offended by anything you did, it’s just I didn’t appreciate the fact that there wasn’t a caveat of some sort. But hey, no worries.

Concerning Rich’s post, right off the bat he’s calling Obama a coward in the title. So I’d guess I’d ask that you compare this with something that Jay Cost wrote today. The difference is literally night and day. And while I give you that Rich didn’t resort to distortions or fear mongering (although analogizing Wright to a KKK member is beyond clumsy), I think a higher bar needs to be set for reasonableness. Fair enough?

Rich, Michael said that Obama admitted he was in the pews during the “YouTube Sermons.” Everybody knows this is false, and since Michael refuses to actually correct the record, I can only assume he either read something incorrect and is spreading that around or is purposefully lying. What other options are there? So tell me how suggesting that he could be lying is a falsehood.

Also, you used a word that characterized my post as incoherent. If you don’t think that’s calling me out well, I guess I don’t want to be in the line of fire when you actually do call somebody out.

As for an Inquisition, well, you can play the victim card if you want, but let’s look at the facts. I haven’t called you any names, I merely questioned your tone and said the post didn’t seem reasonable at all. Also, I provided you with a link to Amba’s post and there’s another link to a reasoned critique in this comment. So there’s that. Make of it what you will.

I don’t think the piece was that thought-provoking. He never focused on race, which was the reason behind Wright’s remarks. He refuses to even see a context to Wright’s remarks (which I agree were dreadful and off the mark). And he painted anyone that might have liked the speech as a mindless Obama supporter.

As a black, moderate Republican, I liked the speech and believe me, I am not a Obama supporter. I don’t have to vote for the guy to appreciate what he said. But I think Iconic Midwest and many other conservatives fail to see how race still makes an impact. I don’t think they are racist themselves, but they don’t know or seem to care that even though things are much better for African Americans, we still are dealing with the effects of racism and Wright’s words, as wrongheaded as they are, can be understood in some context. Iconic failed to see that and failed to say anything new.

Nothing personal, Alan. I just don’t see it as thought-provoking.

Well…I dont think you can say THAT exactly. (And I think my, admittedly, harsh reaction to Obama’s original HuffPo piece is probably more what Justin has in mind. And I cant say he doesnt have a point.)

When I said I was an idiot for watching it, I had more in mind what I’ve called The Limits Of Political Junkiedom than anything else.

There is a lot of this stuff that doesn’t do anybody any good.

Thus my melancholy.

If you read my previouse posts on this topic, I think you’ll have a fuller context with which to critique me. I don’t think there’s anything unchristian about wondering if a presidential candidate’s church affiliation might tell us something problematic about that candidate. I’m not going to give up intellectual inquiry just because religion is involved. I am, however, most assuredly not hating or spreading hate about anyone in this matter.

As for it not being well-reasoned, I took the first part about not wanting to watch the speech as the author’s desire not to get involved (a feeling I’ve shared about this issue) — not that he thought the speech was unimportant. And the KKK reference was obvious hyberbole and I didn’t at all read it as an apples-to-apples comparison.

I think the post does a good job of laying out the opposing arguments in this case without resorting to distortions or fear mongering. I don’t think this is a case where one side or the other can say they are absolutely right. Note that by “reasonable” I don’t mean “right.” Just thought-provoking.

The KKK reference is made in an analogy. I guess I could have said “Imagine a Republican with a ’spiritual advisor’ who occasionally gets chummy with the KKK” instead…but I fail to see how that materially affects my argument in the slightest.

And, no Justin, I do not think the piece railing against the WaPo article was particularly reasoned. And I thought your calling MvdG a liar was a simple falsehood.

But I merely gave my characterization of your posts, I didn’t call you out or present any of your ideas (in or out of context). There were links for people to follow and make up their own minds about what you wrote, if they felt so inclined.

I’ve taken to calling such reaction to any criticism of Obama “The Obama Inquisition” for exactly this reason. In your view what would have been an acceptable critical reaction to Obama’s speech?

And not that I think you believe this personally, but I don’t appreciate that you’re linking to a post that calls my post about Obama’s speech “spluttering.” Do you really think it’s appropriate to call my post incoherent?

In short, that post is anything but reasoned, moderate or otherwise.

But if I can speak to the point you’re making, I honestly think the best points made about this whole controversy have come from your POV because you’ve demonstrated genuine concern, but have drawn honest, clear lines about what is fair and what is not. Amba has also provided a very credible post about what she likes and doesn’t like. Pete Abel is another moderate Republican who may not agree with a lot of what Obama is about, but is honestly parsing through his speech.

Fair enough?

Dos, I know! Because I was such a tireless, stalwart supporter of Paul and Obama will now surely NOT have the delegate lead by the convention. Prozac here I come!

Aaron: Were I to attend a church where lots of positive things were taught from the pulpit, except for the occasional 45 second anti-Semitic tirade, I’d be looking for another church ASAP. Hearing that kind of thing ONCE would be enough for me. Thats just me. And yes, I would wonder about all of those who remained in the pews. Evidently, you would be less bothered by it and you wouldn’t wonder about the congregation.

When I look at the last 100 years worth of history on such matters I have a hard time believing I’m simply being too touchy.