Primaries

Remove all ads!

That's a little more understandable, as Hagee wasn't exactly McCain's very own pastor. Of course, Bush declared a national day of mourning to honor Falwell (may the God he professed to worship educate his departed soul) and that didn't seem to bother people, or get much play...

I guess because it's understood and accepted that there are Tons of Religious Crazies with Tons of Influence in the Republican Party.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! A republican taking an endorsement with from an anti-semitic, anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic zealot (otherwise known as an agent of intolerance, as McCain would have called someone like this back in 2000) with no conditions, no caveats, and no comment is boring. It happens so often, it just isn't news. When a democrat's pastor, on the other hand, says something stupid and the democrat publicly disagrees with the pastor (and points out that few people agree with everything their pastors say*) but makes the grand mistake of not throwing the pastor under a bus, that's what passes for news in our so-called-liberal-media.

* All those Catholics voting for pro-choice democrats spring to mind as a perfect example (under John Paul II, catholics were warned that their very soul was at stake at the ballot box and that it was a grievous sin to vote for someone who is pro-choice).

 

You have a point, Obama's relationship with Wright was rather more personal than McCain's with Hagee - at least as far as I know. On the other hand, Hagee was afaik a much more public figure, so I'd think it would even out.

Certainly, although I'm still surprised how widely accepted they are as political figures. Politicians, imo, ought to be rational and care more for the secular power - the preachers are the ones who should work on morality and ethics. Give the Ceasar what is Caesar's, and all that.

 

I am of the opinion that in some sense, any press is good press. The media focusses on the Obama / Clinton clash because the media prefers to give time to the Democrats rather than the Republicans. A certain amount of that is bias, a certain amount is pragmatism -- what's happening with the Dems is interesting. What's happening with the Reps is . . . not.

Regardless of what some are trying to do with the Wright story, I think Obama is going to come out of this deal unscathed.

I disagree with a lot of what Wright is saying, but I also can sense his frustration to a degree. The great thing is that he can say what he wants and express how he feels. That's what makes Western culture great, IMHO. Now if some Obama supporters later feel Wright lost them the election, then Wright is going to have to face the free speech of those dissaffected citizens, and it won't be pretty.

 

All I can say is: F--- Rev Wright. When he first made his "God Damn America" comments, Obama did not disown him. In his now famous "A More Perfect Union" speech, here is a part of what Obama said:

And this is how Rev Wright thanks him. Obama did turn his back on him on Tuesday, and I think he had to. It is the first time that Obama appeared angry. Sure, he controlled his anger when he spoke, but you could sense the anger behind the words.

 

Not true. Go back and study the media coverage from the 2000 and 2004 campaigns if you still believe this. McCain is getting less coverage right now not because of media bias, but because he has no primary opponent and his coronation has been assured since super Tuesday. Pragmatism, I'll buy, but bias? Not on your life.

 

LKD - I could not disagree with you more. None of this has been good for Obama. The part I do agree with is that the media really likes to cover the Dems in the worst possible light they can. As has been pointed out, no one cares about Mac's association with Hagee, a radical, fringe nutcase, even more so than Wright is. That gets little coverage by the mainstream media.

 

Ah, but the Religious Crazies have all that influence because the politicos care about secular power. Haggard was tooting his own horn, but when he said that if the Evangelicals vote they determine the election he wasn't too far off.

 

I more or less understand the mechanics, but do not approve of it. The term "separation of church and state" may sound controversial, but imo there is a good reason to keep the state apparatus away from any religious authority, and vice versa.

@LKD: I disagree, for a politician there certainly can be bad publicity. A celebrity can do fine if s/he's disliked by 90% of the consumers if the 10% are already enough to support it, but for a politician 10% is not very much if s/he wants to make it to the top. This is especially true imo in the US, which has a very majoritarian system - while here a minority fringe party can use negative publicity to get the votes of the 10% far right and use its votes to tip the scales in favor of the government or against it, in the US "the winner takes it all," if I may paraphrase the old song. Thus, being recognized is not always a good thing when most of the people don't like you - which is the risk the Democratic nominees run against if the attacks from their campaigns become bitter and polarizing enough.

 

I essentially agree with what others are saying:

Certainly there is such a thing as negative press coverage. Rev Wright was negative press coverage. The "bitter" comment resulted in negative coverage, and Hillary saying she was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia earned her negative coverage too.

I further agree that the reason McCain isn't in the news much is that there is little to talk about regarding him. He doesn't yet know who his opponent is, and as such, there is little he can do in terms of campagining. Instead, what he's doing is going to fund raiser after fund raiser to try to build up his war chest for the general election this fall. While that is certainly a smart tactic by him, it doesn't make for riveting news.

 

I would argue that even if the coverage is negative, the name recognition these stories have generated is a boon to both Democrats. Plus, the way the media is slanting it (IMHO) is that the decision for president is being made NOW in the Democratic Party nomination process. Some reporters are making it look like a Democratic win is a forgone conclusion.

I don't think any of the scandals we have discussed will make any Obama or Clinton supporters change their minds.

 

Probably not. The truly important thing is, what is the impact on POTENTIAL supporters of either candidate?

 

The independant voters are the key. The hard-core party members will vote their party. The independants will decide the election (they always do). Every blow Clinton and Obama exchange further alienates the independants -- which is why McCain is gaining ground in the polls.

 

OK, I just watched something like a one hour special on MSNBC on the Obama/Wright controversy. It was a blow-by-blow account of everything you would want to know about how Obama has handled the "Wright controversy," examined from every angle one could imagine...Oh, wait, a breaking MSNBC headline:

"It appears that Barak Obama has just shot Rev Wright outside his Chicago church over remarks he has been making over the last week." MSNBC reporter, David Gregory is on the scene and had this to say: "Well, it's been a bad week for Obama, and it appears that he has finally made the decisive move of severing his past ties with his former pastor, who not only baptized his two daughters, but married Barak and Michelle as well. But the question still remains, did he pull the trigger soon enough? or did he wait too long? That's the question voters need to be asking themselves tonight."

Over at FOX News, Bill O'Reilly commented: "Now we're getting somewhere. And that's why we need the Second Amendment. Some joker gets on TV and says, 'God damn America,' and Patriotic Americans fight back. I'm all for it. Maybe now Obama will get my vote."

In North Carolina, where she is campaigning, Hillary Clinton had this to say: "I don't want to get into a Second Amendment debate on Barak's decision to finalize his relationship with his former spiritual advisor, but I will say that when I'm President, anyone who shoots anyone will be obliterated."

And John Big Mac McBush appeared on CNN, with these remarks: "I think Obama wants to be seen as making a strong, serious move, that Americans will notice. But will they notice? I can only take Obama by his actions regarding comments made by the Rev. Wright. I'll let the voters decide if he's serious or not."

Now I just want to know what Obama is going to do about that "white grandmother" of his....

 

There's a good question that comes to my mind from this. Don't you love it when supposedly neutral news media ask an obviously framing question like this? It's almost as bad as asking if voters are asked - make that told - whether they should care that McCain had a black baby. God forbid voters don't care about that issue in particular and ask instead if Obama has the right stance on foreign policy issues, or if his team can reform important state agencies (hello, FEMA) or if how he can make, say, NAFTA work better for a struggling American economy. Or, you know, another useful question: "Hun, do you smell smoke from downstairs?"

Hey, little questions like that last one can make a world of difference.

You know, in journalism classes we talked about the US media as being one of the best examples of a neutral one. If this goes on much longer, I'm asking my former Alma Mater to give me my money back for that course.

 

I think things like this should matter, but I think it should matter more what had been done in the past and less what is being done now (by either party). As an active member in my church, let me tell you that Barack not only knew what his pastor was saying, but at least partially agreed with it. I'm not saying 100%, but if he had had a problem he would have either left the church or at least distanced himself in the church from the pastor (i.e. not refer to him as a spiritual mentor, or like an uncle).

What this means to me is yet more indication that Barack actually agrees with some of the extreme things his close contacts have said. Things like "This is the first time I can honestly say I'm proud of my country." I'm not talking about the sensationalist aspect, I'm talking about the fact that he surrounds himself with people like this and his history indicates he agrees with them.

Basically, what I'm saying is that what a candidate says on the campaign trial *ahem* trail, matters a lot less to me than what (s)he has said and done in the past. These things are part of Obama's past and they reveal a good bit of his character. And yes, the candidate's character does matter.

 

Well, that's an interesting point, because that is essentially what Wright has been saying, that in denying his remarks, Barack is "just being a politician." Nevertheless, those remarks are a great contradiction to Obama's message, which has been one of unity and change, and a rejection of ideology based politics. It is my personal belief that Barack is sincere in his message.

On the other hand, I suspect that Obama knew his pastor was an ideologue, and may have suspected of his attitude towards race based politics. But in no way does this indicate that Obama shares these views. But because of the remarks made by Barack's, wife, the ones you refer to in your post, along with those sound bites of Wright's "sermons" there is now a large subtext of race injected into Obama's campaign. It's unfortunate because I don't believe that that is what Obama is about, nor what he stands for as a candidate.

I would also caution, NOG, about the uses of "character" in judging politicians. IMO, Obama is light-years ahead in the character game compared to both Hillary and Mac. I think Obama is certainly pragmatic in his approach to politics, as is most other politicans, but I don't sense much in the way of "dishonesty" about him. It is an asute political move for him to distance himself from Wright and his comments and I think he as handled this situation as well as can be expected, depite all the howling from the media dogs.

I also, believe that you are projecting your own views regarding what one should expect from a "church." You can't always mix religion and politics, which is the point that those on the Left have been trying to make for years. Nevertheless, some conservatives consider religion and politics to be "inseparable."

 

NOG, a quick glance at the edicts of the Catholic church and the politics of its parishioners completely disproves this. If what you are saying is true, then John Kerry really wasn't pro-choice since the Church considers opposing pro-life legislation (which the active and devout John Kerry has done numerous times) -or even voting for a politician who would - a grievous and potentially mortal sin. Not every member of every congregation checks his brain in at the door.

If Barack Obama were you, your observations might have merit, but Barack Obama isn't you. He's Barack Obama. He views the world differently than you do, comes from a different part of the country, he grew up biracial and without a father during a time when such things were looked down upon even moreso than now, he comes from a different generation than you do, he came to the faith much later in his life than you came to yours, and he likely believes that Church should play a different role in his life than you think it should play in yours. Your arguments about what Barack Obama believes are proven false not only by the words of Barack Obama, but also by his record, and his record tells you a hell of a lot more about his character than his words, the words of his pastor, or even the words of his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

Barack didn't actually say that, either. His wife did. And don't even think about saying that, since his wife said it, he must -even partially - agree with it. Not all spouses agree on everything. Women like Maria Shriver and even my own wife would have very stern words with you if you tried to imply that the words of a person's spouse imply tacit support of the same from them. It simply isn't true.

 

Yes, and look at the differences between James Carvell and his wife, Mary Matalin - very opposite, but they are still very close and stay married, despite their individual politics....

 

Yeah, but I'm betting the Bush administration has been rough.