Remember when Obama did "Anderson Cooper 360" on CNN over a week ago? Remember when he said that he was never present for any of Jeremiah Wright's "Gawddam America!" diatribes, only to admit just days later in his now famous "race speech" that he was? Sorry, but you can't rewrite history here... Maybe on that Big Orange "blog" that will say or do anything to bash Hillary and praise Barack, but not here.
He did not admit any such thing in his speech on race, and either you know that and are lying, you do not know it and are only listening to what liars have told you about the speech, or you are devoid in reading comprehension.
What Obama actually said is this:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
If you can find a place in that set of remarks in which Obama says that he heard the inflammatory, incendiary, etc., comments, please enlighten the rest of it. Because what I see is entirely consistent with what he's always said, and entirely inconsistent with a statement that he'd heard those comments.
Since it's virtually impossible that Obama could have been at TUCC for any of those sermons, it would be particularly bizarre for him to have said that he had heard them. But since he did not say that, there's no problem there.
"Because what I see is entirely consistent with what he's always said, and entirely inconsistent with a statement that he'd heard those comments"
That is a self-serving belief. He said, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."
He heard Reverend Wright's remarks, and we all know that those remarks were made repeatedly in that church, they are pretty standard fare. If Obama tries to parse that he didn't hear the same exact remarks as appeared on the early videos, that is just parsing and dodging the question, trying to avoid the real substance of the question, which was did he know of his pastor's views. He first said no, then later copped to it.
This was a much more significant issue of credibility than Obama supporters are willing to look at.
We do know those remarks were made repeatedly. About 5 times out of 4000 is repetition. However, we also know that Obama virtually could not have been at TUCC for them.
We also know that on many, many occasions -- far more than the 5 or so times that Wright made such remarks -- white people attended TUCC. None of them are talking about what a hateful, racist place it was. Why is that?
What we actually do know is that Wright's remarks can be considered standard fare only if you believe that something that happens about 0.125% of the time is standard fare. I don't happen to believe that's a reasonable standard.
And of course by that standard it would be standard fare for Clinton to lie about her experience; after all, she did lie at least 0.125% of the time.
Willing to make that your standard? If not, stop the lying.
