PA, Obama, Casey, and buses

Obama moves his IA field director, who also ran Ohio for Obama, into Pennsylvania, but someone's skeptical:
Even before Tewes's appointment was confirmed today, campaign officials had hoped that the extended bus tour -- a commitment Obama's campaign has not made to an individual state since Iowa -- and a sizeable advertising buy over the past week would help to quell internal skeptics.


"My guess is it's a smokescreen, I don't think it changes the strategy at all," said one Obama fundraiser in Pennsylvania. "I think a lot of people were catching wind of the fact that they were writing off Pennsylvania."

They wouldn't write it off though, not with having a internal prediction of losing by just 5 percent, and finally getting a big endorsement in the state by Bob Casey:
Casey is a first-term senator and the son of a popular former governor of the state. His support could help Obama make inroads among Catholic voters. Catholics constitute more than 30 percent of the state. Casey is scheduled to join Obama in Pittsburgh Friday and campaign with him as Obama travels by across Pennsylvania by bus.
Speaking of buses, Obama's still trying to defend Wright, but has reved up the bus engine a bit:
"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.
When did Wright ever acknowledge he'd been divisive- did I miss that happening? Also, the problem for Obama is that the issue has become not just about Wright, but this church in general, that Obama belongs too:
Still, the Wright episode is not behind Obama and remains a problem for the general election, if Obama is the nominee. NBC reported Thursday that bulletins published by Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side included "anti-Israel" material and a piece calling Italians "garlic noses" and references to "White supremacists" who "run the U.S. government."


Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "I think comments like that have no place in the public discourse."

I just haven't seen any numbers though, aside from polls done right after this broke, that Obama suffers from his relationship to Wright in the Democratic primary. There have been many statewide polls though, which show a continued slide against McCain, which is probably why Obama continues to try and figure out a way to end the story. It'll be interesting to hear Casey's responses to the reporters over Wright & Obama's church, while the tour happens in PA, and if that helps Obama in the state, which remains a poll average of a 16 percent spread favoring Clinton.



Display:


Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

This is Casey's way of doing two things

1- Sticking it to the Clintons for denying his father the 1992 speaking slot because he and Daddy are anti-choice and Bill Clinton decided you know as Democrats we are the pro-choice party

2- Being as relevant as Ed Rendell who absolutlely destroyed him in the 2002 Democratic primary for Governor


by rossinatl on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Oh right, I'd forgotten about '92, good call.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Obama help Wright? (none / 0)

Purchase that HUGE house that Wright is going to retire into?

Does anyone know?


104,000 people will DIE in the US in the next four years because they can't afford health care or drugs they need.
Unlike Obama's, Hillary's plan *works!*
by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How Did Clintons Purchase Homes (none / 0)

When they were millions of dollars in debt?

Let's see those tax returns.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Did Clintons Purchase Homes (none / 0)

Nice post....u are so right!


by gabbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

So
Now mydd and other Clinton supporters are bashing ANOTHER prominent democratic leader for not supporting Sen Clinton?

What is WITH you guys.  Breaking blue?  Na...all you want is it to break for YOU


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

And I am fed up with this blog's use of the old McCarthy tactic of guilt by association.

You ought to know better, Jerome.

I'll visit and read your used-to-be excellent, thoughtful posts when the nominee is chosen, perhaps in June.


by hawkseye on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

this is what happens when all the NO QUARTER blog 5-year olds start sending Jerome emails about what a wonderful job he's doing.   the professionalism and balance is disappearing.  i was a lurker here and there before i became angered by the constant Obama bashing all the time always.  and now they're coming here.  i am a progressive who was called a troll and an ENEMY at No Quarter because i caucused for Obama in WA State.  it's disgusting..... these are the 22%-ers who will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  they are so hate-filled it is indescribable.


by funknjunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

Nice...my sentiments exactly!  Thanks for your post!


by gabbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

ah another dkos freeper, try to leave the Flush talking points back in that swamp please.


by zerosumgame on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has already won (none / 0)

Reading some of the diaries here is like visiting another planet. There just seems to be no connection to reality.

There is a measure of how the voters feel regarging Obama and Clinton. It is called polling.

NBC/WSJ has Hillary with a net negative perception among voters.

Gallup Daily tracking has her behind by 8 points.

We are just walking through the motions for about another 3 weeks.  


by commoncents on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey's father refused to endorse the nominee (none / 0)

So why should he have gotten a speaking spot in 1992?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:47:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 0)

To be fair, and I say this as a fan of Casey, his dad didn't get a speaking slot because he refused to endorse the ticket.  Which, I would add, is 100% reasonable irrespective of one's views on choice.  


by HSTruman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, people do get that story wrong all the time.

However, I bet that it will be retold and retold.  It plays to the perception that the Clintons can play quite rough, even against people in their own party.  If PA voters like that, it helps Clinton. If not, it hurts her.  

But it also reveals the split between different big players in the PA political establishment. And Casey and his dad are more popular than Rendell.  Look for Casey to cut some ads for him.

These parts of Casey's reasons to support Obama were all pretty interesting and will be part of his political argument:

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_upd ate/20080328_Bob_Casey_to_endorse_Obama_ _join_bus_tour.html
 "Casey sees Obama as an "underdog" in the campaign who sacrificed at the beginning of his career to be a community organizer "in the shadows of the closed steel mills in Chicago," said a source close to Casey who is familiar with the endorsement decision but was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

The source, reached by The Inquirer yesterday, said that Casey was also impressed with how Obama had stood up to the pressures of the campaign, including recent attacks over the racially incendiary remarks of his former pastor.

Casey's decision was also personal, motivated in part by the enthusiasm his four daughters - Elyse, Caroline, Julia and Marena - have expressed for Obama, the source said. "He thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

mn, you folks will just say ANYTHING! (2.00 / 1)

Casey and his dad are more popular than Rendell?

that is soooooo nuts.

i worked pa in 92 and  06.

in 92, the Casey - Clinton blood fued began.

jr's a senator only because of the anti- santorum fever.

renddell totally crushd him when they ran against each other.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mn, you folks will just say ANYTHING! (none / 0)

Casey, despite being a terrible campaigner consistently breaks statewide records in terms of votes. He, and his late father, are immensely popular here (for reasons I admit, I don't grasp.)


Thieves get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot.
by JDF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY! (2.00 / 0)

Great news for Hillary! With Casey on board, the expectation game will play in Hillary's favor. Instead of expecting Hillary to win by 20, they may expect her to win by only 5 percent, or maybe less. That way, she can exceed expectations and sow that she has the momentum and convince the Automatic Delegates (you know the Superdelegates) to ignore the elected delegate count and the popular vote count, and give Hillary the nomination that she uniquely deserves, because she is more experienced (you know, older) than that scary guy.

/snark

!
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is leading nationally, but only by a razor (none / 0)

thin margin..

I don't think ANYONE expects her to win big, but its essential that she be the Democratic nominee because a LOT of Obama's support from GOP crossover voters will wither away once the nominee is picked, everybody knows that.


104,000 people will DIE in the US in the next four years because they can't afford health care or drugs they need.
Unlike Obama's, Hillary's plan *works!*
by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no she is not (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/1254 3/9554


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ya kidding right??? (none / 0)

people are running around here saying it will be a 20% blow out.

Also she kinda needs at least 20% to start gaining enough delegates.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is leading nationally, but only by a r (none / 0)

No, Hillary is NOT leading nationally. Not in the latest Pew Poll, not in the daily Gallop poll (where Obama is pulling away). Not in the actual popular vote in actual elections. Not in the delegate count.
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Goal Posts Last Seen in Paraguay (NT) (none / 0)


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

At what does this become a religious test for office?

Can't belong to Trinity, because... well you know...

Can't be a Catholic, because... well you know...

Can't be Jewish, because... well you know...

Seems to me this is a slippery slope. I recognize that Jerome is only pointing out that there is a defacto religious test, but should we legitimize it?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 3)

"At what does this become a religious test for office?"

The issue is not religion at all.

The issue is about hate speech - at what times did Obama witness it, what did he do about it, and what it his stand on it. Also, Wright clearly demonized Hillary Clinton and her husband in his sermons, while praising candidate Obama, a possible violation of the church's tax exempts status. Did Obama request this endorsement in any fashion? Obama did donate over $22,000.00 to Wright's church. Did he object to the possible violation? Voters deserve answers to these questions.

The religious institution where the hate speech and endorsement  occurred is immaterial.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"It's not the sex, it's the lying..." (none / 0)

NM


by zadura on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:06:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 2)

The ease in which you and others slander a church with tens of thousands of members, the biggest church in a denomination with over a million members, is just mind-blowing.

Obama has clearly answered what his stand on this is.  As for when and where he worshiped to the God he believes, that is none of your fucking business.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

"The ease in which you and others slander a church"

The church is immaterial, no one is slandering the church. It is the behavior of Jeremiah Wright and violations of the law and  bigoted hate speech that are the issue here.

No matter what church or other religious institution housed the events in question, they are still important issues for voters to question and get answers to. It is appropriate business for all voters when considering a candidate.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

Do you really think "church" refers to just the building?

No.  It refers to the faith community in a congregation, from the pastors down to all the parishioners.

Comments like this are slandering that church.

Trinity is obviously a bigoted church

That has basically become the de facto position of this blog, that Trinity is a racist bigoted hate-filled church.

And it is slander, against the church and everyone of it's congregates.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

These people would have thought MLK (none / 0)

was racist.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These people would have thought MLK (none / 0)

Only if he was the preacher for someone running against a Clinton.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

It would be like "OMG he said moderate whites and white clergy were worse than the KKK!!" "He's a racist!!!"


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

But that's not the problem.  "God damn America" is the problem.  Accusing the government of inventing AIDS to kill black people is the problem.  Saying that 9/11 is America's chickens coming home to roost is the problem.  Wright has some good points, but he also has some tinfoil-hat notions.

This isn't about Trinity and it's not about the religious denomination.  It's about the guy who Obama himself said was his mentor for twenty years, the guy who performed Obama's marriage ceremony and baptized his children, who gave the name to Obama's book, who.... You get the picture.

Added to the above is the fact that this controversy has shown Obama to be hypocritical.  I believe Obama is lying when he says that, had Wright not retired, Obama would be thinking about leaving the Trinity congregation.  Huh?  If he didn't do so over a 20-year period, even though he's admitted he knew Wright said controversial things, then he wasn't ever planning to do it anyway.  The reason Obama is saying these things now is that he is in a political bind.

I don't mind people acting like politicians, but I don't like hypocrisy.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

I suggest that you listen to Wright's sermon "The Audacity to Hope" It is brilliant, inspiring and  not racial in the least.

30+ years of a career cannot be reduced to soundbites. Please stop trying.

In fact, most of the youtube clips are taken out of context.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

You're not listening to ME.  I said the problem is that this is a way to lose the GE.  Sound bites are ALL the Rethugs will need or will use in their ads.

I'm not screaming about Wright at all.  He's entitled to his opinions and he's entitled to express them. I can agree with some of what he says.  He is entitled to some anger - gawd knows I'm angry about discrimination against myself. Obama is entitled to attend that church.  But if Obama wants to become president, then he's made some stupid choices relating to this pastor.  Like having a relationship with him in any way, shape or form.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

I know it is a widely held fear especially amongst Hillary supporters that this issue will kill Obama in the election. I think that's jumping to conclusions. It remains to be seen whether or not that people who think this way are falling into a trap of fearing the Republican attack or wishful thinking/schadenfreude or correctly perceiving a genuine election killer.

One thing I have noticed in listening to Hillary supporters is a rush to dismiss Obama's speech or any poll numbers that support its efficacy. I don't think everyone has done that, and I wouldn't advocate concluding that he is out of the woods either. That said, it's just too early to really say.

I think early returns are positive, and we should have open minds but not so open that our brains fall out.


by tessellated on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I couldn't care less if racist ignorant (none / 0)

Americans hold this against Obama. If they do then they get what they deserve. If Democrats do then they get what they deserve as well and African-Americans should probably start a third party with actual liberals.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

"Do you really think "church" refers to just the building?"

Of course not, I consider the church the entire spiritual community connected with it. And the criticisms are of the behavior of Jeremiah Wright, which is bigoted and hateful and may violate federal law. And by extension, the criticisms are of a presidential candidate who participated in and donated to this pastor's ministry for 17 years. Not the church. Why don't you understand the difference? It is legitimate criticism and investigation, and should be pursued.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you really think (none / 0)

"God Damn America!" is a 'violation of the law' or 'bigoted hate speech'?

Are you really that delusional about the role the US has been playing in the last 60 years? About the extra-ordinary grief US government policies have caused at home and around the world? About the millions of people who have every right to be angry at the US government?

The idea of America, equality, liberty, and justice for all, is beloved around the world.

Nuking mid-sized cities to keep the Soviets off of Japan, napalm-bombing Vietnamese children, lynching black Americans about to vote, ....destroying Iraq, neglecting New Orleans: Not so.

America is a free country because it is NOT ILLEGAL to criticize its history or present.


"The way to win a Presidential race against the Republicans is to develop the class warfare issue..." Lee Atwater, Bush `88 campaign manager.
by aufklaerer on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

Of course its not illegal.  And most Clinton supporters probably agree.

But instead of being logical, they decide to march lock stock along with little green footballs, Rush, Hugh, PJ media, Fox news and the rest of the right wing noise machine.

Why?
Because for them, its now about their bruised egos and not about supporting the progressive movement.


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

"Of course its not illegal."

It is illegal for a tax exempt religious institution to endorse a political candidate. Reverend Wright viciously vilified Barack Obama's competitor, Hillary Clinton and her husband, and praised Barack Obama to his congregation, after Barack Obama donated $22,000.00 to this church last year. I heard the church will be investigated for this violation of federal law, and their tax exempt status may be threatened.

I question whether there was a quid pro quo involved in this transaction between Obama and the Reverend Wright.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

It's not illegal, nor should it be.

The point we are trying to make is that it is a surefire way to LOSE the presidency in 2008.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

I have yet to see the Clinton supporters explain how she overcomes her HUGE negatives to win the GE.
For crying out load she can't even win the popular vote of her own party.
Can't you see the legions of right wingers going on and on about her lie/misremembering/misspeak of Bosnia, or whitewater, or treatment of st. troopers in Arkansas, or her Irish peace process exaggeration, or lawsuits from donors, or pardons or health care failures and on and on and on and on and on.
Uhg.  
It would be DISASTER all of the progress we have made as party would be halted as we revert to the past.

Double blech


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

A huge amount of the popular vote for Obama is NOT of our party, so right there you've lost me.

As for the other things you mention, they are either incorrect and/or pale compared to what will happen to Obama from the wingnuts.

Whitewater?  OMG so last decade.  Been there, done that, no one cares anymore, move on.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)


You seem to have one meme, Wright which is fair (if you stick to facts and not just right wing talking points) but I think the Big O has answered those questions quite well and from recent polling seems to have bounced back quite well.  
While you still haven't even begun to answer how she overcomes her HUGE negatives.  I don't think the electorate will dismiss them as easily as you do.  Especially after it all comes out again and again.  
Do you honestly believe that people just need to learn more about her?

What a mess.


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG (none / 0)

There is so much wrong with your analysis; where to start?

Obama's negatives, now that he is much better known than before, are as high as Hillary's.  This is what happens when one enters a national contest.

Wright is all?  Oh no, not at all.  Much will be made of the fact that the Big O kept admitting that Rezko fundraised 22K, no 50K, no 125K, no....  

Big O has answered questions well?  Oh yeah?  Now he's getting backed into one corner after another and is prevaricating.

Recent polling?  Bounced back?  Sure - among Democrats.  The Rethugs aren't going to be as kind as the Democrats.

RW talking points?  See above.

Facts?  What election is about facts?  Voters in the aggregate don't have a chance to know the facts, if they even care.  Which is sad, of course, because if all the facts were known and people voted on them, Hillary would win in a landslide.

Hillary's negatives?  Democrats love her and a lot of indies do, too.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG (none / 0)

Montague, as of today's Gallop poll, Democrats appear to love Obama about 8% more than they love Sen. Clinton, and I can assure you that Republicans hate Sen. Clinton a heck of a lot more and with significantly more bile, than Obama.

I can't understand all the rest of your post through all the spittle and bile.


by zadura on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

It  IS  my  "fucking"  business,  bawbie,  if  his  association   with   Obama   means  the  Democratic  Party  loses   Independents  and  Reagan  Democrats   in  the  fall.    

Damn  right  it  is.  

And  nobody  gives    a  rat's  patootie  whether  you  agree  or  not.  

Deal  with  that,  bawbie.  

Try  and   accept  that  your   use  of profanity  does  not  make  you  appear  very rational.  In  fact,  it makes you look WORRIED.  

I  DO hope  that in the new  rules  this  blog is   creating,   that posters like  you  splashing  obscenities  all over  the  place  will  be  deleted  or  banned.  

Jerome,   are you  listening?  


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

If there are rules on this blog against using profanity, please point me to them.

Anyway, I don't think you are being very civil or mature, throwing around stuff like this:

And  nobody  gives    a  rat's  patootie  whether  you  agree  or  not.  

Deal  with  that,  bawbie.  

And, please, this is the Democratic party.  If our principles and values mean anything there will be no religious test for office in our party.

What Obama thinks and feels about this, as eloquently laid out in his Philly speech, you can judge all you want.  But you CAN NOT disqualify him for office based on his church.

Not in the Democratic party I believe in.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like (none / 0)

the his use of space.

I think its the best way to prove ones point factually ;)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

Geez

I hope comments like yours are snark.  

Yikes


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can not (none / 0)

defend yourself I see.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

I must concur with your point that it is indeed our business if it impacts whether we get a Democratic president or not.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

To characterize Rev Wright's statements as "hate speech" is simply ignorant. Rev. Wright is not a hateful man, and what he said can be so decribed only taken out of context and taken from the point of view of privileged white pundits. I find it hard to imagine that, after what's happened to the US in the past seven years, that Democratics can buy into the "conservative" meme that the United States has never done anything in her history deserving of condemnation.


by ER Doc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

How  about   Wright's   theology  that  the  white  church  is  the  Antichrist?

How you think  that's  gonna  go over  with  Independents  and  Reagan Democrats?    

And  frankly,   58%  of  AFrican  American voters  found  Rev.  Wright  to be  racially  divisive  and  deeply  offensive.  

Are  THEY  racists  too?    


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how about (none / 0)

you go listen to the entire sermon, before you start making up stuff.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how about (none / 0)

"you go listen to the entire sermon, before you start making up stuff."

Anyone who doesn't think this is hate speech, please go read Jim Cone's work and get to understand more of what Wright bases his theology on.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it wasn't hate speech (none / 0)

or "hate preach," the new term I've heard thrown around, then what was it?

How about the latest statements:


"The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

...

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

"He refused to be defined by others and Dr. Asa Hilliard also refused to be defined by others. The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp? Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL2008032 6a.html

And this isn't from years ago, it's from a few months ago in printed sources.

What else has this guy said and written?  Who else has he denigrated and insulted?

The double standards being applied in this Wright situation are astounding, and really offensive, IMHO.


by joanneleon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it wasn't hate speech (none / 0)

Finally, a link to the actual statements!  Thanks, joanneleon.  This is getting out of hand.


by writtenwithoutwax on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

Please blockquote some of this "hate speech" to which you refer. Do your best to provide some context, if that's possible.


by bookish on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

Well Trinity is obviously a bigoted church whose preacher demeans white people and tells dispicable lies to his congregation about the 'USKKKofA'.

What do you see as the problem with being Jewish or Catholic, in your opinion?

Perhaps you can explain cause I don't see any.


by Caliman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

The Catholic church is awash is anti-gay and anti-women bigotry.

And that's not to mention the covering up of pedophiles.  

I know all Catholic churches are that way because I saw a thirty second internet clip of a it.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

Maybe (and I say that as a practicing Catholic).

But Clinton has the majority of Catholic support.


by cmugirl90 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

That's true, but that was not the point of the poster. The poster pointed out that you can't hold a candidate responsible for the sins of her or his church.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

"The poster pointed out that you can't hold a candidate responsible for the sins of her or his church.'

Um, you do not care that Obama donated over $22,000.00 to this church last year, and then received a public endorsement during a sermon from the pastor, who also viciously demonized Hillary Clinton and her husband, his competition?

Talk to me, I was to understand you dismissal of this quid pro quo?


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:28:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

That should be "want to understand", not "was".

Sorry about typos, I'm very tired.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 2)

Let's say a candidate gives money to a church where there were religious leaders who were pedophiles and these activities were covered up.  Also the church is anti-gay and anti-choice and discriminates against women.  And church leaders want candidates from their religion to change their public policy positions.  How would you see that candidate?

You know, someone like John Kerry?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anti Gay ???? (none / 0)

Where do you get this crap?


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti Gay ???? (none / 0)

You're trying to honestly claim the Catholic Church isn't anti-gay?  


by PantsB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti Gay ???? (none / 0)

I meant the stuff about Wright's church, which has been very gay friendly.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

" How would you see that candidate?"

What in the world does that have to do with the issue of a quid pro quo of a candidate donating $22,000.00 last year to a church and then receiving a public endorsement from the pastor in a Sunday sermon, and having the pastor viciously trash his only competitor, Hillary Clinton, in front of an audience of voters they are clearly both courting? And then having the pastor sell this endorsement tape on the church website?

No one is able to answer my question rationally?


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

It's reasonable to hold a candidate responsible for the sins of the church, to the extent that it reflects poor judgement on the candidate's part.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First it is not so obvious (2.00 / 0)

that Trinity is a bigoted church. As for God damn America, have you considered what the prophets used to say about Israel for failure to live up to the word of God. How is that different from condemning America for failure to live up to its ideals.

I you seem to be referring to the to the HIV created by the government statements.

Are you aware of The "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male."?
Because if you were, this article from the WaPo citing a  Rand Corp. and Oregon State University study   wouldn't surprise you at all.

Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
More than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

A slight majority said they believe that a cure for AIDS is being withheld from the poor. Forty-four percent said people who take the new medicines for HIV are government guinea pigs, and 15 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against black people.

Two more quotes of interest by  Na'im Akbar, a professor of psychology at Florida State University who specializes in African American behavior

"This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

Today, he said, African Americans are more likely to live in communities near pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. "There are a lot of indicators that our lives are not valued," Akbar said.

This NY Times article from 1990, might also be of interest to you.

"Because of who's being devastated the most, and growing up in the U.S. and knowing the history of slavery and racism in this country," Mr. Brown said, "you can't be black and not feel that AIDS is some kind of experiment, some kind of plot to hit undesirable minority populations." Mr. Brown, 30 years old, virtually apologized for his belief, saying, "I hope I don't sound too radical, because I'm not."

"I don't want to believe that AIDS is some kind of Government plot," he said. Then, pausing, he added: "But I guess I do. I do believe it."

Not every AA feels this way, but significant numbers do.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First it is not so obvious (2.00 / 1)

Selective  posting, molly.  

58%  of  African Americans  in  the  Rasmussen poll    found  Rev  Wright  to  be  RACIALLY DIVISIVE   and  deeply  offensive.    

I'd  say  58%   speaks  VOLUMES  about  Rev. Wright   being  the  outlier  in  the  Black  church  community.  

Nice  try,  though.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not selectively positing anything (none / 0)

I am pointing out why some AA (including Wright) just might believe that conspiracy theory. The fact that 58% think Wright is divisive doesn't change the fact that significant numbers believe the conspiracy. Try to view this from a POV other than your own for a minute. It will give you a different perspective.

(for the record, because too many will jump to the wrong conclusion, I am not endorsing the government created aids theory).


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First it is not so obvious (2.00 / 1)

"Not every AA feels this way, but significant numbers do"

I work in health care, and am very familiar with Tuskeegee, where the natural course of syphilis was allowed to run it's course  for study instead of intervening with appropriate treatment after diagnosis. It was an ethical horror story, and is taught in medical schools as a prime example of extreme violation of medical ethics.

The reason so many people believe that AIDS is a man made tool of genocide is that these myths are being promulgated by demagogues like Reverend Wright, who are then responsible for so many AAs avoiding diagnosis and treatment.

There is also a high degree of homophobia in the AA community such that many people would prefer to blame the US government for infecting them rather than admit to same sex activities. Men who have sex with men (MSM) in the AA community have the highest rates of HIV infection of any group by far. The mixture of fear, homophobia, shame and the terror of being infected with an often deadly virus is a toxic mix that invites any means of distributing the responsibility.

It is a tremendous tragedy that is snowballing out of control in NYC and elsewhere, and irrational attributions of blame onto the US government and medical establishment interfere with taking effective action to stop this epidemic of HIV infections among black MSM. Safe sex, early diagnosis, protection of one's partners, and early institution of treatment  to delay onset of AIDS is the only hope, and raising suspicions of government and of health care providers as vectors of infection only impedes lifesaving prevention and care.

Reverend Wright is harming his community, not helping it, by increasing the hostility and distrust surrounding the medical communities' standing with the AA community.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reason people believe it, is not (none / 0)

because someone tells them it is true, its because its seems superficially plausible WHEN someone suggests that it is true. You insult large numbers when you infer that they are too weak minded to think for themselves. I don't know if any one has published a study of it, but I suspect AA are no more homophobic than white Americans. You paint with a large brush.

Why do people think these types of conspiracies are true? It may be self denial or it may be that their experience is our elected leaders lie. About Vietnam, about Watergate, about Iran-contra, about Iraq. The Tuskeegee story is true. Its also true that the our elected leaders sponsored experiments with LSD on unsuspecting participants, and its true they sponsored experiments to wipe out memory with shock techniques. Its also true that we participated in cockamamie plots to kill Castro. Our eleced leaders have little regard for life, their hubris is breathtaking. Mans inhumanity to man is well documented. All of this background gives the Aids conspiracy theory has a thin veneer of plausibility.

I don't believe the Aids conspiracy theory, but I understand why some people might.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 5)

As a jew, and coming from an Orthodox (now 'Conservadox') family, I could point out how women are kept in special clothes designed to force modesty (to the point of wearing wigs), how they can't even shake men's hands and are offered limited educational opportunities.

Joe Lieberman had to defend some of this, and even offered that he stopped saying the prayer that, losely translated, thanks God for making me (or whomever else says the prayer) Jewish over any non-chosen creed.

Oh, and there's that whole genital mutilation thing.

See! You can distill any faith into pure stupid if you pick and choose!

Jerome, you are better than this last couple months of posts. You're pushing a story of decreasing relevance, ignoring stories of importance all for... what exactly?

Both Obama and Clinton offered fascinating economic proposals this week. McCain offered a pathetic one. You could go there and edjumacate us with all manner of your strong political knowledge.

Wright is one pastor at a church with hundreds of members. Thousands of sermens by several pastors have gone by since Obama joined, likely hundreds of newsletters. You can pick and choose to feign outrage...

...after all it is your blog...

...but that's not why we come here. Or stay here.

We being not "the choir" to whom you preach. Luckily, like Trinity, you may be the main voice here, but you're not the only voice. This place is richer than a couple posts, just like I'd assume Trinity is richer than a couple YouTube clips.


Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

Thank you for that very eloquent post.  As a member of another United Methodist Church in San Francisco with another very politically active pastor, Cecil Williams, I can tell you that there are often very fiery sermons.  

We also provide 750,000 meals to homeless Americans, provide health services, housing and shelter to battered women , provide job training and education to the needy, and a ton of other services.

You could easily find 30 seconds of Youtube clips of Rev. Williams or someone else making inflammatory comments.  You might also find 30 years of sermons of love, compassion, personal involvement and humility.

We are devaluing our identity as the reality based community and demeaning our heritage as the compassionate party when we choose to ascribe a few comments from a candidate's pastor to one of our candidates.  Hopefully, this is but a small stain on our otherwise noble Party.


by zadura on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

And thank you -- it's an important point I wish I heard more often. All this talk about "toughening Obama up" or "this is just what the GOP would do..." ... well, we aren't the GOP. We're the reality party, the party that looks beyond bromides or wedge issues, and is willing to see and say hard things and make hard decisions because that's what the country needs and deserves.

Good politics or bad politics, the Wright thing thrives where compassion and maturity end. We should know better than to join it there.


Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

As to Jews and Catholics it should go without saying that there are plenty of people who won't vote for either for all the wrong reasons. It is a defacto religious test. Should it be legitimized?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The slippage in the polls (2.00 / 2)

probably has a lot to do with the simple fact that the primary is still ongoing on our side, because it's affected Hillary as well. McCain's been allowed to remain essentially unchallenged and to solidify his party support, while our two are thrashing one another.

Once the Democratic primary is resolved, our nominee will be able to do the reaching out necessary to bridge the divides and turn their attention to the broader electorate. The playing field for us is still uniquely favorable, the issues matrix favors us, and all that jazz.

Long story short, we'll be fine.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:01 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Casey sounds like someone with a chip on his shoulder. Holding onto such grievences is typical of people stuck in the old politics of old Washington.

Clinton moved beyond that long ago.

Too bad the shiny new shiny shiny new Obama hasn't.


by Caliman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Is this a joke?

Criticize Obama for his policies, but don't pretend that he somehow represents Old politics.  


by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 0)

This sounds like a guy with a chip on his shoulder:

The source, reached by The Inquirer yesterday, said that Casey was also impressed with how Obama had stood up to the pressures of the campaign, including recent attacks over the racially incendiary remarks of his former pastor.

Casey's decision was also personal, motivated in part by the enthusiasm his four daughters - Elyse, Caroline, Julia and Marena - have expressed for Obama, the source said. "He thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah (none / 0)

It doesn't matter.

They don't care.  Casey's endorsement now doesn't matter "because he has a chip on his shoulder"


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sweet (none / 0)

we can add this to the list, right after Judas accusation.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Just as a matter of interest, is there anyone that has endorsed Obama who you respect and wish had endorsed Clinton instead?  


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Rev. Jeremiah Wright (none / 0)

THIS is a worth a read for context!


by Freedom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:56:19 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

I find that Pastor Wright is still very much the talk of the town on right wing blogs and Jerome's posts.


by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:23 AM EST

My wife and I were discussing this last night (2.00 / 0)

It seems like between when the Wright speeches became public and Obama's big speech on race, people of all walks of life were genuinely shocked by the clips of Rev. Wright.  I think it's two fold, one because he said some silly things and, two, because most people aren't used to the style and method of black preachers.  

But after Obama's speech on race, people looked at this and realized that everyone is associated with someone who says stupid things they disagree with and moved past it.

Except for two groups:  Clinton partisans who see this as the crow bar that could knee cap Obama and rabid Republicans who lunge at any opportunity to bash Democrats.

Politics does make strange bedfellows.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My wife and I were discussing this last night (none / 0)

Wrong  again,  bawbie.  

Polls  clearly  show  Obama  has  lost  the  Independents  and  Reagan Democrats  due  to   Wright.  

And  much of  the  now-disillusioned  white  youth  vote.  

And now,   the  "garlic-nosed"  Italians  and  Catholics.    

He's  unelectable  in  November,  and  he  will take  the  Democratic  Party down  with  him.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My wife and I were discussing this last night (none / 0)

Polls clearly show that?

Really?

Which ones?

Because on the RCP national matchup, Obama has improved a couple points since the Wright thing happened.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oh I see... (none / 0)

this is you:

Wild accusation in angry tone
Conjecture about white youth vote
Conjecture about Italians
Fortelling of the future....

and most important

NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP.

show us some proof.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My wife and I were discussing this last night (none / 0)

In all seriousness, after the HRC Bosnia flap, how do you see her running against a POW Fighter Pilot, and making a claim to be a better Commander in Chief in the GE? After making up something on a subject that is bound to piss off vets?

I'm not being snarky - really, how do you see this playing out in the General election. I truly see this as her Dukakas driving the Tank moment when pitted against McCain, but I'd like to hear some other veiwpoints.


by tysonpublic on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

And while it may not affect the Democratic primary race, you can bet the house that it WILL be a factor in the fall if Obama is the nominee.


by cmugirl90 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 0)

Most of us have moved on. Bringing back Rev Wright's sermon over and over is a sign of desperation, since nothing else has worked. Or it would help paper-over gaffes made by one's own candidate. For the rest of us, Obama's speech in Philly was enough...

Notice how the other side has already stopped mentioning Hillary 'misspoken" Tuzla story. Its awful damage has been done, which cannot be undone no matter how one spins this story...


by mobiusein on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Its awful damage has been done, which cannot be undone no matter how one spins this story...

I don't quite agree with that. There IS a historical context that needs to be taken into consideration and the sooner that context is weaved into the Wright narrative, the further on the road towards Reconciliation wil this society be.


by Freedom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:50:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yea for Senator Casey! (none / 0)

Casey is serious about putting a Democrat in the White House this Fall.


"... the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election." -NYT
by Lefty Coaster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST

Pretty bad post... (2.00 / 3)

TUCC is not some fringe church - it's one of the largest congregations in Chicago.

It's part of a mainstream denomination and is a significant fixture on the south side of Chicago.  You could easily levy the same attacks against say.... St. Sabina and Father Michael Pfleger.  St. Sabina is a historic and large Roman Catholic church on the south side... Father Pfleger has likewise been known to say things a bit controversial... Louis Farrakhan has spoken at St. Sabina.

Frankly, I find it a bit distasteful to read a supposedly progressive blogger using similar lines of attack against Obama that we're seeing from Sean Hannity and company.

The dismissive nature of what you write about the church - a church that I'd venture to wager you've never visited, a congregation which I'd wager you know not a single member, an 'opinion' which I bet comes from no more than sound bites and cherry-picked 'factoids' - ought to be beneath you.


by zonk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:37 AM EST

Re: Pretty bad post... (none / 0)

I second this opinion. It is one thing for JA to be partisan and be enthusiastically supportive of his candidate. It is another to denigrate the other side in every way possible, often choosing the most trivial set of reasons to buttress his case. He does so by cherry-picking poll numbers, by circulating rumors and innuendos and by presenting misleading news stories and vicious factoids to the reader

Methinks, JA has lost all sense of perspective, wishing to cling to his increasingly ill-conceived position till the bitter end. It is a shame to see such a (once) reasonable and intelligent person go down in flames.


by mobiusein on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or you could attack the Catholic Church (2.00 / 1)

which has been known to hold some offensive positions. Or you could attack Clinton's right-wing religious ties which liken their loyalty to the Nazis and the Mafia. However, you see that the strongest attacks are against an African-American church which isn't influential in American politics at all.

I'd say that Armstrong not only hasn't visited Trinity and not only doesn't know a single member but that he wouldn't even care to.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pretty bad post... (none / 0)

On  the other hand,   condoning  and  excusing  Wright's  racist  and  hateful  comments     paints  the  Democratic  Party  as  just  as  bad  as  the  Republicans  condoning  their  own   hateful  rightwing   pastors.  

Divisive   and  racist   hate-spewing   should  be  condemned   on  BOTH  sides.  

Unless   you  are  happy in your   hypocrisy.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

erm, (none / 0)

So according to your standards ever Catholic is anti-woman right cause you know their spiritual leader the pope is anti-choice and anti-birthcontrol.

Also a lot of jews and chiristians (of every political side) are gay haters because many many rabbi and priests say beign gay is wrong.

Any more guilt by association????


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm, (none / 0