What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

Ask yourself what you would do if someone asked you to sever a relationship you valued.  Ask yourself whether you would disown a community you had come to love.  Put yourself in the position of a lifelong Catholic and think about the trauma you had to go through in recent years.

Hillary's numbers are dropping and you can bet she is losing strength amonst Catholic voters.  Her interview in Pittsburgh where she rather cavalierly spoke of just up and leaving was hurtful to the very people she is relying upon to hold PA.  I am not just throwing this out there to be controversial.  I am hearing this from those who value their faith over the actions and words of their representatives.  My good friend put it best " I would never go to a UCC Church because I am Catholic, but I would never leave the Catholic Church over words and ideas of my priest.  My faith is w/the Church and my faith has been challenged.  I don't believe she has faith if she can sound as if that decision would be easy"

I think that to question the action of loyalty to one's faith is particularly insulting to Catholics and really is driving them away from Hillary.
My friend is a fifty-four year old white woman who was all for her, and now she questions why his relationship to Rev Wright is again raised.  Not just raised , but put out there by Hillary herself as the wrong decision on the part of Obama to stay loyal to his church.  My friend has not yet said she will be voting for Obama, but instead has said she is likely to stay home.  She has said she will definitely not be voting for Hillary.

Question even ones persons individual choice to exercise their own faith and you are sure to be suspected of questioning anyones.

Tags: catholic (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Complete and utter nonsense.

I'm Catholic. You obviously know very little about how Catholic churches work.  Mass is highly structured, and the only thing that changes significantly from church to church is the homily; all of the readings are the same, and the homily is based on that Sunday's readings.  The type of preaching that Rev. Wright does - the style and content of his sermons - are not something most Catholics can relate to.   Southern Baptists can, and some Protestants, but not Catholics.

The primary purpose of mass is to listen to God's word (Liturgy of the Word) and to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion (Liturgy of the Eucharist.)  They aren't standalone churches; they're under the guidance of the diocese, the nationwide bishops and the church in Rome.  

Your Catholic friend is woefully ignorant of how her own church works, if she even exists at all.  If she left her parish, she wouldn't be leaving the Catholic religion or her faith, she'd just be going to mass at a different church.

The whole idea that "my church is my faith" is an idea I've never heard from a practicing Christian of any denomination.  Your friend is either the most confused Christian on the planet, or someone you made up to justify a convoluted, nonsensical argument that Hillary was telling people to walk out on their faith.

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

Instead of insulting and defensiveness, why not try to point out why the person's fears she spoke of are unfounded and reassure them that Clinton wasn't suggesting that, et cetera.

I am not Catholic- the most exposure I've ever had to Catholicism is the movie Dogma- but I suspect people can get different things from Catholicism than you do.

by ragekage 2008-03-28 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

I think if you're going to write a diary about how Hillary said something that offends Catholics to the core, you should have some idea what a Catholic is and what they believe.

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

I thought it was about a Catholic the diarist was describing in particular.

by ragekage 2008-03-28 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

No, the diarist said this:

"I think that to question the action of loyalty to one's faith is particularly insulting to Catholics and really is driving them away from Hillary."

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 10:12PM | 0 recs
Yeah, that is a silly generalization

Catholics are far from a monolithic group. :)

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-28 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

You're correct. I read that she was concerned it would happen to more people rather than saying it WAS happening, though.

by ragekage 2008-03-28 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

I think it's more about leaving the church community behind, friends and relatives you have had for years or a personal relationship with the pastor and a family history (weddings, baptisms, etc in the church)  In many cases the social aspects of a church run pretty deep, which is why people wouldn't just walk away without a really compelling reason.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-28 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

Precisely.

by ragekage 2008-03-28 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

The ties are usually close to the parish because of history, the associated school, etc.   Pastors, however, change.  You don't have the same pastor until he retires; they're switched around regularly.

The parallel just doesn't work.  

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

I disagree; there's a Reverend Olsen in Marshalltown, Iowa who baptized me once upon a time and only recently retired. I think it's folly for any of us to try and make generalizations about these sorts of things; people can take it so many different ways.

by ragekage 2008-03-28 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

The entire diary is a generalization based on one anecdotal conversation.    

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

No, I'd say it's an expression or real concern. Like I said, why not seek to reassure rather than chastise?

by ragekage 2008-03-28 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

Catholics would see HRC's point and most wolud agree. I wouldn't stay if the priest encourage the stalking of abortion clinic personell or the bombing of clincs. That priest would be sanctioned, silenced or even defrocked by his bishop. Catholics would raise a stink.

by workingclass artist 2008-03-29 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.

It depends how long you have known the pastor, how long he has been at the church.  Some pastors define the church entirely and there is nothing that can fill their void when they leave, some come and go and you hardly notice.  Diversity.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-28 10:12PM | 0 recs
Right

They wouldn't walk away from them but they would renounce the widely known parts of their sermons, deny reading the church bulletins, disassociate them from their political campaigns, and go on National TV to say that they would've quit the church if the pastor hadn't either quit first or apologized.

by Trickster 2008-03-29 01:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Sounds like a wise way to handle it.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-29 01:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

You mean by splitting hairs with microsurgical precision?

by Trickster 2008-03-29 02:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

By taking the middle path and neither throwing him under the bus entirely OR pretending nothing happened.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-29 02:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Right

So only throwing him 99% under the bus.  That's the right way to go.  That shows loyalty.  

I don't doubt one whit that, should the polls continue to show Wright hurting him, Obama will split that hair even a little bit finer and find some other way to denigrate Wright, all while still "standing by his side."

by Trickster 2008-03-29 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete and utter nonsense.
Well said. It's amazing to me the pervasive ignorance many protestants have about Catholicism ( Roman or the Eastern Orthodoxies ). This is the founding christian church from which the protesters derived the various denominations that have become protestant churches we know today. The UCC is a non-denominational church which means there is very little liturgical
or theological governing auhority. A priest would be sanctioned
and disciplined by his bishop, all the way to the vatican if his sermons were in direct opposition to the formal cathechism. I'm a catholic, and I can assure you that catholics don't go to mass for the sermons. Catholics go to mass for the sacraments which is the heart and soul of the faith and catholics can practice these in any catholic church throughout the world. It's all the same to us in that the role of the priest is sacramental, confession, eucharistic, baptism, etc...American catholics are most likely sympathetic to those UCC church members caught in the glare of media hype and public criticism and understand what pain they may feel ( Catholics have had it pretty rough with the priest scandals and the churchs' corporate behavior ). The difference is this, Catholics have openly challenged their church for change and continue to do so. Dioceses have sold property for legal recompense to victims. Improvements have been made with respect to secular/parish relations. Catholics have their problems and we deal with them, if very slowly ( It's a large beauracracy ). Recently the Pope made academic historical references that offended many Muslims and he spent a year clarifying and reaching out to muslim leaders to rectify it. This is very different to Obama's preachers' response and the reponse of his congregation. No ordinary catholic defended the church about it's actions regarding the priest scandals, and most bishops responded. Most catholics would agree with HRC. Through our own repeated history, we have had to confront our own errors and continue to do so both liturgically and within the structure of the RCC. Wright has no structural authority to answer to. If he had been a priest his sermons and theology would have been considered distortions that are possibly heretical. Liberation Theology, from which he takes this variant has long been controversial in the RCC, because of many reasons and the priests that preached it were sanctioned by the vatican because it is seen as in direct contradiction to the cathechism on theological grounds. There simply is no more excuse for the errors in theological teaching of Wright then there was for errors in theological anti-semetic emphasis that the RCC taught in Europe for centuries. This is why Pope John Paul II clarified and took formal responsibilty, changed these errors and began amends to the Jews. A reconciliation that continues today. Black liberation theology is racist and that is the theology that Rev. Wright has preached from the pulpit and publishes. Now is the time his church and his cogregation can take to reflect. I would not remain in a church where the priest preached a sermon on bombing abortion clinics. I would admonish the priest. I would go to the Bishop.I would not take my children to hear mass. I would raise a stink. I would go to another church. Even nuns in america have picketed the pope over the RCC refusing to ordain women. Catholics have been there, but by doing so good can come from it. Since Obama had no church authority to appeal to about the pastors sermons (as Rev.Wright  basically was the top) his option would have been to seek another church. What concerns me as an american christian and a catholic would be that by Obama's own admission, this has been the only exposure to christanity and theology he has had. I've been thinking about this issue too. It concerns me that he continues to defend his pastor, kinda like that awful Bishop in Boston, when catholics around the country were screaming for him to step down during the 90's. I think it's kinda funny how Obama has lined up the catholic endorsements to try and split the catholic base of support Hillary has. We see right throught it. I've been encouraged by my church to study theologies of many religions as a means of understanding and strengthening my faith. I took comparative theology taught by a jesuit in college, and developed a life long passion for theology and it's history. The RCC teaches that it is the duty of all catholics to do this as a means of seeking common ground and reconcilation. It is only in the sacraments that as a catholic I must only do at mass, otherwise I'm free to explore and learn in synagogues, revivals, mosques etc... and I'm encouraged to do so, discuss what I learn, as long as I do this with respect toward those congregations I visit. Perhaps Obama and his congregation could consider the same option.
by workingclass artist 2008-03-29 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

I think you make an excellent point. I don't think that many Clinton supporters understand what they sometimes come off looking as when they make these statements.

I understand people being upset at hearing what Reverend Wright said; or, at least, what the media has represented. There are certainly valid arguments to be made on this subject. But demanding he unconditionally leave his church, denounce his pastor, and judging the entire situation based off what the media has presented, truly, is not appropriate and runs the risk of things such as you describe.

by ragekage 2008-03-28 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

Amazing, given that Obama himself said on The View today that he would've left his church had Wright not retired and/or denounced his own remarks.  I guess he doesn't realize the risk he'd be running and how inappropriate that action would be.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-2 8-voa53.cfm

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

No surprise. They have lifted a small collection of incendiary statements from 30 years of sermons. If the normal Sunday sermon sounded like those 30 seconds I'm sure he would have left. Has anyone bothered to read the sermon Wright gave that inspired the title of Obama's book. Obama's congregation by all accounts of those black and white who actually attended the church and where invovled in it's good works was a loving and positive community.

Prominent white Evangelical preachers regularly damn America both in sermons and in writing, comparing abortion to the holocaust and America's behavior to Nazi Germany's and they get invited to the White House and are sought out by Republican presidents for advice. Are Catholics accused of being secret pedophiles because they remain Catholics after the scandal of a Church leadership that enabled the rape of thousands of children?

I am not surprised by the double standard and hypocrisy. The distortion of Obama's congregation by Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Scarborough and O'Reilly is to be expected but judging from recent polls American's know better and are not buying the smears.

by hankg 2008-03-29 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

"White Man's Greed"Obama's very first service at Wright's church was ... controversial.

The rest is at..

http://www.slate.com/id/2187358/

by SevenStrings 2008-03-29 04:26AM | 0 recs
Any evidence?

Any evidence for 20 years of hate?   Shouldn't a reasonable person assume that 30 second clips are the exception, not the rule?

And I don't see the difference between the Church and the local pastor as far as Catholics are concerned.  Priests do what the Vatican says, there isn't much room for individuality.  Most Catholics choose to ignore the bad stuff because they have decades of commitment to the Church that is deeper than a few individual offensive actions or policies.

Religion isn't politics.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-28 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Any evidence?
Plenty of evidence that Wright was a hater and a terrorist supporter for years  here is a start for you: From the NY Times March 6 2007 quotes Wright as follows:
"When his (Obama's) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

So at least 24 years of being closely associated  with terrorists and Black separatists.
by coolofthenight 2008-03-29 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

Given that this same person wrote a diary about how Travelgate will be Hillary's downfall if she's the nominee, I don't think the thinking cap's been switched on.  

by KevinCinNYC 2008-03-28 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

Catholics who love and believe in their faith can more easily change parishes, especially in a more urban area, if they disapprove of the priest's actions or statements, for there are usually other Catholic Churches and other priests with other opinions.  Priests are usually assigned to a given parish/church,  so the parishioners usually "take what they get", though, in recent years, parishioners and the incoming priests have more say in the decision than in the past.  Expectations for the priest to be an outstanding  preacher are not so high; the consecration and reception of the Eucharist are the heart of the service.
I have to wonder, if your friend had heard disagreeable diatribes from her church's pulpit repeatedly, would she not attend another Catholic parish, rather than be distracted week after week?  

It's my understanding that most Protestant denominations choose their own ministers, and that preaching ability and philosophy are high priorities, among others.

That said, I can understand that more goes into a decision to leave a church when one disagrees with the pastor.  Spousal wishes, family continuity in a given church, location convenient enough to encourage regular attendance are just a few of possible reasons. There would come a point when a church member, disgusted with the words or actions of a given pastor would say "Enough" and move on to a congregation more in tune with one's personal beliefs.

I believe that Sen. Clinton's remarks were made in this context.

by susie 2008-03-28 10:29PM | 0 recs
Chances are

Chances are that if you are annoyed with something in a Catholic church you will find that same thing at another parish.  It's a top down organization.  

Sure there are some asshole priests who you don't want to listen to and focus on the wrong stuff, but at least here in the states most parishes are big enough that it won't be the same priest at every mass, so you can just go at a different time on Sunday or a Saturday evening.

There would come a point when a church member, disgusted with the words or actions of a given pastor would say "Enough" and move on to a congregation more in tune with one's personal beliefs.

I believe that Sen. Clinton's remarks were made in this context.

I think it all depends on how you read the situation, and political bias clouds how each of us sees it.

If someone is biased against Obama, they might have a tendency to see the worst and feel that the clips represent the man and that Wright is nothing but a hatemonger.  The argument of the 20 year relationship is a damning one, because that means Obama agreed with the hate he was spewing for those 20 years.

In that context, the 20 year relationship has no value, so when Hillary says if she heard that she would not come back it makes perfect sense.

Let's look at the other side.  

An Obama supporter will assume the best, assume that the clips are taken out of context and 99% of the time Wright never said anything that bad.

Obama had a 20 year relationship because Wright is an excellent man that defines everything a Christian should be.

In that context, the relationships Obama developed over that time period have real meaning and are a quite natural anchor for him with the church.

So when Clinton says he should just up and leave the minute Wright says one horrible, inexcusable thing...it looks like a terrible thing to say.

Where is the truth?  Probably somewhere in between as Obama has explained.  Wright said lots of controversial things over those twenty years, probably a lot of offensive things we haven't heard about yet and Obama was probably there to hear them, but the good outweighed the bad and he developed all kinds of memories and connections with the Church.  When he heard what Wright said he knew it was wrong, but he is conflicted by his long relationship with a good but far from perfect man.

Clinton, to be most fair, should have qualified her statement to make it clear she was only evaluating the statements alone, and not considering the twenty year history.  If she honestly would leave at the drop of a hat when she heard what Wright said after a twenty year relationship, I could see how some people might not agree with that point of view.  It is, at the least, not something someone does without a good amount of soul searching.  Logical people need to take time to make up their mind on something like that.

by furiousxgeorge 2008-03-28 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

No, I don't read it that way at all.  I was raised very Catholic.  It's hierarchical, I can't imagine a priest would go so far as to make pronouncements like Wright did, and the issues where I profoundly disagree are coming from the Vatican, not my local pastor.

But maybe my background is part of what made me feel so adamantly.. the same as Hillary did - you have to do something, if you disapprove and disagree.  You have to take a stand.  I actually have a real moral problem with Wright up there saying what he does.  Maybe the line about "garlic nosed Italians" really threw it into focus for me - what kind of person just casually throws in little ethnic insults for no reason other than to be insulting?  Not someone I would look to as a religious and moral leader.

by daria g 2008-03-28 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

I am sorry I abandoned my diary, but I guess I have a lot to explain.  First of all I do know a lot about the Catholic  Church first hand and yes while it is a very structured Mass the comparative is in the actions of the Priests and not their words.
Secondly I did mention Travelgate in another diary and do feel it would be very relevant if Hillary ran against the Republicans.  It is  a question of credibility and it is the main reason I can not support her.  I have said before and still believe her actions in the Whitehouse are largely responsible for brining in Newt and his boys.  This to me is a matter of history.

All of my blood relatives are Catholic, or have been Baptised Caholic.  I do feel I know a lot about their sensibilities.  I am not surprised that many of them do not feel a comfort level w/Obama, he is a real unknown.  

I was raised in an era when the Catholic church was largelty rerspected as ito believe that  and being a member oif the as he is seeking what some might feel are significant changes.  This is not to say I feel

The comment that you have never heard my Church is my Faith is hard to beleive if you are a practicing Catholic.  Maybe Catholics in New England think differently, but my faith in Catholicism is the same as my faith in the One Holy Apostolic Church.  It defines you. Attending a Catholic Church is exercising your Faith. It is a commitment to the Parish and the community within that Parish.

It may sound strange to a non-Catholic, but as a Catholic you should realize that the Vatican recognizes only one Church as the true Church.
Maybe your Parish is ultra-modern, but where I grew up when you said Church that meant Catholic and that was your Faith.  Faith was synonymous w/the Catholic Church/Catholicism.

I will research this further to verify any loss of support among Catholics, but she is definitely sliding down in the National Polls Obama vs Clinton.

by daninpa 2008-03-29 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?
By your reasoning, it would be permissable to remain in a catholic church if the priest encouraged the bombing of abortion clinics from the pulpit ? Catholics would act to protest he actions of the priest. The vatican is under pressure by american bishops
over lots of issues having to do with the RCC. The bishops act in response to the cocerns of their parishes. Dallas being a reent example, with regards to the priest scandals, whose model was then adopted by other bishop. What Wright preaches is simply Black Liberation Theology by his own admission. His theological hero is Cone. As a catholic, anyone would understand how seductive the message seems, but the RCC has recognized grave errors and finds the mixing of marxism with theology to be dangerous. Wright teaches his own variation of it. HRC is an intelligent woman and is probaly well aware of the theology. Why is Wright at UCC ? Because even the baptists wouldn't take him. He is unable to submit to denominational authority, which is designed to protect the flock with a unity of teaching based on theological principals of the denomination. Read up on it. It is a radical theology that is racist, pure and simple. Most catholics agree with her and if uncertain would consult a priest and their conscience.
by workingclass artist 2008-03-29 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

Actually, the vatican identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the Mother Church, hence Pope John Paul II's umbrage at Cantabury calling the RCC a sister church. In the historical sense it was factually correct. In the liturgical and theological sense it was correct. JP II sought reconciliation with those denominations that the church has seen as in open rebellion to the mother. Protestant means protest. The RCC defines itself as the foundation of christianity, and starting with JP II, has sought to heal the devide through respectful ecuminical dialogue and theological discourse. He began with the radical shift in the recognition of Judaism as the original faith from which we came and the reconcliation of the RCC from it's own mother. This is why the instructional emphasis has become the fact that all of us, unless pagans began as Jews.

by workingclass artist 2008-03-29 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?

Sorry for all the typos.  It is late and I am tired.
I think it is difficult to suppose the actions of a candidate we support would be interpreted negatively when the response seems reasonable.
At least logical.

I too find much of what Rev Wright says offensive when presented in these sound bites, and don't know that i would not find them offensive in any case.
I do not define Obama by what Rev wright says and unless the media is proposing some action against Rev wright.  Enough is truly enough.

Should Fox News play the video of Hillary in Bosnia for a full week, almost non-stop.  It's his bad judgement vs her credibility.  I am not sure who wins this one.  Pprobably Mc Cain

by daninpa 2008-03-29 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?
I will respond from only my own perspective. I grew up in the Boston area and have lived for quite some time in rural NW PA. Catholic through and through.
I lived through Cardinal Law. The good Catholics in Boston voted with our money and our feet to force the Vatican to recall him. Painful to see a man who was once respected exposed for a pedophile protector?? Absolutely. Painful to endure the media scrutiny of our beloved faith?? You bet. Did we do the right thing in getting rid of him? No question- most Catholics I know would rather see him in jail. I, as stated in another reply, personally do not give to the annual Peter's Pence collection as some of that might be used to support Law.
Here in NW PA I am in the restaurant industry. I overhear alot. I go to church every Sunday and of course discuss the current political mess with friends.
From where I stand the reaction to Hillary saying she would have left can be described as a collective "Well of course. Any rational person claiming to be a Christian would have to do the same thing." IMHO, it was a relief for them to hear her say that she could and would make the decision to sever ties with somebody who spews such hate.
Every one of my Catholic friends is aghast at the fact that Obama claims he did not know about Wright's more radical comments. They just do not believe him. PERIOD.
by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-03-29 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: What about Catholic loyalty? Wright or wrong?
Bravo. Truth is if Obama doesn't get it then what can be said ?
If he sees the condition of america and his place in it primarily through the lens of Black Liberation Theology then his commentary of understanding race through the eyes of anyone who isn't African American ( the famous race speech and poor ol' granny ) reeks of hypocrisy and arrogant obsfucation ( a learned legal tactic ). Its interesting, Romne had to proclaim loudly that he was a proper christian. Why then were evangelicals unimpressed ? Perhaps because in the theology of the Mormon church there is no recognition of a theological fundamental principal of the relationship of the trinity. These obsfucations matter to many republican christians. Fair? I don't think so myself as his faith didn't necessarily effect most of his actions and politically he was just very conservative. Then again I'm not republican or evangelical. Obama's case is different as his political ideology is inseperable from his church. He came to both at the same time with his wife and every now and then they both slip up and reveal how indoctrinated they may be. She with her comments on finally being proud of her country and he with descrbing granny as just a typical white person. His church sees the christian mission as much as a call to activist action and emphasises Jesus as a radical militant. It is a racist theology, and uses many marxist tenents to redefine the distribution of power.
Anyone can read about it. Even Kerry as a catolic had to publically declare that although catholic, he was still pro-choice and suffered his bishop's remonstration. There was a clearly drawn line between the separation of his politics and his church.
Obama's church draws no distinction both culturally and ideologically. You generally won't hear a priest stumping for the candidate on a regular basis in an american catholic church. When it happens they are reprimanded by the bishop. As a lawyer he knew the dfference, IRS for one. As a constitutional law lecturer he should have walked out on that issue alone. But as a bi-racial candidate trying to seek a common identity and street cred with one of the most politically powerful organizations in Chicago, perhaps it was politically expedient. It is these things amongst others that make voters pause. Exxagerations of "sniper fire" by HRC ( the plane did make evasive manuevers ) is a whole lot different then allowing yourself and your children to be exposed to the steady indoctrination of hate. Either he secretly believes this stuff, pretends to for approval and then claims ignorance when caught by the big bad white people,or he cynically used these people to advance hiswn ambition. He liked the support of the Black Panthers until the big bad white media found out and then he removed that endorsement, although the black panthers still have it on their page. This is about radicalism that also espouses racial activism. Black Panthers and his church have every right in these united states to be politically active. But, for Obama to pretend to be a uniter is just what it is a pretense. Thee were the people who got him where he is, alot of us want to know what he might owe the radical left in return. Seperation of church and state is fundemental in this country and Obama has not made clear how seperate he is.
by workingclass artist 2008-03-29 06:43AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads