Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Disappointed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 12:22 PM
Original message
Disappointed
Edited on Wed Apr-30-08 12:52 PM by Vyan

So now we've reached the final chapter in the Rev. Wright novella and my overall feeling after the entire sad soap opera is disappointment.

Maybe I expected far too much.

I had hoped that some of the truth behind many of Wright's comments would eventually be examined. I wasn't so naive as to think the media would admit that they got it wrong, but that Barack would find some way to improve the quality of our discourse.

Unfortunately, Rev Wright turned out to be his own worst advocate - and Barack was left with no choice but to toss him under the bus, backup and start doing donuts.

It's really Wright's own fault, the blame has to start with him and his Grandstanding. He got start-struck. He went Hollywood. He was drunk with the power of being in the spotlight and drove his own car into the ditch, with Barack's Presidency strapped into the passenger seat.

I clearly understand that Barack had to cut him loose.

I just wish he didn't have to. I wish he didn't have to confirm all those smug media pundicators who've spent the last month mostly debating just how high the railway bridge needed to be when Barack finally kicked Rev. Wright from the train.

Those lazy ass-clown hacks don't deserve to be vindicated, and I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. But, I admit I was surprised when Obama himself bought into the spin.

Obama feels that Rev. Wright dissed him when he said that he was a pastor and Obama was politician. Somehow Wright's rather lengthy discussion before the NAACP on how some things can be different but not deficient, was completely missed.

He wasn't insulting Barack by saying he was a "politician" - he is a politician. That's not a dirty word, it's just descriptive.

The problem wasn't that Wright wouldn't repent and renounce his previous statements, it's that in some cases he simply refused to show any sensitivity to those who may disagree or misunderstand him. When he was asked whether Barack was in the pews when he was smack talking he said...

MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?

WRIGHT: I just wanted to see — that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? OK.

Oh, OUCH! That wasn't pretty.

He also didn't really take anywhere near the proper care he should have when he finally asked the AIDS question.

MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz’s book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You’ve read it?

(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)

WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?

MODERATOR: No questions -

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.

In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the — one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.

So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable

So in response to the question he refers to a book by a Harvard researcher, but doesn't really bother to explain that quite a few doctors and scientists have been looking at weather polio and other vaccines first tested in Africa may have caused the HIV virus to jump species from monkey's to humans, and whether agencies such as the CDC have stonewalled and blocked attempts to either verify or refute this hypothesis.

I first came upon this idea ten years ago in the New Yorker Magazine, and based on that and some pretty simple research on wiki - there has been a lot of pushback on this and various agencies and medical journals have refused to even entertain the suggestion.

So Wright isn't really wrong here - he's not saying that it happened, he's saying we're fully capable of it and we are - he saying most of us haven't heard the whole story, and we haven't - but telling someone to "just go read the book" isn't all that convincing. It's not going to bring people over to his side of the argument.

Here's another comment I fully agree with, but I understand can't possibly go down well.

What I said about and what I think about and what — again, until I can’t — until racism and slavery are confessed and asked for forgiveness — have we asked the Japanese to forgive us? We have never as a country, the policymakers — in fact, Clinton almost got in trouble because he almost apologized at Gorialan (ph). We have never apologized as a country.

Britain has apologized to Africans, but this country’s leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I’m not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, "Does this hurt? Do you forgive me for stepping on your foot?" if I’m still stepping on your foot.

Understand that? Capiche?

Holeey Crap!

It's almost frustrating that he's absolutely right, America has Not Apologized for Slavery. When Rep John Conyers was circulating a bill to simply study the idea of Reparations a decade ago it was shot down like Gary Powers over Russian.

    But no one who experienced or perpetrated Slavery is still alive? Isn't an apology an admission of guilt? It's not my fault, I wasn't there - I didn't do it, why should I be held accountable and who am I supposed to be accountable too?

It was just plain pathetic.

The point is simply that admitting that it was wrong is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen again. How many people even realize that the 13th Amendment doesn't completely abolish slavery or indentured servitude?

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

  1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So all you need to become a slave is for a judge and jury to sanction it. And just guess who happens to be crowded into our jails even though the Stats indicate that they don't commit most of the crimes or do most of the drugs?

Yeah.

Funny how it still works out this way, even in this day and age. Even in 2008.

The stuff that Wright was discussing is all, to one degree or another, true but you really can't treat people this way when talking about it. You can't come off like a dick!

Understand that? Capiche?

Oy vey!

My greatest regret is that Barack was forced by Wright's own arrogance and lack of caution in how he was speaking to initiate this split. Wright has discredited himself. He's undermined and undercut his own ideas. Now if you even attempt to discuss this kind of thing in the future you're likely to be branded as a "Rev. Wright Wackadoodle".

I think race relations and even the ability to seriously discuss sensitive subjects such as this may have just taken two giant steps backward.
Our great ambitious national conversation about Race in America is now over. Done. Finito. Stomped into oblivion at least for the time being. (Which is exactly how the Just Get Over it crowd would like it to be.)

Barack could have fixed this, I believe, but it might very well have cost him his Presidency. It would have taken every ounce of energy his campaign had to rehabilitate this mess. He ultimately had no choice. He had to pick the needs of the nation over the needs of Rev. Wright.

I myself have written something of at least a half dozen diaries defending Rev. Wright's right to speak his mind, and I've taken a ton of heat for some of it. This discussion is now dead.

Another sad thing is that this seems as much personal as political for Barack. Obama felt personally disrespected and hurt. This wasn't easy for him. Watching a 20-year friendship crash and burn isn't pretty.

What Church does he go to now? Can he mend fences with the TUCC Congregation and it's current pastor Rev Moss? Which direction do black people go, with Wright or with Obama? Will this hurt his Black Vote and are they likely to go for Hillary who was talking ridiculous smack about Wright weeks ago?

This is a mess.

And it's ironic that Obama, who has long argued that he had the willingness to reach out to people he disagreed with like Ahmadenejad, and Syria, now can't find himself sitting at the same table as Rev. Wright while Louis Farrakhan as at the far end and extreme AIDS theories are on the plate.

He simply can't go there.

And the truth is he's not the only one. America isn't ready to go there either. Not yet. And there's no telling when it will ever be ready to go there and get it all this racial baggage out on the table, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Oddly enough Barack is now turning his back on one of his own primary arguments, that he can work with just about anyone, may just be the final example of his showing some backbone and fight that a lot of Democrats have needed to see for quite a while. Being willing to diss a prominent Black preacher has shown that Barack isn't a slave to Black Orthodoxy, and just might bring a few reluctant White voters his way.

Make no mistake, my support for Obama for President is still strong I just wish he could get this outraged over torture, domestic spying, 4th branch, crony contracting, lead paint on our toys or mercury in our water instead of over Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

That's disappointing.

Vyan

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. me too
I watched him Sunday night and was very impressed. Clearly knowledgeable, entertaining, thought provoking. Someone I welcomed to the public stage to stimulate actual constructive dialog. Then Monday moning he stuck his foot in it.

He still has plenty of valid points, but someone else now has to champion them.

When he did his comparison of European- and African-American college marching bands, I was :rofl: and also appreciating the point he was making. I thought "this guy is going to make a fortune as an inspirational speaker." sad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. I feel much the same way about it
The awful truth is that anyone who espouses common sense on some critical issues has no chance of getting elected president.

For example, Obama dismissing Wright's contention that America is a terrorist state, as pure lunacy. I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't recognize that we are currently a terrorist state is either not paying much attention or is extremely naive. But a candidate for president absolutely cannot be associated with such remarks, or it's all over.

So sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. The thing about time is,
that every thing can not happen at once.


We have already learned a lot from Rev. Wright.

Obama and Wright have time to make amends.

Forgiving, WHAT A CONCEPT!


Agreeing to Disagree, is not a Divorce.


The fat lady is just practicing her do re mi, and the curtain is about to open... ( I hope)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. I've heard Obama speak very forcefully and clearly on all the issues in your final paragraph
I just wish you could find something to be disappointed about that was actually true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ok...
where is he on War Crimes, Impeachment, Censure and Contempt of Congress for Myers and Bolten?

That's the thing, yeah, I know he's talked about it - but will he just accomodate his way through it or take a stand and fight? That's the arguement the Clinton people have been making, and it's been working.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. if he was forceful on THOSE issues at this juncture
he would be at home watching the debates on television with Dennis Kucinich.

period...

I have the SAME doubts about him that you have... make NO mistake about that.

But understand that the internet has given us a way to make an end run around the PACs that have a lock on our electoral process.

They OWN our legislators... they OWN our executive... they even write the damn legislation while our "representatives" make grand speeches and put fat loot in the bank.

That's the deal. EVERY issue and then some that we have... that you and I share... is a DIRECT function of the symbiosis between PACs...Corporations, and our Elected officials.

Clean elections and alternative campaign financing are our only hope of restoring representativ government in this country... it is THE CORE issue of which all these other HORRORS are symptoms.

This may look like a band aid on arterial bleeding to you and any conscious progressive.... BUT... think about it.

He's free. He will restore habeus corpus. He will review ALL of Bush's Executive Orders for Constitutionality... the list goes on and on.

This is why I support him... aside from the FACT that he shares our core values... I think he'll do what he can up there, to bring change to fruition.

I don't even like the guy that much, ok? Not MY first choice. But I'm an enthusiastic supporter. Right now... aside from issues activism... he is all we have.

So... I know I sounded a bit snarky but I'm goign to tell you something. On Common Dreams AND HERE... and other progressive sites... there are trolls... divide and conquer trolls.

PROGRESSIVE PURITANISM is serving on one end what A BLACK MAN CAN'T GET ELECTED is serving on the other.

Be dissuaded from supporting the guy that didn't take pac money. He's too liberal.... he's not liberal enough....

it goes on and on. If you want to get something done in Congress... you better be ready to FIND SHARED ISSUES and form coalitions of otherwise, differently minded people.

I give you the Pro-Life people standing shoulder to shoulder with MoveOn on the issue of net neutrality. I give you Pat Buchanan stumping the country with Ralph Nader against NAFTA. I give you with Senator Obama... the opportunity to form a voting block, side by side with ANTI WAR REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS, and even Greens.

VERY well known, and even legendary progressives are endorsing Obama from outside the party. There's a reason for that.

NOW, go to democracynow.org and watch today's show. It is a debate between an Obama supporter and a Progressive that thinks NO ONE should vote for Obama.

Both scholars and poltical scientists... professors. Might shake something loose for ya.

peace out...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. He wasn't my first choice either...
but BY FAR he's the best of a bad sorry sad lot.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. oh and by the way... Clinton isn't going to do jack shit about that stuff
war crimes impeachment censure

you are listening to clinton supporters make the argument that he's not progressive enough?

you have GOT to be fucking putting me ON

ok... read what I wrote if you're sincere and if you're being disingenous... well... live with your karma when clinton is on board with the blitzkrieg bush is planning for iran...

sleep at night knowing THAT could've been prevented
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I don't say he isn't progressive enough.
I say he and Clinton have the same record. Both are politicians who are saying and voting the way they have to to get elected. The irritating point is that people keep giving Barack a pass for the same thing they condemn in Hillary. We need to be concentrating on the crap the neocons are going to do to us if we keep up this nit picking on each other. Expending hate on Hillary or derision on Barack is pointless and counterproductive.


Neither of these candidates is the far left wing saviour that many here on DU want. If we want a progressive agenda, we have to put either one (or both) of them in office and then put about 30 new members of congress. Then we need to direct all the passion we are using on each other to hold our candidate's feet to the fire on these issues. Both of them are ultra rich, out of touch, Washington connected, professional politicians. Stop hating or loving them for what they aren't. Hating and adoring are easy. Making politicians do the right thing is hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. I feel the same way
Wright is a good person that speaks truth to power. Unfortunately, he went a little overboard lately and Obama had no choice but to let him go.

It's so sad because the M$M won't discuss any of the issues Wright is raising about America.

I'm not just disappointed, I'm pissed off. He has such a good understanding of the current situation in America and he was lynched by the corporate-media.

God forbid an uppity negro like that speaking the truth about 9/11 and how it was directly related to US foreign policy. Of course Falwell and those other punks can get away with saying gays caused 9/11 :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. appalling. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Where can I find the whole tape...
the tape I saw cut off just as he was asking the reporter,about her church attendance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
11. I don't agree with everything Wright says or his delivery at the Press Club, however
I can understand his frustration as the corporate media has done nothing but wage character assassination against him.

I view him as a pastor not a politician and hence maybe not accustomed to suffering fools.

I sincerely don't believe it made much difference what he said or how he said it, the corporate media have been corrupted and were determined to smear him, period.

"MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?

WRIGHT: I just wanted to see — that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? OK."

The stupidity of this question alone raises my blood pressure, I can only imagine how a pastor on the verge of retirement after being trashed for weeks by our so called fourth estate, knowing they were gunning after one of the members of his church, would feel, it ranks right up there with flag lapel pins. I believe in the case of that question, what got the icy response was the perceived attack against Obama, not him self.

An apology is more than an expression of guilt.

It is an acknowledgment or expression of regret for a fault, injury or insult.

I believe an apology would help heal the subconscious guilt many white people feel, even though they had nothing to do with slavery. I believe it would foster healing a hidden wound to the psyche of black people as well and bring them closer in to the family. I believe the prison statistics you cite are a direct result of this suppressed subconscious guilt of whites in power and the resentment by the black community over the perceived indifference to historical injustice. I also believe the primary vehicle used for modern day indentured servitude or slavery is the Orwellian "War Against Drugs".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. I wouldn't say that he is absolutely right
"'So until that apology comes, I’m not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, "Does this hurt? Do you forgive me for stepping on your foot?" if I’m still stepping on your foot.

Understand that? Capiche?'

Holeey Crap!

It's almost frustrating that he's absolutely right, America has Not Apologized for Slavery. When Rep John Conyers was circulating a bill to simply study the idea of Reparations a decade ago it was shot down like Gary Powers over Russian."

What is the goal here, an apology, or reparations? How is an apology the same thing as admitting it was wrong?

But let's not go there since the arguments of white people on this issue are apparently 'just plain pathetic'. Still, I cannot see this as some kind of excuse for Wright to feel like he doesn't have to be considerate to any white person because of this.

Probably the better point is that nobody has gone through the sermons of Hillary's ministers to find something that offends them, and then gives him or her the 3rd degree about his/her various beliefs. Nobody's doing it with McCain's minister, or did it with John Kerry's priests or George Bush's minister, etc. Although Jimmy Carter did kinda step in it by lusting after our wives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. the goal is to
solve the problem, to heal the open wound that's been festering for 400 years.

What is the goal here, an apology, or reparations? How is an apology the same thing as admitting it was wrong?


Simply openly acknowledging that is was wrong is a vitally necesary first step. When the 14th Amendment passed, it wasn't actually enforced for nearly 100 years, and frankly it's questionable whether it's being enforced AT ALL. The Anti-slavery amendment Still Allows for Slavery, only it's not based on race it's based on whether you get convicted - while Black people are being convicted and imprisoned at a rate 8 times higher than other people.

An apology is the very least that occur.

Reperations are problematic because this nation could never afford the cost of what have destroyed and stolen since the Virginia Colonies original implemented racial slavery in the 1670's. It's too big, it's too much - it could never happen.

I only care about ending it, changing it, fixing it. Reparations are a pipe dream.

But let's not go there since the arguments of white people on this issue are apparently 'just plain pathetic'. Still, I cannot see this as some kind of excuse for Wright to feel like he doesn't have to be considerate to any white person because of this.


I didn't say "white people are just plain pathetic" - that's rude to misconstrue my words. I said the arguements presented against even trying to discuss the issue were pathetic, and they didn't just come from white people - they came from people such as Ward Connerly.

Probably the better point is that nobody has gone through the sermons of Hillary's ministers to find something that offends them, and then gives him or her the 3rd degree about his/her various beliefs. Nobody's doing it with McCain's minister, or did it with John Kerry's priests or George Bush's minister, etc. Although Jimmy Carter did kinda step in it by lusting after our wives.


Actually there are stories about Hillary's prayer group and about John McCain specifically seeking the endorsement of divisive anti-Catholic, anti-Gay preachers such as Jerry Falwell, John Hagee and Robert Parsely.

The press hasn't become obsessed with these issues, but those questions have been asked.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TragedyandHope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. We have a long way to go to bring the country together
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
17. There are three questions that still remain and will dog obama
Edited on Wed Apr-30-08 11:48 PM by BenDavid
until he loses. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?

obama said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation? WHY NOW? Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee? This had to be embarassing when obama had to resign pastor wright.

obama had 16 years to take a stand and walk tall and disavow the bigotry and racists remarks by this pastor, but obama decided to stay. obama likens himself to the kennedy's but he would fail Robert Kennedy's test when one hears and sees racism and bigotry and not stand up and take a stand against it. WHY NOW obama? because you are like a bob seager song falling "like a rock" and you had to stop the slow oozing but your slow oozing will continue until your campaign oozes away.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Bogus Questions
Edited on Thu May-01-08 12:08 AM by Vyan
The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation?


Because the congregation isn't to blame, and Rev Wright has already left the church. Why should Obama leave? Why should he punish Rev Moss who is the current pastor?

Why didn't he speak up earlier?


He did speak up earlier in Philadelphia. But to be fair both he and Rev Wright has said HE WASN'T EVEN THERE. Once he found out he tried to focus on the positive and show loyalty to his longtime friend and pastor, but it was only after Wright personally disrespected him and just left him with no way to rehabilitate his comments that he had to break it off.

And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?


Wright didn't have a campaign position, either before or after the comments were put forward by the press.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Sorry, you're wrong about that #3
Link to when he left that position

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Ok, not before - but after. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. So you're speaking of just the
last 6 weeks? A bit disengenuous don't ya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vyan Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. No,
The question was why Obama had kept Wright involved in the campaign even after the comments came out. I didn't think he'd been involved at all, but the truth is still that he he didn't keep him involved in the campaign, so the premise of the question is still bogus. There is no "why" to something that didn't happen.

Vyan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmine621 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
18. Sorry, but Obama did NOT pick the needs of the nation over the
needs of Rev. Wright. Obama picked his needs over the needs of the nation and Rev. Wright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cstanleytech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
20. Obama is running not Wright so
I never have agreed with the tactic of trying to attack Obama through Wright, it just seems wrong to me morally to do so.
Now if Wright was a high level aide inside the campaign or obama had been putting his name forward as the head of an office if or when Obama wins within the government then maybe I could see Wright being an issue otherwise its not kosher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC