From crazy old uncle to I am outraged - Today’s Headlines 4/30/08

[Caro]

MODERATORS: This is only one of many headlines referenced at the link below. Please do not move it to the Primary Discussion board.

Top Story

Obama denounces Rev. Wright (by Ben Smith at Politico)
Obama sharply attacks Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the substance of his remarks , a far sharper disavowal than he gave in Philadelphia… "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," he said.
Hmmm… From crazy old uncle to I am outraged. What he’s outraged about is Wright’s attacks on HIM, not the attacks on America.—Caro

Matt Davies

For more headlines, visit MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. I'm outraged on his attacks on Wright.

I feel like Obama's let himself be sucked into the flag lapel pin politics. I like Wright because he doesn't parse words, he simply says what he's feeling or thinking. So sometimes he's way off, other times he comes up with a gem. He's the kind of person a grown-up, who doesn't need to be spoon fed info, can enjoy. The fact that Obama can listen to Wright and know when he's full of shit and continue on speaks highly of Obama. Its the same skill that would let him know the "slam dunk" claims could be false even when other intel from the CIA was golden. Its discernment. The ability to think for yourself even when the info is from "reliable sources" or one's pastor. I don't WANT a president who demands to be surrounded by people with non-controversial ideas, because that's how idiocy and group think occur.

[applegrove]

2. But Wright implied that Obama's soft denunciation of some of Wright's stands

was "just politics". As if Obama believed what Wright was saying allaround. Obama had no choice.

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Frankly, I would say the problem there is with people believing the implication.

That Rev. Wright dictates the real truth Obama believes in, and what Obama says doesn't matter at all. I agree that it could be interpreted that way is a liability, but its just a single false idea. I am convinced that if anybody asked Wright "Are you saying that Obama lies and you speak for him" he would have said NO. Yet we let this implication speak FOR rev. Wright to say the exact same thing, without asking him if that's true. Now why don't we ask him? Because we assume he would lie, and say NO for political expediency himself. And we accept that in our politics, which is why things are so ridiculous and we are running around giving life to "implications" and so forth, assuming that what a reverend "implies" is more real than what he says. At some point we've got to get back to simple truth and talking about things that matter.

[pscot]

4. Wright is just another contentious old religious lunatic

convinced that he speaks revealed truth. Wright, Dobson, Parsloe or Hagee; There isn't a dimes worth of difference among them, and I don't want any of 'em within 100 miles of the whitehouse.

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. Distraction.

The issue isn't about what Wright believes, its about treating bullshit like its gold. Wright's subtle "implications" aren't meaningful in the context of a nation on the edge. By acknowledging this whole thing Obama lends credence to the nonsense festival.

[EFerrari]

6. Wright has not attacked America and I'm disappointed in Obama. n/t