Obama throws Rev Wright under the bus

[Sheriff Uling 3]

I wonder if most of you feel as strongly about the Catholic church and their pedophile priests being sheltered by the highest levels of that “organization” as you do about Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright. I don’t see a huge group protesting that people should leave the Catholic church based upon their longstanding worldly betrayal to religion and humanity.

[GaryC 7]

I want our next President to be able to see past ideological differences and find common ground. I think Obama will be a true uniter and not a divider.

I think same as you. I think, he will be a uniter.

He may unite people that agree with him but with his extreme left views he will divide us more that you will ever know.

[cieloazul 0]

This is off topic but I was wondering, do you guys post here during work hours or have an evening shift? If you are at work, what type job do you have that allows so much time posting here?

On this topic, Obama probably should separated himself from Rev. Wright a long time ago if he was interested in running for president since Rev. Wright's rhetoric is probably a little too radical for most Americans. I've sort of enjoyed hearing Rev. Wright's views; they are entertaining and really funny. His facial expressions and intonations of speech would be great for a skeet on Saturday Night Live. The most hilarious trait of Rev. Wright is his ego. I can see why he needs such a big house and church. If it gets any larger, his head or buggy eyes might explode. How should we address him if he is vice president,,Rev. Vice President Wright or Vice President Rev Wright,, with his ego, I'm thinking we'll need to put emperor in there somewhere.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

This is off topic but I was wondering, do you guys post here during work hours or have an evening shift? If you are at work, what type job do you have that allows so much time posting here?

On this topic, Obama probably should separated himself from Rev. Wright a long time ago if he was interested in running for president since Rev. Wright's rhetoric is probably a little too radical for most Americans. I've sort of enjoyed hearing Rev. Wright's views; they are entertaining and really funny. His facial expressions and intonations of speech would be great for a skeet on Saturday Night Live. The most hilarious trait of Rev. Wright is his ego. I can see why he needs such a big house and church. If it gets any larger, his head or buggy eyes might explode. How should we address him if he is vice president,,Rev. Vice President Wright or Vice President Rev Wright,, with his ego, I'm thinking we'll need to put emperor in there somewhere.

I've been on vacation since Friday. Some members post during lunch (which I do sometimes), some have varying work schedules, others have their own business, and some have more flexibility jobs than others. It's a mixed bag in which I ams sure that some of our members are actually goofing off during normal business hours.

[metta 0]

I wonder if most of you feel as strongly about the Catholic church and their pedophile priests being sheltered by the highest levels of that "organization" as you do about Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright. I don't see a huge group protesting that people should leave the Catholic church based upon their longstanding worldly betrayal to religion and humanity.

This is but a clash of egos and interests.

Had Jack Kennedy been associated with a pedophile priest, he would never have been elected POTUS. As it was, his being a catholic itself was a big issue that he barely overcame.

Obama used Jeremiah Wright and his church to establish his bona fide as a Christian African American and obviously used his church affiliation and the congregants of the United Trinity Church as his political power base.

It worked for him as long as his goals were to become State Senator and then U.S> Senator.

But once he became a candidate for POTUS, what was once a mutually beneficial relationship between BO and JW turned into an explosive mixture of politics and religion. Wright's theology no longer served BO's political interests so BO tried to dump him gently.

But given his massive ego, JW took this as a great insult to hik personally and a betrayal to his teachings.

So, my take is that Reverend Wright launched his media blitz with a message to Barry : "I made you kid, now I'm gonna break you.'

[Sheriff Uling 3]

I want our next President to be able to see past ideological differences and find common ground. I think Obama will be a true uniter and not a divider.

I think same as you. I think, he will be a uniter.

He may unite people that agree with him but with his extreme left views he will divide us more that you will ever know.

In many ways, I agree with you Gary. However, conservatives may also be unwilling to give an inch. It's a difficult task all the way around.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[HAL 9000 96]

This is off topic but I was wondering, do you guys post here during work hours or have an evening shift? If you are at work, what type job do you have that allows so much time posting here?

On this topic, Obama probably should separated himself from Rev. Wright a long time ago if he was interested in running for president since Rev. Wright's rhetoric is probably a little too radical for most Americans. I've sort of enjoyed hearing Rev. Wright's views; they are entertaining and really funny. His facial expressions and intonations of speech would be great for a skeet on Saturday Night Live. The most hilarious trait of Rev. Wright is his ego. I can see why he needs such a big house and church. If it gets any larger, his head or buggy eyes might explode. How should we address him if he is vice president,,Rev. Vice President Wright or Vice President Rev Wright,, with his ego, I'm thinking we'll need to put emperor in there somewhere.

I am blessed to be able to set my own hours in the lab I work in.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I wonder if most of you feel as strongly about the Catholic church and their pedophile priests being sheltered by the highest levels of that “organization” as you do about Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright. I don’t see a huge group protesting that people should leave the Catholic church based upon their longstanding worldly betrayal to religion and humanity.

Good point/question to make Sheriff . Now let's go back to cr@p over Obama, shall we???????????

[Sheriff Uling 3]

I wonder if most of you feel as strongly about the Catholic church and their pedophile priests being sheltered by the highest levels of that "organization" as you do about Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright. I don't see a huge group protesting that people should leave the Catholic church based upon their longstanding worldly betrayal to religion and humanity.

This is but a clash of egos and interests.

Had Jack Kennedy been associated with a pedophile priest, he would never have been elected POTUS. As it was, his being a catholic itself was a big issue that he barely overcame.

Obama used Jeremiah Wright and his church to establish his bona fide as a Christian African American and obviously used his church affiliation and the congregants of the United Trinity Church as his political power base.

It worked for him as long as his goals were to become State Senator and then U.S> Senator.

But once he became a candidate for POTUS, what was once a mutually beneficial relationship between BO and JW turned into an explosive mixture of politics and religion. Wright's theology no longer served BO's political interests so BO tried to dump him gently.

But given his massive ego, JW took this as a great insult to hik personally and a betrayal to his teachings.

So, my take is that Reverend Wright launched his media blitz with a message to Barry : "I made you kid, now I'm gonna break you.'

Very good points and you seem to be right on the money about JW's ego with the whole, 'I made you kid, now I'm gonna break you.' thing...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I wonder if most of you feel as strongly about the Catholic church and their pedophile priests being sheltered by the highest levels of that “organization” as you do about Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright. I don’t see a huge group protesting that people should leave the Catholic church based upon their longstanding worldly betrayal to religion and humanity.

Good point/question to make Sheriff . Now let's go back to cr@p over Obama, shall we???????????

I think Barry has done a pretty good job of crapping all over himself

[HAL 9000 96]

Wait wasn't it Emil Jones who made the kid? Make up your minds, peeps.

[metta 0]

Wait wasn't it Emil Jones who made the kid? Make up your minds, peeps.

Mav, God forbid another Obama-maker to step into the media spotlight.

The way things are going now, that might not be beyond the realm of possiblity..

[HAL 9000 96]

Wait wasn't it Emil Jones who made the kid? Make up your minds, peeps.

Mav, God forbid another Obama-maker to step into the media spotlight.

The way things are going now, that might not be beyond the realm of possiblity..

I'm sure that would continue to fall under the realm of reality, aka "the continued guilt by association" phenomenon.

[metta 0]

Talking about Emil Jones, Lipson mentioned Four Stumps in the Water for Obama. namely: Wright, Emil Jones, Rezco and Ayers.

rezko came up during the waxing phase of his campaign so it was easily brushed off. he ran into big trouble with Ayers-though to a lesser degree and now Wright. Emil Jones is the last STUMP in the water for barry. So, the drama is not over yet.

Here's the article

March 30, 2008

Four Stumps in the Water By Charles Lipson

(Charles Lipson is a professor of international politics at the University of Chicago. He has two books coming out next month: Succeeding as an International Student in the United States and Canada, and Doing Honest Work in College, 2nd edition. Both are from the University of Chicago Press)

As the high-water mark for Barack Obama recedes, his campaign must now confront several dangerous stumps that were once hidden below the surface. The problems began with Obama's long attachment to Rev. Wright, Trinity United Church, and Black Liberation Theology, but they won't end there.

So, what issues are now lurking for Obama?

The first is the volatile mix of race and religion, begun with the Rev. Wright controversy. Videos have now surfaced of virulent race-baiting by yet another Chicago preacher with ties to Obama, the Rev. James Meeks. Obama was not a member of Meeks's church and their connection may be only a tactical alliance between prominent local figures. That's the question: how close are those ties?

Meeks is no ordinary pastor. He is an important political and religious figure in African-American Chicago. He not only leads a mammoth congregation, he is an Illinois state senator and a key player in Jesse Jackson's powerful local political organization, which is squarely behind Obama's run for the Presidency.

Meeks's sermons have called white mayors "slave masters" and denigrated moderate black politicians with the "n" word. Nor is he backing away from those slimy views. He has reiterated and defended them in recent interviews with Chicago's local news media, which smells blood in the water.

If close ties between Meeks and Obama are discovered, the problems raised by Rev. Wright will come blazing back, and the damage will be severe. Unfortunately for Obama, even if the ties are more remote--cordial rather than close--his candidacy will probably suffer. How can it possibly help to have political allies screaming racial epithets and then have those rants played again and again on cable news and YouTube? The more people watch, the more it undermines Obama's most basic appeal--that he is a decent man who wants to unite people of goodwill and move the country beyond its terrible history of racial division.

Obama's second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: Emil Jones. Jones heads the Illinois State Senate and is one of the two most powerful legislators in Springfield. He played a vital role in Obama's rise in state politics and, most significantly, he blessed Obama's underdog candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

Now that Obama is playing on a national stage, his ties to Jones raise uncomfortable questions about his years in Illinois politics. That's because Jones is a old-fashioned, wheeler-dealer, the sort that Mike Royko used to write about when he was shredding Richard J. Daley and the Cook Count Democratic machine. A modern version of that machine is still kicking in Springfield, where it is known as the Combine. It includes Republicans as well as Democrats, and it has been oiling the gears of state politics for decades.

State contractors, when they are not under indictment, regularly lament the problem of "pay to play" politics. Not surprisingly, the Illinois politicians who run the system and reap its rewards have been slow to mandate ethics reform. Jones is among the most significant roadblocks. The question for Obama: Just how close are his links to Emil Jones and this seamier side of Illinois politics?

The Rezko trial highlights another problem for Obama, potentially a devastating one, though it is unlikely to arise for several months or more. Antoin "Tony" Rezko is on trial for taking large bribes in return for political favors. The feds allege that he was able to steer state contracts and policy decisions, such as authorization to build hospitals in specific locations, because he was so close to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (for whom he was a top fundraiser) and because he was willing to share the graft with his cronies. Alas for Tony Rezko, one of those cronies has now flipped, and his damning testimony is corroborated by plenty of wiretap evidence. Close observers of the trial think Rezko is in deep trouble. Obama's name has come up only a few times, and no one has alleged any connection between these charges and the candidate.

Still, Rezko problems are bad news for Obama because the two have close, long-standing ties. Obama initially downplayed those ties and minimized the money Rezko had raised for him. When local reporters raised pointed questions, Obama declined to answer. He broke that silence at a strategic moment, just as the Rev. Wright story hit and the national media was focused on nothing else. That's when Obama found time to give extensive interviews about Rezko to the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Predictably, the story got some play locally but was drowned out nationally.

Rezko's connection to Obama began well before Obama ran for office. Rezko spotted him early, figured he might be a rising star, and helped secure funds for his initial campaigns. Rezko's role raises questions because no one has ever accused him of being a civic-minded fellow who simply enjoys political fundraising because he delights in good government. Skeptical souls want to know what Rezko sought in return for his support and whether he got it.

If Rezko is convicted--a real possibility--those inquiring minds might find out, or at least they would find out what Rezko has to say. If Rezko is staring at a long prison sentence, prosecutors will have a big carrot to dangle in front of him, but only if he names the biggest players.

Where does Obama figure in all this, aside from being a recipient of Rezko's campaign cash? No one knows for sure, but suspicion centers on one particular real estate deal. Obama claims it was a clean, arms-length deal with the sellers, and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary. If there were problems, though, Rezko would know about them.

The real-estate deal began when a Chicago couple (two doctors) took jobs elsewhere and put their property - a lovely, spacious home in Kenwood with a vacant yard -- on the market. The Obamas liked the house but lacked the money to buy both the house and vacant yard.

What happened next is where the questions arise. Obama recently acknowledged that he toured the property with Rezko. After that, Obama made a discounted offer for the house, and, at about the same time, Rezko made a full-price offer for the side yard. Both offers were accepted. So, the obvious question is: Was there any hidden link between Rezko's full price deal and the discounted price Obama paid?

Obama's final stump also lies in Kenwood, where he was friendly with the 1960s radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn, now married, were members of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol. Ayers and Dohrn spent a decade on the run before turning themselves in and spending time in jail. Both are now professors and prominent figures in Chicago's leftist-progressive politics.

In his memoirs, Ayers speaks evocatively of his revolutionary days and reiterated his political commitments in an interview with the New York Times: "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." The interview appeared with exquisitely bad timing--on September 11, 2001.

Obama served with Ayers on the board of a small, leftist foundation, the Woods Fund. Ayers later chaired the board and is still a member. Obama served from 1999 until 2002 and received several thousand dollars annually as compensation. According to the 2001 annual report, the fund made a $6000 discretionary grant to Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church "in recognition of Barack Obama's contribution of services to the Woods Fund as a director." Serving with Obama and Ayers was the prominent Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi, then a historian at the University of Chicago and now the Edward Said Professor at Columbia. (While they were all on the board, the Woods Fund gave a generous grant to the Arab American Action Network, headed by Khalidi's wife, Mona.)

Now that Obama is so close to the Democratic nomination, the scrutiny he faces on issues like these has grown intense. It will stay that way--for him, for Hillary Clinton, and for John McCain--as long as they keep running. The stakes couldn't be higher, and voters want to know.

There are more questions than answers right now. But the questions are serious ones about character, judgment, and close personal associations. If the answers turn out to be damaging, this won't be a Swift Boat. This will be a whole fleet.

.

Edited April 29, 2008 by metta

[HAL 9000 96]

Rezko has close ties to the Bush family aka Karl Rove and hence, politically will not be any problem as it hasn't been this far.

Wright is a case of guilt by association turned sour when the race issue came up.

Ayers is a case of guilt by association.

Jones? Another politician.

I find it sad to see Charles Lipson writing this at this time. Such a celebrated professor on campus should not feed the guilt by association feeding frenzy currently enveloping the maniacal drive to push Obama away. Somehow I really doubt Prof. Lipson is trying to be impartial in his analysis. Maybe I'll ask him directly if he's trying the old ploy or if he is actually serious about blogging it out to be precisely misquoted on VJ.