Obama hides behind DNC decision day to quit church

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No - I didn't say that. I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 mainly because I felt the Democratic Party had lost it's credibility among Democrats because of Bill Clinton - Al Gore being part of that Administration. I thought Howard Dean in 2004 was a much stronger candidate than John Kerry, but in terms of actually measuring which one has more character flaws than another would be an exercise in futility.

If this were a race between Giuliani and Hillary right now, I'd be certainly looking at both candidates...and FWIW, Giuliani is much closer to Hillary in terms of political views than any of the other Republicans who were running.

Maybe on certain social issues, but very different views on the economy, healthcare, national security and Iraq.

I am not sure if you were suggesting that if "character mattered" Guiliani would be a more attractive candidate in your view.

Are there any character flaws of Giuliani that come to your mind when comparing him to Hillary?

[GaryC 7]

I haven't tried to read the entire thread but I can imagine what was said. Here are my thoughts. Obama went to this church for 20 years. He had to have known what was said there. Any honest person would admitt that. He also knew this Catholic priest for 20 years. He even got this priests church a $100,000 earmark. So he also had to know what this guy has been saying. So, IMO Obama quit because his church became a liability. Not because he disagreed with anything they were saying. If he wasn't running for president my bet would be that he would still be there. This is political expediency and nothing more. It also says something about what is going on inside Obama's head. He must think along the same lines or he wouldn't have stayed with this church and had these people as friends for 20 years. You just cant let him say he didn't know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I haven't tried to read the entire thread but I can imagine what was said. Here are my thoughts. Obama went to this church for 20 years. He had to have known what was said there. Any honest person would admitt that. He also knew this Catholic priest for 20 years. He even got this priests church a $100,000 earmark. So he also had to know what this guy has been saying. So, IMO Obama quit because his church became a liability. Not because he disagreed with anything they were saying. If he wasn't running for president my bet would be that he would still be there. This is political expediency and nothing more. It also says something about what is going on inside Obama's head. He must think along the same lines or he wouldn't have stayed with this church and had these people as friends for 20 years. You just cant let him say he didn't know.

Probably...and no less expedient than McCain eventually rejecting Hagee's endorsement after first seeking it out. The heart of the matter is whether you or I (the voters) believe that either McCain or Obama share the controversial views expressed by these pastors and the answer (for most of us) is, an emphatic no.

I do hope that as we approach November, the public dialogue over the candidates won't be reduced to 'gotcha' games and 'guilt by association' rhetoric. There's just too many far more important issues we could talk about.

[no name 1]

I haven't tried to read the entire thread but I can imagine what was said. Here are my thoughts. Obama went to this church for 20 years. He had to have known what was said there. Any honest person would admitt that. He also knew this Catholic priest for 20 years. He even got this priests church a $100,000 earmark. So he also had to know what this guy has been saying. So, IMO Obama quit because his church became a liability. Not because he disagreed with anything they were saying. If he wasn't running for president my bet would be that he would still be there. This is political expediency and nothing more. It also says something about what is going on inside Obama's head. He must think along the same lines or he wouldn't have stayed with this church and had these people as friends for 20 years. You just cant let him say he didn't know.

Probably...and no less expedient than McCain eventually rejecting Hagee's endorsement after first seeking it out. The heart of the matter is whether you or I (the voters) believe that either McCain or Obama share the controversial views expressed by these pastors and the answer (for most of us) is, an emphatic no.

I do hope that as we approach November, the public dialogue over the candidates won't be reduced to 'gotcha' games and 'guilt by association' rhetoric. There's just too many far more important issues we could talk about.

You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family. He chose that church, just as he chose his wife. And if you think for one second, this will not come up over & over, you are quite naive. His associations are his choice, he has to live with them, just as HC has to live with hers.

And you can bet it will affect the voters.

[no name 1]

I haven't tried to read the entire thread but I can imagine what was said. Here are my thoughts. Obama went to this church for 20 years. He had to have known what was said there. Any honest person would admitt that. He also knew this Catholic priest for 20 years. He even got this priests church a $100,000 earmark. So he also had to know what this guy has been saying. So, IMO Obama quit because his church became a liability. Not because he disagreed with anything they were saying. If he wasn't running for president my bet would be that he would still be there. This is political expediency and nothing more. It also says something about what is going on inside Obama's head. He must think along the same lines or he wouldn't have stayed with this church and had these people as friends for 20 years. You just cant let him say he didn't know.

Thanks for bringing it back on topic.

I agree 100%. (Frightening, yet true)

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

No - I didn't say that. I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 mainly because I felt the Democratic Party had lost it's credibility among Democrats because of Bill Clinton - Al Gore being part of that Administration. I thought Howard Dean in 2004 was a much stronger candidate than John Kerry, but in terms of actually measuring which one has more character flaws than another would be an exercise in futility.

If this were a race between Giuliani and Hillary right now, I'd be certainly looking at both candidates...and FWIW, Giuliani is much closer to Hillary in terms of political views than any of the other Republicans who were running.

Maybe on certain social issues, but very different views on the economy, healthcare, national security and Iraq.

I am not sure if you were suggesting that if "character mattered" Guiliani would be a more attractive candidate in your view.

Are there any character flaws of Giuliani that come to your mind when comparing him to Hillary?

Well there's the 3 marriages including one that he ended via press conference. There are charges of corruption. There is the incompetence in the 9-11 cleanup including the charge by christie Todd whitman (another Republican) that the city interfered with EPA regulations in order to speed up the process. He has a far more authoritarian leadership style than she (during her time in the senate has reached out to Republicans far more than Guiliani has his political rivals). yet doesn't arouse an iota of the "power-hungry" accusation that people love to throw at her There was the fact he did not turn up at meetings for the Iraq Study Group because he was out making millions at fundraisers.

That's just off the top of my head, but there is a lot more.

[no name 1]

No - I didn't say that. I didn't vote for Al Gore in 2000 mainly because I felt the Democratic Party had lost it's credibility among Democrats because of Bill Clinton - Al Gore being part of that Administration. I thought Howard Dean in 2004 was a much stronger candidate than John Kerry, but in terms of actually measuring which one has more character flaws than another would be an exercise in futility.

If this were a race between Giuliani and Hillary right now, I'd be certainly looking at both candidates...and FWIW, Giuliani is much closer to Hillary in terms of political views than any of the other Republicans who were running.

Maybe on certain social issues, but very different views on the economy, healthcare, national security and Iraq.

I am not sure if you were suggesting that if "character mattered" Guiliani would be a more attractive candidate in your view.

Are there any character flaws of Giuliani that come to your mind when comparing him to Hillary?

Well there's the 3 marriages including one that he ended via press conference. There are charges of corruption. There is the incompetence in the 9-11 cleanup including the charge by christie Todd whitman (another Republican) that the city interfered with EPA regulations in order to speed up the process. He has a far more authoritarian leadership style than she (during her time in the senate has reached out to Republicans far more than Guiliani has his political rivals). yet doesn't arouse an iota of the "power-hungry" accusation that people love to throw at her There was the fact he did not turn up at meetings for the Iraq Study Group because he was out making millions at fundraisers.

That's just off the top of my head, but there is a lot more.

http://www.realchange.org/giuliani.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/1/144455/938

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260903,00.html

Edited June 2, 2008 by illumine

[HAL 9000 96]

I haven't tried to read the entire thread but I can imagine what was said. Here are my thoughts. Obama went to this church for 20 years. He had to have known what was said there. Any honest person would admitt that. He also knew this Catholic priest for 20 years. He even got this priests church a $100,000 earmark. So he also had to know what this guy has been saying. So, IMO Obama quit because his church became a liability. Not because he disagreed with anything they were saying. If he wasn't running for president my bet would be that he would still be there. This is political expediency and nothing more. It also says something about what is going on inside Obama's head. He must think along the same lines or he wouldn't have stayed with this church and had these people as friends for 20 years. You just cant let him say he didn't know.

Probably...and no less expedient than McCain eventually rejecting Hagee's endorsement after first seeking it out. The heart of the matter is whether you or I (the voters) believe that either McCain or Obama share the controversial views expressed by these pastors and the answer (for most of us) is, an emphatic no.

I do hope that as we approach November, the public dialogue over the candidates won't be reduced to 'gotcha' games and 'guilt by association' rhetoric. There's just too many far more important issues we could talk about.

Rightly so Steven. How petty can one get to drool over earmarking money that goes to improving social structures while not drooling over the billions that have been squandered in Iraq in the name of WMDs our security Iraqi Democracy?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I haven't tried to read the entire thread but I can imagine what was said. Here are my thoughts. Obama went to this church for 20 years. He had to have known what was said there. Any honest person would admitt that. He also knew this Catholic priest for 20 years. He even got this priests church a $100,000 earmark. So he also had to know what this guy has been saying. So, IMO Obama quit because his church became a liability. Not because he disagreed with anything they were saying. If he wasn't running for president my bet would be that he would still be there. This is political expediency and nothing more. It also says something about what is going on inside Obama's head. He must think along the same lines or he wouldn't have stayed with this church and had these people as friends for 20 years. You just cant let him say he didn't know.

Probably...and no less expedient than McCain eventually rejecting Hagee's endorsement after first seeking it out. The heart of the matter is whether you or I (the voters) believe that either McCain or Obama share the controversial views expressed by these pastors and the answer (for most of us) is, an emphatic no.

I do hope that as we approach November, the public dialogue over the candidates won't be reduced to 'gotcha' games and 'guilt by association' rhetoric. There's just too many far more important issues we could talk about.

You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family. He chose that church, just as he chose his wife. And if you think for one second, this will not come up over & over, you are quite naive. His associations are his choice, he has to live with them, just as HC has to live with hers.

And you can bet it will affect the voters.

Then call me naive... because I'm confident that when most voters go to booths in November, they will be thinking about much bigger issues than this.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Rightly so Steven. How petty can one get to drool over earmarking money that goes to improving social structures while not drooling over the billions that have been squandered in Iraq in the name of WMDs our security Iraqi Democracy?

I can't imagine that I'm the only voter who's become numb to the game of 'gotcha' and 'guilt-by-association'.....we've got two candidates with two very different ideas about what direction they want to take this country in. That's what this election will be determined on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It'll really be interesting to see what happens when the Hillbots must shun their master for she will support the devil.

[no name 1]

Rightly so Steven. How petty can one get to drool over earmarking money that goes to improving social structures while not drooling over the billions that have been squandered in Iraq in the name of WMDs our security Iraqi Democracy?

I can't imagine that I'm the only voter who's become numb to the game of 'gotcha' and 'guilt-by-association'.....we've got two candidates with two very different ideas about what direction they want to take this country in. That's what this election will be determined on.

Exactly. And at least one has some action behind his rhetoric.

One has Bush to deal with, one has angry preachers who spew hate & racism. Take your pick!

Edited June 2, 2008 by illumine

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"In this polarized nation of 280 million souls, Lanny Davis is one of a select few who maintains a personal affection for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. If you read this book you'll know why this is true—and why we're all diminished because it’s so rare. Lanny’s exposé of ‘gotcha’ politics is not just a lament about the lack of civility in American public discourse. It’s a compelling call for a truce in our ‘war room’ style of perpetual campaigning."

—Carl M. Cannon, White House Correspondent, National Journal

"I am confident that Lanny Davis speaks for most Americans when he decries the coarsening of our political discourse and the dysfunction it has created in Washington. Hopefully, his work will serve as a wake-up call and prompt a better, more productive kind of national political leadership."

—Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Q & A with Lanny Davis

1. You call your book, Scandal: How “Gotcha” Politics is Destroying

America-can you explain the idea of "gotcha" politics?

See pp. 5-6: "....'Gotcha' politics is purely and simply about partisanship, not about uncovering genuine corruption; it is about revenge and payback, not about due process and investigations in search of the truth; and ultimately it is about personal and political destruction, not winning in the marketplace of ideas or defeating your adversary based on the issues at the polls and in the precincts."

2. In order to present a clear picture of “gotcha” politics, you trace back through the history of America and provide examples starting with our founding fathers. How long did your research process take and how necessary was this information for the book?

I researched the historic origins of today's scandal culture, beginning with the Founders (the Hamilton-Maria Reynolds-Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemmings scandals) and the emergence of today's scandal culture and "gotcha" politics over the last 30 years for more than a year.

3. The American public is obsessed with the intimate details of the lives of public figures, details that are often used in the politics of personal destruction. To what extent, if any, should the American public be privy to personal details of a politician's life? Can you think of any recent examples where it would be relevant?

Most Americans make the distinction between private life, which they generally consider to be none of their business, and public performance by their elected officials. Only where the latter is affected by the former have most Americans seen private life as relevant. Yet the media (including radio talk shows and the blogosphere), driven by the 24/7 news cycle and "gotcha" politicians trying to exploit private mistakes for political gain, have made the reporting of "scandal" or "gotcha" mistakes by politicians as the staple of political news coverage and punditry.

4. How big a role does the internet, particularly political blogging, play in the continuance and spread of “gotcha” politics?

Increasingly, certainly in the last 5-10 years, the Internet has played a role in fanning the flames of scandal and innuendo as surrogates for facts and reporting about politics and public affairs. Cable TV and the 24/7 news cycle, with talking heads and food fighting partisans, have also contributed to the problem: the politics of personal destruction rather than debating the issues and finding bi-partisan solutions to the real problems that the American people face and care about most.

5. In your first book, a memoir titled Truth to Tell, you provide a fairly candid, intimate account of your time in the White House and the scandal culture of Washington politics-did you always plan to write a follow-up account of scandal politics in America?

Yes, in Truth to Tell, I recalled my personal experiences in the cross-hairs of a vitriolic media/political scandal machine. But the idea for writing Scandal began ever since I saw President Clinton and President Bush exchange gracious words at the June 14, 2004 White House ceremony for the unveiling of President and Mrs. Clinton's official portraits. See Prologue of Scandal. President Clinton thanked President Bush for his gracious remarks welcoming the Clintons back to the White House, and he ended his own comments by saying: "...I hope that I'll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad."

As I reported in the Prologue of Scandal:

"There was a thunderous standing ovation. It grew even louder as President Bush nodded and pointed toward President Clinton with a gesture of affirmation and President Clinton pointed back at him....I must admit I felt a rush – a rush of patriotism and pride in our country....Since that day, I thought a lot about this moment....It prompted me to ask how the politics of personal destruction that has dominated American politics for the last quarter century or so – this cycle of scandal, attack, and counter-attack, this seemingly endless game of 'gotcha' politics – started....This book is my best effort at answering these questions, and it owes its genesis to that remarkable spring day." (pp. xiv-xv).

6. You discuss the misuse of the independent counsel by both political parties-what do you think is the legitimate role of specially appointed counsel? When should counsel be called upon and when is it not harmful?

Special Counsels, appointed by the Attorney General of the United States and accountable to him or her, are a legitimate mechanism for undertaking investigations of the executive branch that allows for maximum independence and non-political appearance. Such Special Counsels were provided for by former Attorney General Janet Reno after the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act and they should remain an option for any Administration that, in effect, needs to investigate itself. But never again should there be an extra-constitutional effectively unaccountable "Independent Counsel." The political process, as represented by the Attorney General appointed by the President, must be responsible for the actions of a prosecutor – which was not the case for the Independent Counsel when so much abuse of prosecutorial power was allowed to occur under both Democratic and Republican presidencies and Congresses.

7. Towards the end of the book, you introduce the idea of The New Center, as a solution to hyper-partisanship and possibly destructive politics. Can you elaborate on this concept and what it would take for this idea to really take hold? Can you predict its presence in the 2008 presidential elections?

The New Center is not the absence of partisanship. Quite the contrary. It is a vigorous debate on the issues between partisan liberal Democrats and partisan conservative Republicans – but where, after the debate is over, both side reach out to find compromises and solutions that can command a majority consensus for the country – not just to please the "Red State" or "Blue State" ideological bases of the respective parties. In 2008, there is a real possibility, as described in Chapter Twelve of Scandal, of a "Grand Coalition" government being elected, even possibly composed of a Democratic president and Republican vice president, or vice versa, and a cabinet split 50-50 between the parties. This would give the American people a "time out" from the hyper-partisanship and "gotcha" politics of the last 30 years and allow, even for a brief period in American history, a focus on debating the issues and attempting to solve the real problems facing the American people at home and abroad. See pp. 252-256 in particular of Chapter Twelve.

8. What do you hope Scandal accomplishes?

Above all, I hope this book stirs a debate about the destructive power of the scandal culture and the politics of personal destruction for which both parties have been responsible in the last 30 or so years. And I hope it provokes recognition that it's time to say enough – we need a new kind of politics in this country, where there can be vigorous partisan debate and disagreement on the issues but where, as President Clinton said, "where we can argue who's right and wrong, not who's good and bad." (See answers to questions 1 and 7, above). And perhaps, just perhaps, this book will contribute to a mood in the country demanding a brief hiatus in the traditional partisan presidencies and, instead, in 2008, experience what it would be like to have a bi-partisan, fusion presidency – called the "Grand Coalition" in Chapter Twelve – that allows Republicans and Democrats to collaborate in the White House and the Executive Branch and in Congress to address and try to solve America's most pressing problems.

http://www.palgrave-usa.com/scandal/scandal.html

[HAL 9000 96]

It'll really be interesting to see what happens when the Hillbots must shun their master for she will support the devil.

Perhaps a tiny purge from the Party, perhaps?? Who knows and at this point... who cares?