Thursday Morning Open Thread

Your turn. This is an Open Thread.

Oh just one thing, if you are fine with the what is said by the Rev. Pfleger in the video I post below, then just say so. I am surprised at the outrage at those of us commenting on it while no outrage from those commenters is aimed at the words of Rev. Pfleger.


Comments now closed.

< What Is Going On At Trinity Church? | Prepared To Step In And Do What? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am outraged (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    but not surprised.

    That church is very consistent in its views on white people, entitlement and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    I guess I'm disgusted more than anything (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    These charlatan grandstanders make me sick.  I did not get a chance to watch the video this morning from my work computer, but I just watched it, and the main thing that struck me was that it was all just put on for entertainment.  It has nothing to do with religion, IMHO.

    But yes, this stuff is going to cost us the GE.


    Obama uses black liberation theology phrases (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    ...dog whistle phrases when he talks to black audiences, including saying repeatedly that he is a member of the "Joshua generation"

    I am neither surprised nor outraged (none / 0) (#40)
    by Manuel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    I am tired of outrage.  I leave that to Obama supporters.  It isn't a secret that there are people who hold these views (for whatever reasons).  It isn't a secret that this church is sympathetic to these views.  These views, IMO, are logically flawed but should be part of the dialog.  I don't what purpose being outraged serves.

    It is a secret (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    to most Americans that there are churches like that, IMHO.

    Black Liberation Theology is not a mainstream Christian sect. And how many preachers talk that way about politicians from the pulpit? I thought we were supposed to separate church and state.

    Personally, I don't care what you believe, as long as you're not running for President. But Obama clearly cannot dodge his connection to this church and its beliefs.

    I'm outraged that this type of hatred and historical fiction is what Obama listened to for 20 years. I'm outraged that he didn't walk out and take his family with him. I'm outraged that this preacher is an active part of Obama's campaign. And finally, I'm outraged that anyone, ANYONE would consider Obama to be a better choice for President than Hillary.

    Sorry if you think my feelings "serve no purpose," but this is an Open Thread, after all.


    Hyperbole, much? (1.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    Outraged that anyone would consider Obama a better choice?! Okay, fair enough, I mean I damit I'm a bit puzzled and angered that anyone who claims to care aobut Iraq can rank Hillary above Obama, but I don't think that people who value other things higher (say: Healthcare) should have the same ordering that I do (her plan is better, its just unpassable).

    Oh lord (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    We have another one of these "we can change the way politics is done in this country, but we can't possibly persuade people to accept mandates for health care" people.

    I have no idea why people who are so politically timid are uplifted even the tiniest bit by Obama's message.  Good luck enacting a progressive agenda if you're not even willing to fight for something this mildly controversial.


    good point (4.33 / 3) (#98)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    At this stage we should have an orthodoxy where half our party want Single Payer and the other half want UHC at the very least.

    What we have is Obama who is saying stuff that is the same as McCain.


    Obama's plan isn't passable if he's not electable (none / 0) (#91)
    by kempis on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    I admire some things in liberation theology (none / 0) (#141)
    by Manuel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    Particularly in Latin America in the tradition of people like Ernesto Cardenal.  While I may disagree with their logic, I do not question their desire for social justice.  I don't find outrage to be on the way to finding common ground.  In no way do I intend to diminish your feelings.  My question would be.  After the outrage, what comes next?

    I don't think its accurate... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Y Knot on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    ... but I think it's pretty darned funny.  That guy should do stand up.

    Sure - 'bout as funny as the (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    'Mind of Mencia'

    and I don't mean that as a slam on white or hispanic comedians


    Outrage Or Not Is Not The Main Point IMO (none / 0) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    The main point is how this video will play to average Americans during the GE. Anyone who thinks that the Republicans are not going to use a composite of the worse of Wright and Pfleger has their head in the sand. People are not going to buy into the Obama meme that he was completely in the dark about this type of church rhetoric after being a member for 20 years. Don't think that you will find many average Americans who agree with what is said at this church or that they should throw away their 401 plan either.

    I'm astonished (none / 0) (#174)
    by daria g on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    Nothing like this ever went on at the Catholic church I attended for 16 years.. and I'm no expert on liberation theology but I never thought it sounded like that, at all.  And I don't know what positive change he's trying to bring to his congregation with that kind of talk.

    Sorry to repost (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    but this is very troubling to me.

    "I will step in," Pelosi told the paper. "Because we cannot take this fight to the convention...It must be over before then."

    I caught it on CNN

    They are obviously trying to strong-arm Clinton.  I hope she's got enough supporters to push back.  This is just disgusting.

    I am outraged by Pelosi's stupidity (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    Obama agrees with her (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    He said that after Tuesday, the ge will start.  He got coy and said, "I hope the nominee will be me" but you don't say that kind of crap unless you're sure.

    This is just absolutely disgusting to me.  I know I posted it on the other thread, but there is no way this will be legitimate.  I am so sick of the dem party and all their posturing.  

    It's had the opposite effect on me, though.  I'm stepping up my calls and I'm going to send in more money (at least my cats will).

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!


    The Democratic Party is no longer (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST

    Wonder how many years it will take them to rebuild their membership.

    There's one group of women trying to start a woman's party, but that seems to leave out a huge membership opportunity with the many men who are equally insulted and turned off by both the party and the dreadful campaign Obama has run.


    The frustration (none / 0) (#159)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    out there from women at how the media, the DNC and the Obama campaign have started, participated, encouraged and/or allowed
    the blatant misogyny and utmost disrespect for HRC and women
    in general is huge and very very strong.

    The DNC is  high on stupidity by not realizing the great divide  already exists out there and have helped create exists out there.  

    A joint ticket won't work and it's pipe dreaming (imho).  Unity will not come from the work on any single person in the part from now till November.  It will come from the passage of time and the renewal of the DNC leadership and many of the
    responsible players. The DNC has done ZERO to call teh media out on its behavior b/c it favored Obama. That is unforgivable and unforgettable.   The Obama campaign not once has even tepidly said this is wrong.  


    OK, this one I really don't get. (none / 0) (#121)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    The last primaries are Tuesday.  FL and MI will hopefully be resolved also.  The primary process will be over, and Obama hopes to have the delegates necessary to win the nomination.

    What is disgusting about that?  Is he obligated to defer to some Clintonites' "It's not over till she says it's over!" rhetoric?


    Superdelegates don't vote until the convention (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    ... and neither candidate can get a majority based on pledged delegates alone. So it's not over until the superdelgates' votes are counted. At the convention.

    This is not Clintonite's rhetoric, those are the party's RULES.


    No delegates, (none / 0) (#201)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    super or pledged, vote until the convention.  When has that ever stopped the frontrunner from claiming the nomination at the end of primary season?

    Obama's comment is just such standard fare, I don't get the outrage.


    You are deliberately missing the point ... (none / 0) (#211)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    ... about not having a majority. Cite instances of candidates claiming victory without having a majority.

    I'm guessing (none / 0) (#222)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:57:00 PM EST
    he may be expecting enough superdels to declare for him after Tuesday to put him over the top.  We'll see.

    Pelosi couldn't even stand up (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    to George Bush.

    I am not especially worried about her, except to the degree that her rhetoric could be damaging.


    True, the Obama supporters will give her an (none / 0) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:07 PM EST
    authority level that adds substance to what she says. Clinton supporters know she didn't all of a sudden develop some smarts.

    There is also a large DNC fundraiser happening (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    on June 4th, 28,500.00 per person. Obama is the featured speaker.

    According to the event organizer, the fund-raiser is meant to signal that the Democratic Party establishment is getting ready to recognize Obama as their candidate and shift Democrats' focus away from the protracted primary with Hillary Clinton and onto the general election against Republican John McCain.

    According to the organizer, "We don't want it to look like a victory party," but rather, "a reality check."



    WTH? Why does these people (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    despise half of the damn Party?

    The New Plutocratic Party: (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    We don't need no stinkin' poor people! (TM)

    someone needs to tell the aa (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:39:07 PM EST
    community that many of their number aren't needed if that is the case. they are looking to democrats to help right things. sad

    You don't have to be poor ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by cymro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    ... to understand polls. Obama cannot beat McCain.

    In MANHATTEN? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    Man, the gall of these clowns.  Some Party.

    And, you can't e-mail her without being (none / 0) (#9)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    in her jursidiction.

    Just left Speaker Pelosi a voice message (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    at:202 225-4965 regarding that she would step in before the convention. I doubt she listens, but I left it anyway.

    I've just emailed her (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    She's the Speaker of the House, so you most assuredly can write to her even if you don't live in her District.

    Oh, I've done it myself (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Just did it (none / 0) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    See my comment in the video / Father Pflegler post.

    I wrote her in relation to this very comment.


    Truly sick. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    I can not believe these hacks.

    She certainly picked the wrong fight! (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    Since this is an open thread, I'll go on a bit.

    If the Republicans, like the Dems in 2006, had suddenly regained power in Congress, no matter how slim the margins, they would have HAD A PLAN.

    They would have been seen, every day, fighting and fighting for what their party stands for. They would have been willing to go as radical as necessary to prove their point.

    Clearly, the only way to end the war in Iraq was either to stop the funding by shutting down the government, or to impeach Bush and Cheney. Those actions should have been taken on Day One.

    Just my opinion, but strong and wrong beats weak and right every time. And strong and right is ALWAYS a winner!

    In this case, Pelosi is both weak AND wrong. Not an attractive combination.


    She's going to step in on this? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    But she took impeachment off the table.

    Methinks she has her priorities outta whack.


    I've said it before: (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    Hillary's job in the days to come (assuming she wins the popular vote) is to go above the heads of the Democratic bigshots and media who are fawning for Obama and take her case directly to the American people, who will certainly listen to her claims that she is entitled to be the nominee because she won the popular vote and because she's more electable.

    This tactic will prove very powerful in shutting up the likes of Nancy Pelosi.


    How Exactly (none / 0) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:36 AM EST
    Does she do this without media coverage?

    My question as well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    Taking to to the people only works if you can talk to the people through a neutral medium. Her giving a 20 minute speech followed by 2 hours of pundits mocking it will not help.

    If she makes the argument, the media will (none / 0) (#133)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    simply have to cover it.

    It will be news; she's still just far too prominent for it not to be.

    I don't doubt but that the media itself will sneer at her, but that's where she'll be able to go over their heads and persuade people directly. People won't generally listen to their arguments -- they will listen to the arguments they find convincing, and those will be Hillary's.


    If the rules (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    committee doesn't fully reinstate MI and FL there will be another reason for her to stay in. Levin has said that he will accept nothing less than full reinstatement.

    She's done a terrible job of standing up to (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    the republicans; what makes her think she will be able to resolve this problem.  Let the will of he people decide.  They have made enough of a mess of this.

    well (none / 0) (#113)
    by boredmpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    I said yesterday I'd vote against CA state and federal reps for being anti-democratic, enabling misogyny, and abandoning the working class.

    Pelosi has shown little leadership because her support is too strong...she has no risk and no downside.  Nonetheless, I will support any dem that opposes her and vote for her opponent in the general in 2010 if she doesn't clean up her act and grow a spine.


    I was thinking about this too. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    My Congressman is supporting Obama even though my district went for Clinton.  

    He won his seat in the most expensive congressional race ever (the one against Jim Rogan who was a House Impeachment Manager).  

    He seems like a nice guy who works hard but I'm really ticked off that he's chosen to support the candidate the district didn't go for.  In my mind, this is one of the most important votes he has in Congress.  I would like him to do "the will of the people" and support Clinton.  

    It's so tempting to NOT vote for him.  


    pelosi is so full of herself, it's a wonder (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    she has any internal organs left.

    There is a really funny video (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:21:12 AM EST
    on NoQuarter called Red State Update, but I don't know how to properly ink it here.

    Masslib....is this it? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    Yes, it's hysterical. (none / 0) (#76)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    ratboat! i saw it awhile back and it is (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    still funny!

    I watched a few of their videos (none / 0) (#145)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:46:26 PM EST
    earlier in the campaign season and thought they were great, but had forgotten all about them. This bit was hilarious. Thanks for the link.

    What so wrong if it goes to the convention? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Saul on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    Can someone tell me what's wrong if it gets to the convention.  I thought that's what conventions were for to discuss your difference and in the end you come up with the best candidate. So it gets rowdy so what.

    Secondly who is Pelosi to tell the rest of us I don't want this to go to the convention.  Like she has some power or something to stop it.

    They do have the power (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    to stop it.  They feel they must.  They know Obama looks worse everyday.  They want no polls, no voting, no protests over FL/MI.  If they are shutting it down, they have the SDs.

    They don't want it to go to convention because they selected Obama years ago and began preparing him to run.  He is their project and they have put a lot of time in to him.

    I am hoping some SDs have a backbone and will push back and represent the people.

     ha! ha! ha!  I made myself laugh.


    LOL - me too (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    so you recall her comment (none / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    about "they are the leaders". what does that make us? well we won't be followers, nancy, at least not in your parade you QX#@@!

    For the record (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    Father Pflegler's comments disgusted me.  The Catholic Church I grew up and attend is about love, peace, harmony, and bringing people together (at least in theory, and that's what I try to get out of it).  If he tried this outside his parish, the congregation would get up and leave.

    I hope the Francis Cardinal George comments.

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM EST
    Father Pflegler's statements are appalling.

    But I also agree with kdog re: freedom of speech. He has every right to look like a complete and total whack job ranting up there on his podium.

    Though I wonder...does the political/HRC part violate 501c3 guidelines?


    Oh (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to say it, but he's also fair game (and by extension Obama) since he even commented that it was streaming video.  Father Pflegler knew this would end up on the internet.  And Obama is fair game since this is a high profile, outspoken supporter of both him and Rev. Wright and since Obama made his religiosity part of his campaign.

    Sure he does, and we have every right (none / 0) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    to apply the teachings of that church to the values and opinions of the long-standing members of it.

    I think Michelle absolutely displays herself to be a very loyal and well-taught student of this church. Obama hides it a little better, though it really does come out in the many times I've seen him look down his nose at Hillary.


    I am surprised that... (none / 0) (#139)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    that church doesn't have the IRS looking at their tax exempt status for using the pulpit for political purposes.

    I also thought that Father Pfleger was over the top but if that act allows him to connect with the needy people in his parish then it's ok with me.

    And in all fairness to that church, it does seem that the tape was edited.

    Having said that, the demonization of Hillary evidenced in that tape is more like the rants of Fra Savanorola than of Mother Teresa.


    HRC and God could both tag team me (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:40 AM EST
    from now until November and I still wouldn't vote for Obama.  They could take me to lunch.  They could buy me a car.  They could offer me eternal salvation.  They could tell me HRC was going to be veep and entirely and singlehandedly run the country as the precious' puppet master.  My answer would still be no.

    And what is happening at TUCC is the embodiment of evil.  It is stoking the fire of hatred and pandering to the baseness in all of us.  It's like ancient blood sport.

    Can you just imagine what the sermons (none / 0) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    would sound like in that church if Obama were to win the GE?

    What if Obama can't give them what they expect?


    South Dakota Might Swing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by flashman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    The word on the wire is that South Dakota might be closer than we've been told.  The demographics would seem to favor Hillary, being very similar to that of KY and WV.  Obama has the advantage in organization and endorsements from the pols in the state.

    Question: It was said that after TX & OH that one candidate can swing the nomination if (s)he wins on the other's truf.  Thus, if Hillary could win in NC, OR, SD, MT, etc... she would then wrap up the nomination.  She already won the 'tiebreaker' in IN.  So, if she pulls off the upset in South Dakota, can she wrap up the win?

    Angarden, what say ye? about this (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:07 AM EST
    that used to be the goal post.  They won't let Clinton have the nom.  She could completely switch SD demonstrating Obama's incredible weakness in the GE, they won't give it to her.  She could take SD and the popular vote and they won't give it to her.  They picked Obama a long time ago and they will have their shiny new toy.

    That being said.... I would have a completely evil grin on my face if she took SD.

    Got some polls?


    It's double-day for Clinton contributions (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by smott on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    You can double your money today

    https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/match1.html?sc=1883&utm_source=1883&utm_medium=e&t a=0

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    I will be perfectly honest.  In a campaign where Obama's campaign co-chair said "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina" on national TV and no one even had to apologize for it, I've pretty much given up on unrequited outrage at this point.

    Consider that the part of Rev. Wright's videos where he brings up the word that Hillary ain't never been called is one of the least-discussed aspects of those videos.

    I'm resigned to the fact that you can say pretty much anything you like about Hillary Clinton, no matter how deranged, and the elites of this country will still consider you perfectly welcome in polite company.  Those appear to be the rules of this campaign, there's nothing I can do about them.  So why get agitated?

    The Hillary part (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    was almost as disturbing as the racism and the GD America stuff. Saying she's never had to work twice as hard as a man was jaw-droppingly stupid.

    Not only was it completely inappropriate to include that political speech in a church, but the remarks also showed a complete lack of recognition of what his female constituents go through every day, regardless of their color.

    Newsflash to Reverends of TUCC: AA women experience sexism, too.



    Exactly (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    I don't go to church, so maybe I'm out of the loop, but when did preachers start ridiculing political leaders in their sermons? That is not the Catholic church I grew up with.

    Another Newsflash: Catholic priest denigrates women.


    at this point hillary could wear a (none / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    red star on her chest, chant "i really dig castro" and any other outrageous thing, i still wouldn't vote for obama. i'll vote down ticket all day for the dems based on performance. but no way no time no how!

    I wish preachers would stick to G_d. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:34:04 AM EST
    And leave politics out of it.  Or if they need to open their mouths, then stick to the Issues - justice, charity, equality, the common bond of humanity and divinity.

    But coming across as a Public Access political ranter is not what I think religion should be about.  I wish he had been on Public Access, then I wouldn't have seen the audience standing up and applauding.

    I suppose I shouldn't say anything.  I only ever attended small Catholic churches without the pretty building and interiors, the great lighting and most definitely without the live streaming video.  When did church services stop being about People and God and start being Media Events?

    Some preachers have a hard time separating (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    themselves from G*d.

    McCain's VP vetting team spotted ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    One upside (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:07 AM EST
    The one thing this election does mae clear (and its a good thing) is that functional atheism, such as that held by McCain, Clinton and even Reagan and Bush Sr. (seriously, name any of there actual pastors) is the way to go-- belief is a handicap and frankly its about time!

    Now the downside, there is literally no way a tangental church issue, especially a sermon delivered by a guest speaker when Obama was in PR, can be what derails the man, at least in terms of the nomination. I'm sorry, but Clinton's rosy numbers as of present would nosedove if Supers moved en masse to her, especially among the African-American community, and I think deep down we all know this to be a fact.

    It's (4.50 / 2) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    more into the narrative about Obama's bad judgement. Obama has claimed that it was only Wright not the church. Well, it is the church and not just Wright. Obama continues to be a member there telling us what his values and beliefs are. He's been taking his children to that church too.

    Obama embraces Wright's ideologies! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    and a major reason I won't vote for Obama.
    Obama has deflected his Empty Suit by relying on race-baiting, hatemongering, and fearmongering to drive his campaign.
    Of course none of this would be possible without the elite Washington and media establishment ignoring it and promoting him.
    I'm no longer affiliated with the Dem Party because I detest being aligned with any organization that condones race-baiting and false accusations of racism against opponents.

    O-kay (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    Nice little rant there, I mean sure it isn't backed by anthing but I guess its good to vent.

    my comment is based on evidence (none / 0) (#102)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    but it's not found on Obama blogs that dismiss anything negative about Obama that the GOP would use in the general.
    Obama "brushing Hillary off" the bottom of his shoe while laughing along with the crowd is the same laughter Wright incites with his racist rants and hatemongering.

    Obama has consistently demonstrated Wright's ideologies in words and deeds.


    No beliefs (none / 0) (#109)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    Then Obama is your man. I find no evidence that he believes in anything except his willingness to become president. He's impossible to pin down. According to Los Angeles Times, he alternately went to a mosque and a Catholic Church as a child. He supported last fall in Kenya the candidacy of his relation Odinga, an Episcopalian who apparently supports an extreme form of Islam. (This last has been very scattily reported by the press to date, and is complicated by some flakey blog-reported stuff.)

    He jettisons his affiliations and "beliefs" easily, when they prove a barrier to his ambitions.

    Despite being photographed in front of a cross at a pulpit, I don't see much working evidence of any kind of "belief" -- just a vanity about being able to be a chamelion (sp?) in a world where others are giving their lives for their commitments.  

    I am a committed person -- committed to things other than myself -- and I find this troubling.

    The most reassuring thing about Obama -- and no one comments on this -- is his obvious commitment to his wife and children.  At least there's one group of people he's not willing to throw under the bus.

    Given an alcoholic, polygamist father and a flakey misfit mother -- this is no mean achievement. And I mean that seriously.


    UNITY TICKET ALERT (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:46:44 AM EST

    Michigan (600 LVs, May 19-22, MOE +/- 4%)

    Obama/Clinton 51
    McCain/Romney 44

    McCain 44
    Obama 40

    h/t Tdd Beeton

    Then put the stronger candidate on top of (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    the ticket.  I wonder what happened to the meritocracy.  Apparently, job experience is no longer a requirement for POTUS.  

    You can keep arguing for it (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    but I don't think it's going to happen.

    Yes, I know you POV. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:07 AM EST
    I frankly find that a defeatist attitude.  In politics, you make your argument and hammer away.

    andgarden, you and btd both (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    make excellent points and i just love unity ponies, but the other side isn't listening. they are concentrating on running for the side of the cliff it seems.

    Re: Rev. Pfleger (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Chimster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    Now I remember why I don't go to church.

    He's playing to the audience. It's Barrack's church. Of course they want to hear that stuff. The only issue I have is that he's fanning the flames of racism. But that's what that particular church wants to hear. If it's Pro-Obama, I don't think it matters whether it's the truth or not. If the congregation didn't want to hear it, they'd leave. Just like Barrack did for the past 20 years.

    Obama wants to lead the Dems to religion (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    in talking more openly about religion and making it as important a part of the party value system as it is to Republicans.  Of course he uses the more user-friendly word "faith". That is what I find outrageous.

    I don't want any politician's religious advisors in my face. I don't want my political leaders to even have a religious advisor.

    Unbelievable..really..they can't let it go (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM EST
    Michelle Obama Calms Supporters' Fear of Threats to Obama

    When asked about her husband's security in the White House and Clinton's RFK remarks at a Phoenix fundraiser Tuesday, she reassures the crowd saying:

    "Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk. It's not funny. You don't have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk."


    that is calming fears? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    "Be vigilant" ?

    Considering she has been stoking the fears all along, this is really somehting.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    It is not good to stoke the fears or the hysterical tears of the fawning masses. Especially not now and not using veiled references to Hillary Clinton.

    Be Vigilant...sounds like a call to action.


    a little perspective (none / 0) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:48 AM EST
    Um, its a prevalent fear among the African-American community, seriously, I realize that it may not seem real to you, but especially given the Assasination rate of major African-American leaders in American history, its not a baseless concern.

    Yes but what exactly does this..... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    ...vigilance entail? It's as if she's deputizing the crowd. Reminds me of the Bush administration asking us to report "suspicious" people.

    But it's okay with you if she keeps smearing (none / 0) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton in the name of concern?

    well if you want to take it into historical (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:31:13 PM EST
    context, a number of "white" politicans and leaders have also been assasinated. i appreciate the concern that the senator's campaign would have for his safety however.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    With all due respect to those who believe it is absolutely critical to unearth every detail of Obama's uncle's military service, this is absolutely hilarious.

    uncles and great-uncles (none / 0) (#114)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    The reality -- and this backs Jeralyn's point on a separate thread -- is that it's impossible to confuse an uncle and great uncle.  Think of your own.  Could you possibly confuse what Uncle Ned is with great-uncle Joe? Different people, different generations, and you know both of them.

    Plus his mother was an only child.

    This really does suggest the family history is coming from handlers and researchers, and that's why it's so easy to screw up.

    And that says a lot.


    Heh (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    I have a great-uncle who I have always referred to as an uncle.  I have a great-great-aunt who I have always referred to as an aunt.  Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't think so.

    yeah but (none / 0) (#137)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM EST
    the confusion was deeper than that.

    Read Jeralyn's thread. It hangs together. He doesn't know much about family, and stories are being groomed and trotted out for presentation.

    It confirms the point I made below that this whole thing is being seen as manipulating perceptions, rather than dealing with the reality of who he is.


    You are not alone in that... (none / 0) (#138)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    ...in my family we don't discern between great uncles/aunts or even 1st/2nd/3rd cousins.  It is much too complicated.  I have Aunts, Uncles and cousins.  

    The people who keep trying to make this non-issue into one are no better than the wingnuts that Sadly, No! are calling out today.  


    yeah and i say great uncle! (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:40:53 PM EST
    obama meant this and really meant that. been there done that!

    and (none / 0) (#206)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    Auschwitz is almost the same as Buchenwald, anyway, right? Germany ... Poland ... what's the difference anyway.

    You're right. It's not a big deal, except that it illustrates Jeralyn's perceptive point.


    Come on... (none / 0) (#213)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
    ...why don't you do all the way and tell us all that he really didn't have relatives that served in WWII and he's just making it all up?  His mother was an only child, there are no records of his great uncle enlisting, etc.  

    You're not a very good water (Kool-Aide) carrier.


    and neither are you. (none / 0) (#230)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    Ah... (2.00 / 1) (#237)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    ...but I'm not trying to suck up to J like you are.  I'm simply LOL'ing at you.  

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#259)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    I've p.o.'ed Jeralyn plenty, and will undoubtedly do so in future. But I think her point was a good one, and I refer you to it once again.

    Auschwitz is just another opportunity to make something personal. A PR thing.  BHO acts like Auschwitz happened to bring us him.


    You can refer me to it all you want... (none / 0) (#268)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    ..and I will still say that you are no different that a commenter at Red State or Power Line.  

    Ever been to Auschwitz or any other camp?  Did you loose family there?  If the answer is "no", you have nothing to add to the conversation.

    I happen to appreciate everyone of his uncle's generation that fought so that more people did not die under these horrendous circumstances.  You want to make it some petty vendetta against Obama.  Shame on you.  


    one gaffe by itself is no big deal. (none / 0) (#228)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    repeated gaffes in his  books and speeches says a great deal and it isn't good.

    I knew my great-uncles very well.. (none / 0) (#218)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    saw them several times a year. And we all referred to them as "Uncle" not great-uncle. If I am referring to them today, they are deceased, I say, "Uncle Soandso, who was my grandfather's brother". I am not saying that Obama was personally familiar with the people he cites, but I am simply pointing out that in ordinary usage saying uncle when you refer to a great-uncle is quite acceptable. Other than that, I agree with you on his not knowing them well, or being interested in them as anything but stories on the campaign trail. That seems to be his main interest in other people, how he can use them for his own benefit.

    it is a small part of the problem. i am sick (none / 0) (#229)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    of seeing of obama gaffes which are never ending it seems  and excused while hillary is attacked without mercy.

    Me too, which is why I try (none / 0) (#277)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    to be very fair when it comes to Obama and his utterances.

    well that is all well and good, however (none / 0) (#289)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:09 PM EST
    it the reverse true? no, it isn't. calling obama on his stuff is important and not making excuses for him. enough of that has been done by the media.

    Call him on stuff that matters, (none / 0) (#295)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    not taking something and blowing it way out of proportion. That is Obama's way of doing things. See?

    none of us cares about obama's uncle (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    or great uncle as the case may be. we care about his lack of candor, his continued "mistakes". hey he even misses the correct number of states. so don't try and show distain for concern about the welfare of our country when a "light weight" president is now finishing 8 years of disaster.

    Has Obama agreed to (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    give up the "white half" of all his monetary sucess in name of reparations?

    With friends like Pfleger, who needs enemies? (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    Pfleger's all about self-promotion, and clearly doesn't give a damn what effect he has on Obama's electability. Gotta question the political judgement of Obama's friends at Trinity giving him the pulpit just now.  

    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    Who cares if he smokes?

    I'm more concerned about the free passes he's been given on Wright and other issues by the DNC.

    In any other election, he would have been weeded out for these associations and gaffes (and guilt-by-association is a legal term -- it doesn't mean you don't consider a person's character in light of who they hang with; this is common sense).  

    Giving him a free pass isn't simply a matter of magnanimity.  The reason they were dropped in the past is that these kinds of issues tend to resurface with other ramifications.  They tend to flag character issues that will surface in other ways.  They make the candidate unelectable.

    That seems to be the case with this guy so far.  

    My Obama-campaigning friends, after the Wright story broke, said, "What would you like him to say?"

    This illustrates exactly the problem. The Obama fans tend to see things as public relations issues, image problems, rather than reality problems.

    He really does have a character issue -- not a perception issue.  It's not what he says, or how he presents himself, it's who he is -- and I'm not talking about race.   I'm talking about his inability to commit, his inability to make a statement and stick to it, I'm talking about choosing his associations on the basis of how they will advance him, and jettisoning them when they don't (like the "typical white grandmother" who paid for his expensive Hawaiian education, for one).

    People see this.  The Appalachians who are paying for their patriotism by sending their children to Baghdad see it.  They detect flimsiness and opportunism and elitism -- because they've had to pay all the way.  

    I said to an Obama supporter recently, "With Hillary, we know who her team will be." I have no idea, given who Obama surrounds himself with, who will be on his team. (And if they're halfway decent, can we elect them?)

    Wright was on his campaign team before the scandal broke.  Had it not broken, would he or Fr. Phleger be leading the National Prayer Breakfast?

    There's every reason to question the judgment of this man.

    It's not his ideas or his policies -- it's HIM.

    No one cares if he smokes, they care that he (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST

    It's yet another one of those things that give us pause. Why lie about these things? Why is it so hard for him to just tell the truth about things that don't matter?


    Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk !!! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by TalkRight on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    When asked about her husband's security in the White House and Clinton's RFK remarks at a Phoenix fundraiser Tuesday, she reassures the crowd saying:

    "Send us good vibes. Pray for us. Think positive thoughts. But most of all, be vigilant. Be vigilant about stopping this kind of talk. It's not funny. You don't have to like Barack to dislike that kind of talk. Be vigilant about stopping that kind of talk."

    But when your husband's campaign is the one trying to spread such talk .. how can you say that with a straight face.!!

    frankly i have a real concern that some (none / 0) (#181)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    overly excited supporter from the other side just might do hillary harm. remember brushing off his shoulders, shoes, and giving her the bird. he excites people to high emotions and often it is quite negative.

    What an ass. (none / 0) (#217)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    That's it.  I will do every thing I can to stop that horrible woman from becoming First Lady.

    I have no outrage (4.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    about what the good father says, because to me, the good father can say whatever he wants to say and his parishoners can listen if they want to.  As long as I don't have to attend that church, it's not my problem.

    My only concern is how it affects the attitudes of my president AND OF the people he would appoint.

    So for me, it's not about Pfleger, or me judging Pfleger.  It IS about Obama, because Obama affects ME.

    Me either..... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    no outrage.  Party on Trinity Church!

    Besides...it's nice to have some left-leaning religous loons get some airplay, that domain has been dominated by right-leaning religous loons for far too long.  Especially considering that Jesus, by any estimation, was a left-leaning loon himself.

    For outrage I look at prison population numbers, and Iraq War/Occupation casualty numbers...not loony-toon preachers.


    BTD, the reason some reacted the way they did (3.12 / 8) (#33)
    by Jim J on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    was because of your laughably disingenuous statement that "First of all, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama..."

    If I didn't know from previous experience that you were not born with a sarcasm gene, I'd say that was tongue in cheek. Sadly, no.

    It's all part of a strange pattern that you and Jeralyn both employ: Post something obviously meant to inflame your readers and provoke maximum comments, while denying that was your intention with silly, silly statements like "First of all, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama."

    Then to top it off, you both dare posters to "cross the line" when they notice this tendency of yours. The line of course being as arbitrary as possible each time.

    I know the temptation to make as much hay as you can while the pro-Hillary dKos exiles are temporarily clustered here is hard to resist. But try once in awhile, it will help your site in the long run.

    It isn't temporary (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Manuel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    I am not going back to DKos.  I prefer truly reality based writers/sites with consistent positions.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    It's because BTD didn't want 200 comments like "How dare you suggest that Barack Obama is responsible for this rant."

    Because BTD didn't suggest that.

    Will this video be politically detrimental for Obama notwithstanding the fact that he's not responsible for what was said?  Most likely.  Frankly, from the fact that the reparations stuff was included, I think we can all see where the editor of the video was coming from.


    Comments here (3.00 / 2) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    are rated on their level of pro-Hillary sentiment.

    The most bizarre and incoherent comment that is pro-Hillary comments are regularly high rated.  Non-pro-Hillary rated comments are regularly troll rated.

    Quality of the post has almost no bearing on the ratings here.

    Pfleger (1.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:49 AM EST
    While I disagree with Pfleger's sentiments, I don't really see how thery're all that different from a rather common complaint amogn clinton supporters that a "Boys Club" steeped in to take the nomination away from a woman (see: Ferraro, et al), I mean don't both of these sentiments share the same fevered paranoia? How is one more acceptable than the other?

    Pulpit (none / 0) (#99)
    by jes on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    OK, I'll bite (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    and I just "1-rated" your comments and your complaints.

    State your case politely and without insulting people and you won't find many of those ratings from people here.  Accuse the women here of "fevered paranoia" because we object to rampant misogyny, and you'll get a few 1's.

    This is not an Obama blog and you need to adjust your tone accordingly.

    And I troll rated you... (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    ...because everyone has a right to speak their mind if they do so within the terms of this blog.  Nowhere does it say that you must "adjust your tone accordingly".  

    It is sad that you can't carry on a conversation without trying to drown out the other side.  Did you learn that from Rush?


    Heh (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    How does a 1-rating attempt to "drown out the other side"?  Does it make the comment show up in smaller print or something?

    And I down rated you (none / 0) (#168)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    just because it feels good to be part of a silly conga-line of 1 ratings. And to prove to you that a 1 rating does not "drown out the other side", which is in fact a silly point to try to make. Your comment will not disappear or even get moved to the bottom of the thread. I don't as a rule down rate anyone because I think that people get side-tracked by the rating and take it too personal (tend to think its a comment on their personal worth) but this seemed like too good an opportunity to miss. I look forward to my comment now being 1 rated!

     By the way, if you rate a comment a 1 it actually moves higher in the list than an unrated comment does.


    Oh... (none / 0) (#225)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    ...my life is ruined!  Whatever shall I do?  I guess I have no option but to put an end to this sad sorry life that has been dealt to me.




    How can we push back at her? (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:02 AM EST

    Push back on Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    and her gang of cheaters by calling for Clinton, doing GOTV and supporting our girl in any way we can.

    Obviously, notes of protest, marches, threats to leave the party and general outrage and disgust will not sway them.

    All we have left is our votes.


    Writing and calling is still important (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    Believe me, they keep count of how many communications they are getting on each side of an issue.

    If they change our votes to caucus' (none / 0) (#25)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    we will not even have that@!

    Check this out....maybe there is going to be (none / 0) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    more trouble for obama...



    Once the Primaries are over (none / 0) (#74)
    by katiebird on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    There will be plenty of time to find out more about this Obama guy.  And a lot of people will be surprised about the details of his past.

    It's going to be a long summer for the Democratic leaders.


    I wanna know now....we can't wait. Of course, (none / 0) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:54 AM EST
    you already know that...copied this off the CNN news page this morning.

    go figure, murdock just said obama (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    will win in a landslide. me thinks mr murdock is trying to stir the pot. that will get the repub sideline siters active i think.

    McClellan & Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by Manuel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    As I explain in this book, Washington has become the home of the permanent campaign, a game of endless politicking based on the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth, and spin. Governing has become an appendage of politics rather than the other way around, with electoral victory and the control of power as the sole measures of success. That means shaping the narrative before it shapes you. Candor and honesty are pushed to the side in the battle to win the latest news cycle...

    Ironically, much of Bush's campaign rhetoric (in 1999-2000) had been aimed at distancing himself from the excesses of Clinton's permanent campaign style of governing. The implicit meaning of Bush's words was that he would bring an end to the perpetual politicking and deep partisan divisions it created. Although Washington could not get enough of the permanent campaign, voters were seemingly eager to move beyond it.

    Barack Obama, like Bush, is campaigning to bring and end to deep partisan divisions.  Like Bush, he will find it impossible to do.  The nature of the media has changed fundamentally. Gotcha and quick responses are the order of the day.  I don't see how we get back to the pre partsan times, if we were ever there.  As we have seen, community based media (left blogs) don't guarantee rationality or less partisanship.  In fact, it may do the opposite.

    Interesting interview with McClellan this (none / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    morning on Today.

    He very clearly compared Obama to Bush. TODAY does post most of their segments on the MSNBC video site.


    Pfleger (none / 0) (#36)
    by mareknyc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    The second part of the sermon excerpts are unfair - no different from suggesting that Obama feels he's entitled to the nomination because he's a man. She feels the same way any more experienced and senior politician would in this situation.

    The first part - if you don't feel guilt, then either you don't have a sense of American identity and thus find the idea of guilt, pride or any feeling of emotional connection to the US, its actions and its history irrelevant - nothing wrong with that, though it's not this immigrant's child position. Or you are historically illiterate. Or you do think of yourself as an American, are aware of Jim Crow and slavery, yet feel no guilt about that. And that makes you a racist.

    The "entitlement" part (none / 0) (#44)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:48:08 AM EST
    is the rhetoric I despise on a personal level.

    If you have power and privilege, then it is your obligation to use to help others and not just yourself.  That message is fine by me.

    But to say that I am guilty for whatever any white person did or didn't do for any black person in this country and as a result I owe them?!  I'll be sure to pass that on to my siblings, half of them are your average blue collar getting by working class folks.  I'm sure they'll get a huge laugh out of the trust fund and 401(k) references.

    The Hillary stuff I despise on a political level.  It completely disrespects someone for nothing that she actually did, but because of what she is - educated, wealthy, white, female, connected.

    Whatever happened to judging people on the "content of their character"?  I guess it's easier and more satisfying to stuff a straw woman and smite her down.


    guilt (none / 0) (#89)
    by mareknyc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    You aren't guilty in any sort of formal legal way, anymore than present day Germans are for what happened in WWII. But as an American you are, unless you don't consider yourself an American, then, well, why should you feel guilty.  The stuff about 401k's and trust funds is rhetorical hyperbole and generalization - obviously most white Americans don't have trust funds. Equally obviously white Americans are on average far better off than black Americans, something which has everything to do with America's history of racism.

    A different way of saying the same thing (none / 0) (#38)
    by SoCali on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    There is nothing "going on" at Trinity that should not be part of the national discussion. What did Rev. Pfleger say that did not hold truth?
    I would question what is being said in Catholic churches that accounts for that blocs voting behavior. There is something seriously missing in that message.

    National dialogue on race? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    Is this what Obama envisioned?

    What did Pfelger "say that... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    ...did not hold truth?"

    A better question would be "what did he say that DID hold truth?"

    Two certain untruths uttered by our latest Trinity pulpit racist are:

    1. That those of us who are the distant relatives of early Americans who supported slavery are responsible for those long-dead relatives' actions.

    2. That Senator Clinton feels she is "entitled" to the Presidency.

    Site Formating (none / 0) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    Is anyone having formatting issues?  I have mine set on nested and it used to default to threaded.  Now it defaults to flat which is a pain in the rear to read.  So I set it on threaded and it defaults to flat.  This is a new issue for me and has only happened in the last couple of weeks.

    I have logged in and out.  I have deleted Talkleft from my favorites and added a new one.  Nope, still defaults to flat, it is driving me up the wall.

    What do you have yours set on?  How do I get it to quit going to flat?

    Yes, me too (none / 0) (#72)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    At first I thought I was doing something wrong since I am rather new at this.  Usually it happens when the comments number over 150, but not always.

    No it's new (none / 0) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:11:41 AM EST
    and annoying.  Does it seem to coincide with when the site was down for work?  

    BTD/Jeralyn.... could something have happened to the defaults and couldn't it be fixed?


    I have the same problem (none / 0) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    if I open a post where the comments have closed - it defaults to flat.  Then I have to change it back to Nested/SET in an unclosed post

    NOT fine with Pfleger! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Coral on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    I guess the DNC is waiting until the general election to confront the issue of this inflammatory rhetoric by Obama's church.

    I find the rhetoric divisive and hateful.

    It is also going to spell big trouble for Obama in the fall.

    Do I like the hateful rhetoric coming out of some white religious conservatives? No. Don't like that either.

    Perhaps we will have Youtube videos of "dueling pastors" in October/November.

    What I'm starting to hear when Pelosi speaks (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    is noise.  I should be appalled at what she is saying, but then again, this is the same person who categorically took impeachment off the table because it wouldn't be good for the country; am I to understand that she thinks subverting the election process is good for the country?  Someone needs to publicly ask her that very question.

    Please.  Pelosi wants her very own gold-plated ATM card to use at the Bank of Obama and thinks helping him to short-circuit the process will do the trick.  Wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that she is using threats of non-support to strong-arm however many still uncommitted SD's there are in Congress.  It has noting to do with the actual principles involved and everything to do with power; she must believe Obama will be the next president and will punish her somehow for not being on the bandwagon.  Yeah, things sure will be changing in Washington if Obama is elected, huh?

    For my money, you could put Pelosi, Harry Reid and all the other jello-spined Dems on a large raft and set it adrift in the middle of the ocean, with nothing but transcripts of their weak and wishy-washy speeches to entertain themselves with.

    even better, send them home and (none / 0) (#186)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    let them watch some new pols get in there and show them how it is done. that will work!

    Wrong... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    Pfleger has  a LOT to do with Obama: he is one of Obama's official spiritual advsiors (and proudly featured on Obama's webpage all this time!).

    And there is more that is money realted from Pfleger to Obama dn for Obama to Sabina at the tune of 200K.

     (NB:   I'm commenting here to the previous post of Pfleger since comments are closed there.)

    I posted a comment on the first thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    and then came back because I had not said enough.  Someone recently said that blacks and the hillbilly hicks of Appalachia had similarities. I know my great aunt had to hitch herself to the plow while her little boy steered it.  Yes, my folks could have 'passed' at first glance when they came down to town--until they opened their mouths, that is.  Fact is, tho, they loved the mountain life and didn't move to town until  TVA flooded them and the Park chased them out. Those are the two things that enabled people who lived in the Smokies to climb onto the success ladder--two things that the FDR dems got started.  Slavery and the civil war had only made it harder for them.

    Obama is the one to pay reparations (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    since he is descended from slaveholders.  Slavery is not in his heritage.  But he has slaveholders in America on his mother's side and in Africa on his father's side.  So I look forward to his discussion of reparations.  (Pfleger is an ahistorical fool.)

    Until about 30 minutes ago (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    I had never heard of Father Phleger.  

    His comments seem fairly obnoxious but I'm not sure why I should care about them.  

    I never cared much for the 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon game.  Always seemed kinda pointless to me.

    You haven't been paying (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    attention.  It's a trait of Obama supporters to ignore and WORM everything for Obama.  This pastor was out about the same time as Wright and linked to Obama.  If you don't think it will matter for the GE, fine.  Dems think a distant relationship between McCain and Hagee is a huge deal and keep trotting it out.  Go figure.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    Hagee endorsed McCain and McCain accepted the endorsement.  That was the entire bone of contention.  Had he rejected his endorsement, as he eventually did, immediately it would have been a non-issue.

    I don't get the daily ObamaHater newsletter so I was unaware that there was another preacher that people were blaming Obama for.


    You just made my point (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    Dems get to spin Hagee (McCain has since rejected him and very strongly, much more so than Obama) so the Repubs get to spin Wright and this new pastor.

    It's not a matter of Obamahate newsletter. It's the GE.  Why Obama supporters keep harping on the primary and refuse to pivot to the frigging GE is beyond me.

    Try moving on and looking at how this will impact voters that Obama will need to win in November.  If Dems are cringing at this, how do you think moderates, indies and the Repubs Obama needs to win are going to look at this stuff.


    Huh? back at you (none / 0) (#157)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    Pfleger has not only endorsed Obama but is one of his spiritual advisors. If you are going to justify the criticism of McCain because of Hagee's endorsement, you are being incredibly hypocritical to dismiss out of hand any criticism of Obama for the much closer relationship he has with Pfleger.

    i am not the best informed person here (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    and even i knew who he was. he is also a friend of bill ayers.

    RBC (none / 0) (#95)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    Another person is scheduled to speak for Florida at the RBC meeting May 31.

    From The Buzz

    The Buzz is that longtime Hillary pal Arthenia Joyner will be making the Clinton campaign's presentation to the DNC's rules and bylaws committee. The Tampa state representative, an attorney and civil rights activist, goes way back with Clinton.

    And for those keeping track so far that is:

    Jon Ausman, DNC member, uncommitted currently but former Kucinich supporter and the one who brought the appeal

    Raul Martinez, Clinton supporter and former Hialeah mayor who is currently running against Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart for a House seat

    Janee Murphy, Obama supporter and DNC member

    Senator Bob Graham, uncommitted currently as he doesn't want to declare prior to the RBC meeting and former Governor and former Senator

    Senator Bill Nelson, Clinton supporter and current Senator

    Rep. Arthenia Joyner, current state Rep who is speaking for the Clinton campaign

    I don't even understand your point. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:36:58 AM EST
    But most people don't even bother to rate here and nobody really cares about ratings so don't get worked up about it. I don't think anyone should downrate you because they don't agree with you either.

    Rove, Libby, McClellan (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edger on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
       Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan says George W. Bush's political guru Karl Rove arranged a private meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in 2005 when the two men were under mounting suspicion for leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson.

        Calling the scene "one moment during the leak episode that I am reluctant to discuss," McClellan writes in his new memoir that "in 2005, during a time when attention was focusing on Rove and Libby, [the meeting] sticks vividly in my mind. ...

        "Following [a meeting in Chief of Staff Andy Card's office], Scooter Libby was walking to the entryway as he prepared to depart when Karl turned to get his attention. 'You have time to visit?' Karl asked. 'Yeah,' replied Libby."

        In the new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and the Culture of Washington Deception, McClellan doesn't offer substantive evidence that Rove and Libby used the meeting in 2005 to coordinate their cover stories.

        "I have no idea what they discussed, but it seemed suspicious for these two, whom I had never noticed spending any one-on-one time together, to go behind closed doors and visit privately," McClellan writes.

        "At least one of them, Rove, it was publicly known at the time, had at best misled me by not sharing relevant information, and credible rumors were spreading that the other, Libby, had done at least as much," McClellan said. "I don't know what they discussed, but what would any knowledgeable person reasonably and logically conclude was the topic?"

    More of McClellan's role at The Public Record...

    People are getting mighty sensitive. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    Anyway, I don't think you are a troll. Just a wee bit misguided sometimes. :-)

    Heh (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    Well I feel the need to bring you guys onto the path of the righteous. :)

    Sometimes I get upset with some of the people here.  And I think there are a couple of people here that are Republican sock puppets.   But most of the people here are just passionate about their candidate, just like Obama supporters are(can't say that McCain's supporters are passionate about him).


    STILL on that gum? (none / 0) (#129)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    He started trying to quit when he announced for his presidential run over a year ago.

    Clearly, he only uses the gum when he's unable to find a place where he can privately smoke. I wonder if there's a warning on that gum for how long you can use it.

    More racism from Trinity. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    I am competely outraged at this latest example of pulpit racism and political activity at Trinity (and also wondering how they keep their IRS exemption). If the Trinity congregants tolerate racism (no -- encourage racism), then why on earth are we about to choose one of those congregants to represent us in the General Election?  Til now, I think I would have voted for Senator Obama despite the Wright mess, but this shows a problem endemic to the church Senator Obama calls his spiritual home and it's tipping me over to the idea that I can continue to support the Democratic line, but skip the Presidential row.

    Super-Delegates: pay attention to Trinity racism now or enjoy the fruits of it in November.

    Would you agree that (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    the priest is characterizing Clinton as an individual based on the stereotyping of whites as a group?  He is doing so.  So it is racism.

    (And, of course, he is characterizing Clinton as an individual based on the stereotyping of women as a group, too.  So it's a two-fer.  It is sexism, too.)


    No, he's not. Cite anything specific (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    about Clinton that he cites, other than that she is white and a woman.  

    That's just foolish of you. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    As her aspirations are hardly expectations, as she knew what she would face owing to her gender -- do keep in mind that an AA male won primaries before, as Bill Clinton noted, although you called that a racist comment.

    But no woman ever won even one primary before . . . although more than 30 women have run for president before.

    If she truly was running from a sense of entitlement, she would have done so after only a year in the Senate, and with one of the worst voting attendance records in the Senate, and without ever calling a meeting of any committees even if chairing them, etc., etc.

    But that is your candidate's record.  He is the one with the sense of entitlement based not on experience but . . . on what?  Answer that truthfully, and then you'll see the problem.


    Nonsense. Then your candidate's (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    constant claims that he has won the nomination, when he still hasn't done so, nor can he do so without the requisite number of pledged (repeat, pledged) delegates, reeks of entitlement.  And not for his record.  So what is the basis of his unfounded sense of entitlement?

    (Your second sentence is so similarly unfounded and contrary to the evidence that I entirely ignore it, as you clearly have nothing serious to contribute to discussion of that.)


    prove it or be quiet. (none / 0) (#252)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:02:25 PM EST
    And exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    ...what gives you the right to tell people to be quiet?  

    naw, telling someone shouting out personal (none / 0) (#283)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    bias here and i think you know the difference. but it more fun to pretend otherwise, huh.

    i didn't ask rev wright, clinton, obama, (none / 0) (#285)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    michelle, donna brazile to prove anything. i asked you.

    Here's how... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    His saying that those of us who are the long-distant relatives of early American slave owner society are enjoying the "entitlements" of, and thus are responsible for, the actions of our forebearers.  That's piting today's Americans against each other on the basis of race and stoking racial fires -- i.e., racist.

    Maybe not your or certain academics'... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    ...definition of racism, but to most of us, any fanning of the flames of race is racism -- no matter what words you want to cloak it in.

    And, by the way, Pfleger's "sermon" was no "discussion".  It was your garden variety racist rant.


    First you'd have to tell me how... (none / 0) (#227)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    ...discriminatory lending practices used by bankers against African-American (and I assume others) "props up whites" and how "the vast white middle class benefits from that racism".

    Just how does that work? For example: in the current mortage loan crisis, who benefited from the disproportionate failed mortgages within the African-American community?  "Whites" in general? Or just banks/mortgage lenders and their shareholders?  And how many of those very bankers, lenders, and shareholders are African-American?  And why are those proportions present? Are African-Americans also discriminated against in stock purchases?  A lot more to all this than just charging racism against all "whites".  Let's see more of that paper.


    clearly you are kidding. (none / 0) (#258)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST
    either get that paper you claim you wrote on here with some points that prove what you say or can it.

    mccauley i don't need your help. (none / 0) (#267)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    your ignorance and arrogance astounds me. may i suggest you stop assuming whites are responsible for your problems. you have no clue who you are sharing posts with and what they have done in their life. you make a lot of assumptions shout out half baked theories and want us to applaud and agree. naw, no thanks. me thinks you are a chatterer!

    make assumptions and it points at you. (none / 0) (#276)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:23:38 PM EST
    Hasn't stopped... (none / 0) (#279)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:27:08 PM EST
    ...Michelle and Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Robert Johnson, or the legions of African-Americans living in suburbs (some quite upscale -- ever been to the Maryland suburbs?), working in government and the private sector, and working in and running America's companies. Sure, all that's been slow in coming, but it came (and in a rush since about 1975) because of BOTH the collective efforts of African-Americans and "whites" AND because of the individual initiative of those African-Americans who have and are succeeding in their reach for the "American dream".  Things are not right yet, but they're going to be, and sitting around arguing about "white" oppression, lineage guilt, and the like isn't going to advance things one iota. It never has. Just as the talk of "reparations" never got beyond African-American academe.  That's not going to happen, but individual (and ultimately, group) success is happening (and has already happened) and will continue despite appeals to racist instincts.

    So You Disagree With MLK (none / 0) (#294)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    In that racism should not be discussed because it will eventually just go away on its own.

    You can't put words into my post squeaky... (none / 0) (#297)
    by Larry Bailey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:23:28 PM EST
    ...I didn't write/think what you said I did.  Re-read my posts and you'll be clearer on that.

    It also again shows Obama's (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    advisor's lack of knowledge or at least willingness to own his own candidate's history -- as one candidate is descended from slaveholders, and it's not Clinton.

    it doesn't fit your definition. to you everything (none / 0) (#286)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    appears to be racism. sad

    Meanwhile the thundering (none / 0) (#298)
    by jondee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:39:08 PM EST
    silence continues in regard to unhinged, mega-church Pastors who preach the inevitability/desirability of Armageddon in the M.E and continue to have the privilege (for them) of audiences with McCain and Lieberman.

    Would that people got half as fired up about Hagee calling from the pulpit for immediate, preemptive strikes against Iran as they do about the scary, boogie men who will show up in black berets in Wonder Bread land if Obama's elected.


    The REAL problem with Obama's (none / 0) (#149)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    campaign. There just aren't any Obama advocates on TeeVee!!!
    teh stupid---it burns!

    Doesn't BTD have to leave and (none / 0) (#151)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    renounce the UCC now?
    I mean, it won't work, but that would be the consistent thing to do, given that he has rejected Wright... unless he just did that because Wright called him a politician..

    OOOPSS.. please delete the comment (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    I meant Obama.
    BTD is welcome to go to whatever church he likes..
    I just want everyone to know that I'm ok with Santeria.

    The hatred being preached on that video... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Moishele on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    is not indicative of the majority of black churches in the US. Locally we have several religious TV stations most of which run services from large black churhes in the area. I love to listen to them because of the depth of their emotion and excitement.

    Preachers will talk about how a people who have been enslaved can more easily understand what the Hebrews suffered, and perhaps have a better grasp as to the things that enslave us all today. Not once have I ever heard hatred preached because it directly contradicts the Christian message of liberation.

    What I just saw preached at Trinity has nothing to do with liberation. They are wallowing in pain rather than celebrating their release.

    What entitlement? (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    By 13 my father was in prson. By 15 I was working fullime and helping with houehold bills. By 17 I joine the military. When I reenlisted I gave my bonus to my parents to pay property taxes(not that it helped mind you mom ended up losing the house after my stepdad died). I had a peiod oftime where my mom and her three kids, my adult brother, me and m son lived in a two droom home after she lost the house. I've busted my butt for everything I have(and believe you me that mos peple wouldn't think my everything was much).

    I was disgusted when my neighbor's son informed my daughter couldn't be friends with her because she was friends with an AA. I am equally disgustd when an AA paints all white individuals as the same.


    I don't need to research it (none / 0) (#223)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    It's a made up term used to divide poor whites and poor blacks.

    There is no "ntitlement" when you are poor and white. You get stopped by the police same as your black counterparts. You live in crummy neighborhoods with drug and gang problems. Same as your black counterparts. You struggle to pay the bills and when stuff happens are forced to grovel. Same as your black counterparts.

    There is no white entitlement. It's a myth.


    Poor whites do (none / 0) (#250)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    and I dare you to find evidence that proves otherwise.

    How About (none / 0) (#253)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    Haven't read it (none / 0) (#290)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    Don't really think I need to. As a white American who grew up first in an affluent neighborhood and then found herself being raised by a single mother I can tell you right now there was no "entitlement." I can remember having to rely on a church food pantry like it was yesterday. I remember wearing hand me downs and going without. I remember almost blowing my shot in the military because when the choice was between guaranteed money in my pocket(the job I held down as a teen)I was about to toss my HS diploma(Only the intervention of my stepfather prevented this). I remember the temptation of drugs and alcohol and the wanting to fit in somewhere. Anywhere.

    As an adult I've experienced being profiled. One of the tms I was stopped the officer was even honest enough to admit it was because there is a problem with methamphetamines in the trailer parks and that they have had success with catching people with outstanding warrants when stopping people when they are walking. The difference between when my husband was stopped in an old Buick beater in El Cajon California and when he was stopped in a Pathfinder on his way to the base on Coronado is night and day. My husband has long hair and dresses in ratty jeans and shirts it is not uncommon for him to be stereotyped or followed around a store.

    I'm going to say it again. The idea that whites experience "entitlement" is bunk. Not only that it is divisive. It' better to fix the problems that the poor face as a whole then just try and blame your problems on a demographic.


    More pooly how? (none / 0) (#265)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    Minorities are more likely to be incarcerated but minorities are also more likely to be poor. So is it their minority status that caused it or their social status? I'd posit it's their social status.

    Nothing gets my hackles up more than hearing I've lived a life of entitlement simply because of my skin color. It's a big darn lie.


    White Denial or Inexperience? (none / 0) (#274)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    If you think that AA's are treated the same as whites (poor or rich), you are seriously gated in your US experience.

    Gated? (none / 0) (#291)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    Dude(or dudette), I spent a year and a half overseas. You don't know me. Don't even pretend you do.

    True I Do Not Know You (none / 0) (#296)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST
    And have not pretended to but your comments make it clear that you have little experience with the US black experience.

    I spent 12 years in the military (none / 0) (#299)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    during that time I roomed with two AA women, two hispanic women, and two filipinas along with a host of white American women . Dated an AA man.  My sister's significant other is AA and they have a child together. My daughter's best friend is AA. Please do not tell me what I do and do NOT have significant exposure to.

    However, if it makes you feel any better one of the AA females I roomed with was absolutely surprised at how similar our experiences were(eating mac n cheese was definitely not a black thang and I got huge props for sending home money). We ended up being good friends.

    Calling people entitled because of their skin color is discriminatory. My struggles to escape poverty are no less or more than anyone elses based on the amount of melanin in my skin. The one in five children who go to bed hungry are not all AA. We do no favors when we diminish what they go through simply because their skin is lighter.


    I have no such thing (none / 0) (#293)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    and it is beyond the height of absurdity to pretend you know anything about my life of so called entitlement.

    I've stayed out of jail because I haven't broken the law. When the police have stopped me there has been no cause for arrest. It really is that simple. It has nothing to do with "entitlement."

    My father was white and imprisoned. Why? Was it some vast conspiracy to hold him down? No. He broke the law. He shot someone and the penalty in Florida was a three year minimum. He ended up doing 7.


    and you need to get off your high horse (none / 0) (#238)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    of racial entitlement and everything is never your fault but another group's. i am beginning to understand why trinity might appeal to you.

    you haven't researched issues. you went (none / 0) (#261)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    looking for a point here and there and rushed out to proclaim the validation of your own bias.

    yeah and i happened to have written (none / 0) (#272)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    a paper on racism in lending for hud and it was published by the federal reserve. sir, you thinking and continuing to shout out on here that your biases are all accurate and we are fools for not seeing your little biaes as reality is wrong and pathetic.

    So What Did You Discover? (1.00 / 1) (#281)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    Or were you hired to prove that race is not a factor in salary, lending, or living conditions in the US.

    BTW are you paid to blog for Hillary?


    Are you an official spokesman for (none / 0) (#162)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    Obama? I hope so.

    Because I am a Hillary supporter. (none / 0) (#164)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    You are funny. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    Of course I don't think you mean to be.  I implore you to write as many op-eds as you can between now and the August convention announcing both your status as an Obama supporter and your belief that white people are evil and currently unworthy of salvation as the sage teachings of the One's church remind us.  If you could also please follow Obama around with a "white people suck" sign in one hand and an "America is evil" sign in the other wherever he goes that would also be most appreciated.  Make sure you always wave them in front of the camera.  

    no, you are the one confused and (none / 0) (#241)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:47:27 PM EST
    helping defeat your candidate. i say go forward and yell it from street corners. good luck with that. you might also give away videos of that speech we are discussing. i am sure you don't want any potential obama supporter to miss that.

    so? can the bull and stop (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    condoning hatred. that won't win for obama and it won't help race relations.

    it is spewing out of your posts. (none / 0) (#242)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    but the misguided hater rarely sees it as he blames everyone else for his troubles.

    pfleger is a sorry example of a (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:53:50 PM EST

    Yes, it is possible to discuss (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    privilege and entitlement -- by whites or by others, as that also exists -- without hate.

    However, Pfleger is not an example of that.  He is using Hillary-hate as a substitute for actual discussion.  And that makes him hateful -- as it does anyone who doesn't see it but only excuses it.


    Hillary-hate (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by jondee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    what a hysterical, transparently manipulative crock.
    In our current sound-bite, bumpersticker, psuedo-political culture it's as good a discussion sabotager as any other, though.

    Why do I keep experiencing a kind of deja vu related to the plethora of pinheads (hey, that alliteration stuff is catchy!), four years ago wielding the H word at very oppurtunity in regard to "Bush haters"; "America haters" etc?

    Obviously what needs to be conveyed is that whoever disagrees with US can only be completely in the grip  of an irrational emotion and not motivated by any rational considerations. How on earth could they possibly be?


    ahh, see the hatred. (none / 0) (#273)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM EST
    Wow. You don't even get (none / 0) (#221)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    that ridicule is hateful?  As your candidate would say of you, that's just makes you . . . sad.

    you deserve it. you blame others and refuse (none / 0) (#244)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM EST
    to look at yourself. the finger points back at you. ridicule? that is all the obama campaign has ever given hillary. shame on you!

    "the moving finger writes." (none / 0) (#288)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    too funny!

    black racism and entitlement (none / 0) (#263)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    are the basis for the theology at trinity. is it yours as well since you so heartily proclaim their teachings on here. it is sure isn't what mlk taught. don't try that pathetic attempt at picking a quote here and there either.

    i suggest you go reread king and then (none / 0) (#275)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    quote it to yourself. stop using king for your own personal bias and hatred.

    and you sir are a good example of (none / 0) (#280)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    someone who blames society and everyone else for your problems. that won't get it solved or make headway but it is easier than looking at yourself.

    Do you agree that reparations (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    ought to be paid, at least by descendants of slaveholders?

    You let slaveholders' descendants (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    off the hook?  But want reparations from the rest of us, the taxpayers -- as just who do you think is "the U.S. government," who do you think is the source of its funds?  Explain.

    You're still not addressing the question (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    but just mouthing useless generalities.  Why should you, as a taxpayer, pay reparations?  Answer that.

    and there is something very wrong (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    with those who see teaching hate as fine and the group that hates is entitled. you have the problem and you are not part of the solution judging  by your words.

    The problem is (none / 0) (#224)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    with people who insist it DOES exist and ignore the reality that there are poor whites who live under the same societal conditions poor blacks live in.

    keep it up! and get there shouting this (none / 0) (#236)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    bull. you are doing more to aid obama's failure in november than anything we can say or do. have at it!

    NY GOV OKs Gay Marriages (none / 0) (#240)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    As long as they were done in a state where it is legal. NY does not perform gay marriages, yet.

    Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property.
    Paterson cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.
    While gay rights advocates hailed the move, the feeling was not unanimous.


    Paterson defended himself Thursday, saying: "This is not an end run around the Legislature. I am following the law as it always has existed."

    He said failure to issue the directive would leave the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived gay couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states.

    Of his critics claiming the action is unconstitutional, Paterson said they "should get a little better informed."

    Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there.

    Canada is among the nations where gay marriage is legal. In California, gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 -- unless that state's Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling.


    Has There Ever Been (none / 0) (#247)
    by squeaky on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    Restitution here like there was in Germany by companies that used slave labor from concentration camps?

    It has been more than a century since Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman ordered that the coastlands confiscated in the Civil War be divided into 40-acre plots and distributed to thousands of former slaves.

    After Abraham Lincoln's assassination, Andrew Johnson rescinded the order and took back the land that had been distributed. Since then, the idea of compensating African-Americans for the sins of two and a half centuries of slavery has hovered in the background, far from reality. But now the movement for reparations is gaining steam.


    Guess not. Had Father Pflege been a soft spoken ACLU lawyer having zero association with Obama would the reaction be different here?

    says you! (none / 0) (#278)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM EST

    ABC has it (none / 0) (#292)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM EST