Wright crosses the line, Obama cuts him loose.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So, if I'm following this correctly: Candidates can accept all the support and endorsements they want from bigoted, homophobic, racist fucks without penalty. But if one's officially associated with a candidate's campaign, says what the rest are saying a bit more bluntly, and is promptly fired... well that's just too damned bad! Who cares what your actual policies are? Who cares about everything you've been saying for your entire campaign trail? You had a bad person on your campaign team, and even if you disowned them once they made an ass of themselves, you're not getting my vote!

[Big Phil]

So, if I'm following this correctly: Candidates can accept all the support and endorsements they want from bigoted, homophobic, racist fucks without penalty. But if one's officially associated with a candidate's campaign, says what the rest are saying a bit more bluntly, and is promptly fired... well that's just too damned bad! Who cares what your actual policies are? Who cares about everything you've been saying for your entire campaign trail? You had a bad person on your campaign team, and even if you disowned them once they made an ass of themselves, you're not getting my vote!

Whether he'll come out and admit it or not, that's exactly what Master of Ossus is saying. Unfortunately for Obama, I suspect an awful lot of white people have been waiting for exactly this sort of thing to pop up, just to give them (in their minds) a valid excuse to justify their own bigotry and not vote for him.

[Master of Ossus]

A job that, not coincidentally, he doesn't hold anymore. And considering the long association between Obama and Wright, I doubt he gave him a litmus test before appointing him.

Usually we expect litmus tests of "insane vs. not-insane" before we hire someone.

And for heaven's sake, look at the job title. Head of the "African American Leadership Committee." Yeah, this is a guy who's in line for a high-level government post, where he can waste our tax dollars investigating the AIDS conspiracy!

And, again, he was associated with Obama in an official position. I don't know why you don't see this as being an issue, at all. Campaigns tend to have these BS positions around specifically for people they can take with them in the new administration.

Maybe in a perfect world, he would have. But like the average person, Obama probably thinks the best of his friends.

What would Obama have to do in your eyes to atone for his association for this friendship, that he has not already done? Your answer to this question should prove illuminating.

I think he has to explain why he officially associated with the guy in the first place. Obama hung out with this guy for 20 years, hired him onto his official campaign staff, and he never realized he was a nutcase until the press pointed it out for him? Do you honestly find that to be a credible story?

I look forward to seeing the evidence for this. McCain is actively courting this sort of voter.

Yet he did precisely that. From Degan's link:

He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression.

This is an outfit I almost never agreed with and so this is another case where we have disagreement," McCain said.

Why are you harping on this like it's actually offensive? It is more biologically than morally implausible. The US has been in the war crimes business for years and vigorously defends its right to torture (non-white) foreigners. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of the US government's deliberate murder of dozens of black people with the syphilis bacterium?

You don't find such a thing offensive? His line is self-evidently false, and the only reason he's saying it is because he is a racist and a conspiracy theorist. You don't find that disturbing, at all? You cannot understand why such a thing would be disturbing?

[Master of Ossus]

So, if I'm following this correctly: Candidates can accept all the support and endorsements they want from bigoted, homophobic, racist fucks without penalty. But if one's officially associated with a candidate's campaign, says what the rest are saying a bit more bluntly, and is promptly fired... well that's just too damned bad!

Yes. Crazy people have a right to vote in this country, and I don't have a problem with a candidate because a crazy person says that they like him. There's a MASSIVE FUCKING DIFFERENCE between receiving a vote from someone and hiring them onto your campaign staff, where you are expected to promulgate and articulate the views of your candidate, and to advise your candidate.

Who cares what your actual policies are? Who cares about everything you've been saying for your entire campaign trail? You had a bad person on your campaign team, and even if you disowned them once they made an ass of themselves, you're not getting my vote!

Total strawman. I'm saying that having nutjobs on your campaign staff is something that a voter might reasonably consider when selecting a candidate. Do you not agree?

[SirNitram]

Does it matter if the target in the conspiracy theory is 'people of color' or gays?

I suppose not, but who said that?

Gods, I've seen that one all over. Couldn't even guess who made it up. The 'Government Made AIDS to wipe out <Insert minority>' conspiracy has been around ages.

Then again, I read conspiracy theories for fun. Wright is just one of many who bought into the 'It's a bioweapon to remove the undesirables!' bullshit that's been around since I was young.

[Big Phil]

So, if I'm following this correctly: Candidates can accept all the support and endorsements they want from bigoted, homophobic, racist fucks without penalty. But if one's officially associated with a candidate's campaign, says what the rest are saying a bit more bluntly, and is promptly fired... well that's just too damned bad!

Yes. Crazy people have a right to vote in this country, and I don't have a problem with a candidate because a crazy person says that they like him. There's a MASSIVE FUCKING DIFFERENCE between receiving a vote from someone and hiring them onto your campaign staff, where you are expected to promulgate and articulate the views of your candidate, and to advise your candidate.

Seems like you're the one offering up a strawman here - Jeremiah Wright was a volunteer, not a hired staffer.

[Master of Ossus]

Gods, I've seen that one all over. Couldn't even guess who made it up. The 'Government Made AIDS to wipe out <Insert minority>' conspiracy has been around ages.

Then again, I read conspiracy theories for fun. Wright is just one of many who bought into the 'It's a bioweapon to remove the undesirables!' bullshit that's been around since I was young.

I mean, there are still people out there that believe the US faked the moon landings (and the 9/11 attacks, and....). That doesn't mean that I'd want to see a candidate that put one of those guys on their campaign staff.

[starfury]

You don't find such a thing offensive? His line is self-evidently false, and the only reason he's saying it is because he is a racist and a conspiracy theorist. You don't find that disturbing, at all? You cannot understand why such a thing would be disturbing?

Drop to in a bucket compared to the long list of offensive trash, that the others spew, but hey Obama needed to be White as Snow before People will really trust him, but the others will suffer nothing for having far worse Racist garbage. like Evil Liberals are appeasing terrrorists, are traitors and any who disagree are anti-american traitors, no way right.

[Master of Ossus]

Seems like you're the one offering up a strawman here - Jeremiah Wright was a volunteer, not a hired staffer.

Conceded. Again, though, Obama put him into an official campaign position. That's not disturbing to you? That Obama can have a close relationship with someone for TWENTY YEARS, assign him an official position on his staff, and not realize he's a racist nutjob until the press points it out for him? Moreover, whether or not the guy was paid to be on Obama's staff does not change the fact that as an official on the campaign trail he was expected to carry out certain duties for Obama, such as advising him and promulgating his message. You honestly see no legitimate reason for any reasonable voter to be concerned about something like that?

[Anguirus]

Usually we expect litmus tests of "insane vs. not-insane" before we hire someone.

Not in politics, apparently.

And, again, he was associated with Obama in an official position. I don't know why you don't see this as being an issue, at all. Campaigns tend to have these BS positions around specifically for people they can take with them in the new administration.

What official position in the government do you think Wright was in line for?

What harm would he have been likely to cause in this position?

I think he has to explain why he officially associated with the guy in the first place. Obama hung out with this guy for 20 years, hired him onto his official campaign staff, and he never realized he was a nutcase until the press pointed it out for him? Do you honestly find that to be a credible story?

Frankly, yes. My guess is that he knew that Wright had some extreme views that he did not share, but I also very much doubt he was cheering "God Damn America!" or buying his conspiracy theory BS. I find it quite possible that he was not aware of the full extent of Wright's radicalism, considering how swiftly he moved to distance himself from the guy once the story broke.

Yet he did precisely that. From Degan's link:

Don't make me laugh. Those statements are transparent ass-covering and you know it. This does not compare in any way with Obama's angry denouncement of the man who married him and his wife.

While I do not think McCain is a Catholic-hating fundie, I do think he desires their votes and so you won't find him "failing to accept" endorsements as Obama did with Farrakhan. (See Mr. Bean's new thread for more hypocrisy.)

Oooh! Oooh! What if Obama put Wright on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION, rather than "merely" firing him and angrily, publicly ending his friendship with him?

But no, that wouldn't be sufficient. Obama having an Angry Black Preacher means he must be an Angry Black Man which means he'll, I dunno, kill Whitey or something.

You don't find such a thing offensive? His line is self-evidently false, and the only reason he's saying it is because he is a racist and a conspiracy theorist. You don't find that disturbing, at all? You cannot understand why such a thing would be disturbing?

Your reaction suggests to me that you find it more viscerally disturbing than anything else. After all, you aren't the government...so why are you so offended when he busts out a wacky government conspiracy theory?

Are you more offended by stupid white kids suggested the government blew up the Twin Towers, or by a stupid black man who thinks the government invented AIDS to kill blacks...considering, of course, that within his living memory the US government was an accomplice to the murder of dozens of black people using syphilis!

I find Obama's treatment of Wright to be more than sufficient to assure me that he does not hold the same views. The media and Clinton's treatment of the Wright issue is transparent race-baiting, and they will seize upon the issue no matter what Obama does. Congratulations, you bought the hype!

(Here's another dirty little secret...if you are remotely familiar with American society you know that black "racism," morally indefensible as it may be, is essentially no fucking threat to your safety or your social position at all. The reverse is not, and has never been, true.)

[Darth Wong]

I think it's pretty damned sad that in the 21st century, a presidential candidate needs to have a "spiritual advisory committee" at all. But I'm sure all three candidates have something to that effect.

And what's really sad is that Wright has been made a pariah for one reason: he is theatric. Really, you can probably find people among the religious associates of all three candidates who routinely say things just as inflammatory as what Wright said, but they say it in standard white politico-speak, whereas Wright says it in black preacher-speak, ie- bombastic as hell. So they say "American society is corrupt" or "New Orleans was the judgment of God upon a sinful nation" and nobody bats an eyelash, but Wright slams his fist on a podium and says "God DAMN America!" and people freak out. Same EXACT sentiment but totally different reaction.

A white person associated with another campaign said that they thougth the US invented the HIV virus to kill people of color? Really?

Don't be a pedantic shit-for-brains. They've said things just as ridiculous and/or hateful, not necessarily exactly the same. They've blamed lesbians and gays for 9/11 and Katrina. They've claimed that gays and lesbians are uniformly unfit to be parents: so unfit, in fact, that they should be disallowed from marriage while convicted felons are not. They've blamed pornography for all forms of social immorality. They've blamed secularism for inciting Al-Qaeda to attack the west. They've claimed there's a giant worldwide conspiracy of lies to promote evolution and global warming.

Name anything Wright has said which is worse than any of that shit, which comes not just from people vaguely attached to Republicans but actual ranking Republicans themselves in many cases. Tonight on The Daily Show, Newt Gingrich even came right out and said that the big problem with Wright was his intensity, probably because he knew that the substance of Wright's claims is no worse than half the shit being pumped out by the Republicans on a regular basis.

[Master of Ossus]

Not in politics, apparently.

Again, the closest thing to this that anyone in this thread has come up with were two people who were LOOSELY associated with McCain that he denounced and who never held official campaign positions.

What official position in the government do you think Wright was in line for?

What harm would he have been likely to cause in this position?

In what government position would you want to see someone like Wright?

Frankly, yes. My guess is that he knew that Wright had some extreme views that he did not share, but I also very much doubt he was cheering "God Damn America!" or buying his conspiracy theory BS. I find it quite possible that he was not aware of the full extent of Wright's radicalism, considering how swiftly he moved to distance himself from the guy once the story broke.

I don't think Obama was cheering Wright's statements, either, but I'd rather like him to explain what he was thinking with the guy. One does not go THAT crazy overnight without one's close associates noticing a change.

Don't make me laugh. Those statements are transparent ass-covering and you know it. This does not compare in any way with Obama's angry denouncement of the man who married him and his wife.

What? My parents never once talked to the person who married them after the ceremony was over. But, moreover, what was McCain supposed to do with Quinn? The guy wasn't on his staff, so he can't kick him off of anything. Can you fire someone from a position you don't even control?

While I do not think McCain is a Catholic-hating fundie, I do think he desires their votes and so you won't find him "failing to accept" endorsements as Obama did with Farrakhan. (See Mr. Bean's new thread for more hypocrisy.)

I'm sure Obama wants Catholic-hating fundies voting for him. Every candidate wants votes. Not every candidate puts overt racists on their campaign staff.

Oooh! Oooh! What if Obama put Wright on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION, rather than "merely" firing him and angrily, publicly ending his friendship with him?

I understand why some people are satisfied with Obama's response to Wright's remarks, but I do not agree with you that his story checks out. One does not maintain a close friendship with a racist nutjob for 20 years and never realize it, nor does one put such a person in an official position.

But no, that wouldn't be sufficient. Obama having an Angry Black Preacher means he must be an Angry Black Man which means he'll, I dunno, kill Whitey or something.

Oh, please. I'm not arguing anything remotely like that, and you know it. I'm saying that a reasonable voter could be concerned with a candidate who never once notices in 20 years of friendship that some guy is a raving lunatic.

Your reaction suggests to me that you find it more viscerally disturbing than anything else. After all, you aren't the government...so why are you so offended when he busts out a wacky government conspiracy theory?

I am viscerally disturbed by his statements. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone who claims to have researched the matter would find such a statement credible unless they were batshit insane.

Are you more offended by stupid white kids suggested the government blew up the Twin Towers, or by a stupid black man who thinks the government invented AIDS to kill blacks...considering, of course, that within his living memory the US government was an accomplice to the murder of dozens of black people using syphilis!

I don't know that either of them is more offensive.

I find Obama's treatment of Wright to be more than sufficient to assure me that he does not hold the same views. The media and Clinton's treatment of the Wright issue is transparent race-baiting, and they will seize upon the issue no matter what Obama does. Congratulations, you bought the hype!

I think it's fair enough that YOU are satisfied with Obama's treatment of Wright, but can you not conceive of a reasonable voter who would still be unhappy about it? Because that's what we're talking about.

(Here's another dirty little secret...if you are remotely familiar with American society you know that black "racism," morally indefensible as it may be, is essentially no fucking threat to your safety or your social position at all. The reverse is not, and has never been, true.)

If you admit that black racism is morally indefensible, then WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING SOMEONE WHO IS A BLACK RACIST? Why are you comparing someone else's comments about Catholic beliefs to racist remarks made by a black man? Moreover, what does it matter whether or not black racism is a threat to my safety? 9/11 conspiracists, holocaust deniers, and alien-abduction theorists are not a threat to my safety, either. I think a reasonable voter could take issue with someone with such beliefs being given an official position in a major government campaign.

[Gil Hamilton]

John McCain would still be humping Jerry Falwell for political cred if the foul old monster hadn't went and died, and Falwell trumps Wright in terms of sheer bigotry.

Hell, alot of those evangelicals that McCain is very prominently farming for endorsements have Wright trumped even on HIV craziness. They've been beating the stump that HIV is punishment from God on gays and society in general for more than two decades.

[Havok]

My problem with this isn't what he thinks or said. He can say the US invented Small Pox to kill the Indians or that gravity is an insidious plot by the CIA to kill suicidal jumpers for all I fucking care. What pisses me off is the fact that HE IS OPENING HIS DAMNED MOUTH AT ALL!.

You think America is racist? Well then by all means, sabotage the best chance yet to help show that all men truly ARE created equal. Open your dumb fucking mouth and get the all the progress Obama has created with "white" America erased. Way to go cock. Way to help black America take it's biggest and most important step in history. Dick head.

[Master of Ossus]

Don't be a pedantic shit-for-brains. They've said things just as ridiculous and/or hateful, not necessarily exactly the same. They've blamed lesbians and gays for 9/11 and Katrina. They've claimed that gays and lesbians are uniformly unfit to be parents: so unfit, in fact, that they should be disallowed from marriage while convicted felons are not. They've blamed pornography for all forms of social immorality. They've blamed secularism for inciting Al-Qaeda to attack the west. They've claimed there's a giant worldwide conspiracy of lies to promote evolution and global warming.

Name anything Wright has said which is worse than any of that shit, which comes not just from people vaguely attached to Republicans but actual ranking Republicans themselves in many cases. Tonight on The Daily Show, Newt Gingrich even came right out and said that the big problem with Wright was his intensity, probably because he knew that the substance of Wright's claims is no worse than half the shit being pumped out by the Republicans on a regular basis.

I'm not defending the statements made by other Republicans, nor am I saying that what Wright said is worse than those comments. But BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES (which are by far more news-worthy than anyone in Congress), Wright's comments are the worst. Now, I think that theatrics play into Wright's comments because he certainly comes across pretty poorly, but I think that there's more to it than JUST theatrics--the substance is bad, too.

[SirNitram]

I'm not defending the statements made by other Republicans, nor am I saying that what Wright said is worse than those comments. But BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES (which are by far more news-worthy than anyone in Congress), Wright's comments are the worst. Now, I think that theatrics play into Wright's comments because he certainly comes across pretty poorly, but I think that there's more to it than JUST theatrics--the substance is bad, too.

Hagee, who said Katrina was caused by Gays, was specifically sought for political endorsement by McCain. McCain is still happy to have that endorsement. I would say you 'BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL CADNDIDATES' objection is empty.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You know, I'd be more concerned about the what the candidates have said and done, then what their crazy friends have said. There are plenty of bad eggs in the nest, and what surprises me quite a bit, is that the media hasn't been harping of Hillary's litany of lies, than some bits of unpatriotic or even racist nonsense, considering that even Bill Clinton, a former damn President, belittled Obama back in S. Carolina in racist overtones.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm not defending the statements made by other Republicans, nor am I saying that what Wright said is worse than those comments. But BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES (which are by far more news-worthy than anyone in Congress), Wright's comments are the worst. Now, I think that theatrics play into Wright's comments because he certainly comes across pretty poorly, but I think that there's more to it than JUST theatrics--the substance is bad, too.

Are you kidding me? The Twin Towers were still smoking when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson went on television to publicly blame gays, feminists, et cetera for causing it and John McCain made a grand display and event out of currying Jerry Falwell and getting him associated with his campaign. He even gave the commencement address at Falwell's brainwashing camp... er... university in order to prove how cool he was with him.

Yet, somehow, Obama not being quick enough to completely condemn a local pastor (which he just did) is some how worse than going out of your way to get the endorsement of people who put kids in horrific programs that literally attempt to beat the gay out of them ?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The idea that somehow Hagee, Falwell, and Robertson were not more public and high-fanfare associated figures for McCain than Wright (a volunteer, not a sought-out, give-a-TV-speech endorser) is total bullshit. Obama accepted the volunteering of his pastor and did not seek to identify with him directly or indirectly, publicly or privately. McCain publicly, deliberately, and repeatedly sought identification with, association with, and the support of these assholes. Contrast with Obama who denounced (and then "denounced and rejected") Farrakhan's comments. Face it, the problem is America is culturally-societally stilted STILL toward anti-black racism, homophobia, and religious insanity. Therefore expressing stupid angst against white people is hateful bigotry but ranting and raving about gays and lesbians being the cause of 9/11 (a much more hateful claim, implying average innocent Americans deserve brutal fucking deaths for having tolerated the presence - not even equal treatment - of a minority).

Pull your head out of your ass.

[Illuminatus Primus]

After the parenthesis in the second to last sentence should read, "...) is a-okay, after all, gays and lesbians are not people, but old whites are. And of course, Wright isn't even saying bad things should happen to old whites, just that he's a paranoid ignorant traumatized by REAL LEGAL FUCKING RACISM IN HIS YOUTH and believes conspiracy theories about them hurting blacks. So much more offensive to imply the GOVERNMENT (not a random selection of innocent whites) is attacking blacks with AIDS than random people deserved to die because ALL AMERICAN tolerates lesbians and gays.

[Darth Wong]

Only in America could you have a political party full of torture apologists who have the unmitigated gall to attack Obama for having a family pastor who says offensive things. Or a three-candidate presidential race where two of the candidates approved torture and the Iraq invasion and the third candidate is the one who's being accused of offending American values. Or a Democratic nomination race where Hillary Clinton is in bed with the big health insurers while pretending to be an advocate for the poor against those same health insurers, but that association isn't making news at all while the other guy's family church association is headline news.

The really sad thing is that, as Colbert pointed out humourously on his show, the Democrats are in danger of doing the same thing they did in 2004: leaning toward the candidate who seems more friendly to right-wing sensibilities. Who wants that crazy Howard Dean with his fiery ideas and principles and a televised scream, when you can have a political maneuverer like Kerry? And who wants inspirational Obama with some weird fiery friends, when you can have a political maneuverer like Clinton?

[Vympel]

Only in America could you have a political party full of torture apologists who have the unmitigated gall to attack Obama for having a family pastor who says offensive things. Or a three-candidate presidential race where two of the candidates approved torture and the Iraq invasion and the third candidate is the one who's being accused of offending American values.

Well I don't know about torture, but I'd make the case that fighting pointless aggressive wars is an American value, given recent decades

[Superboy]

I actually don't find it too hard to believe that Obama didn't know about Wrights opinions.

I had the same pastor for most of my life. I went to church every week for over a decade and listened to him preach. I even saw him socially a few times, went out to play pool with him and things like that. He was a great guy.

I found out last year that he believes world politics are being manipulated by aliens.

Even if you have a close relationship with your pastor, it shouldn't come as a surprise that he has some bizarre opinions you don't know about yet.

As for his "God Damn America" comments, I wouldn't see a problem even if Obama did know that's how Wright felt. To be honest, I wouldn't see a problem if Obama had said it himself. I want a president who believes that America needs to be fixed, because it does. A president who thinks America is great just the way it is won't improve anything.

[Patrick Degan]

Again, the closest thing to this that anyone in this thread has come up with were two people who were LOOSELY associated with McCain that he denounced and who never held official campaign positions.

Wrong. Hagee was sought as a major endorsement for the Fundie vote, and Quinn has been a McCain political consultant since his 2000 campaign and is still listed as a "senior political consultant" according to McCain's own website:

Richard Quinn, a senior political consultant to the McCain campaign, rejected the notion that bad blood exist today between the senator and regular party members loyal to President Bush.

"I do not see any evidence of that in polls," he said. "McCain has high favorables in South Carolina. I think he's very popular."

In what government position would you want to see someone like Wright?

Your evidence that Wright would have even been considered for such, if you please. And by "evidence", I do not mean inference but a statement of Obama's or a report from the campaign trail that the man was actually on a list for possible staff or cabinet position.

I don't think Obama was cheering Wright's statements, either, but I'd rather like him to explain what he was thinking with the guy. One does not go THAT crazy overnight without one's close associates noticing a change.

He did. In Philadelphia and yesterday when he denounced him.

Don't make me laugh. Those statements are transparent ass-covering and you know it. This does not compare in any way with Obama's angry denouncement of the man who married him and his wife.

What? My parents never once talked to the person who married them after the ceremony was over.

Red Herring.

But, moreover, what was McCain supposed to do with Quinn? The guy wasn't on his staff, so he can't kick him off of anything. Can you fire someone from a position you don't even control?

"Senior Political Consultant" according to McCain's own website. There is also this, from the other article I linked to:

In 2000, People For American Way called on McCain to fire Quinn, listing his disparaging of Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist," his promotion of David Duke ("What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke?") and his selling of t-shirts praising Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

McCain wouldn't fire him. He rejected the guilt-by-association charge, defending the man and disavowing the publication. From the Associated Press ("Bush, McCain Dogged on Racial Issues," 2/18/00, available on Nexis):

McCain, meanwhile, refused to fire campaign adviser Richard Quinn as requested by the private group People for the American Way. Quinn edits the magazine Southern Partisan, which has published racially charged articles.

"This is a fine man who worked for Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond and other fine people. This is an outfit I almost never agreed with and so this is another case where we have disagreement," McCain said.

McCain said he did not consider Quinn a racist and had never read anything written by him.

And McCain still works with Quinn. The Washington Post this month described Quinn as the "longtime adviser [who] directed the senator to a crucial victory in the Palmetto State." Politico reported (link via Daily Kos' Hesiod) that McCain paid Quinn's firms $184,000. An article reposted on McCain's website describes Quinn as "a senior political consultant to the McCain campaign."

You have no argument.

I'm sure Obama wants Catholic-hating fundies voting for him.

And Obama courted such voters... when, exactly?

Every candidate wants votes. Not every candidate puts overt racists on their campaign staff.

And what evidence do you have that Wright was playing so much of a role in Obama's campaign that Obama was actively seeking the anti-white racist vote? Oh, and again, by "evidence", I do not mean inference.

I understand why some people are satisfied with Obama's response to Wright's remarks, but I do not agree with you that his story checks out. One does not maintain a close friendship with a racist nutjob for 20 years and never realize it, nor does one put such a person in an official position.

Inference is not evidence, no matter what your personal comfort-level has to say on the matter.

I'm saying that a reasonable voter could be concerned with a candidate who never once notices in 20 years of friendship that some guy is a raving lunatic.

He could if said candidate has given any indication of taking a more militant and radical position than one he has exhibited throughout his entire legal and political career. Obama has not.

I am viscerally disturbed by his statements. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone who claims to have researched the matter would find such a statement credible unless they were batshit insane.

Which is sort of why Obama has disassociated himself from Rev. Wright. Unlike Johnny-boy who has yet to reject Hagee or the rest of the lunatic Religious Right, whose votes he is actively courting.

I think it's fair enough that YOU are satisfied with Obama's treatment of Wright, but can you not conceive of a reasonable voter who would still be unhappy about it? Because that's what we're talking about.

He could if said candidate has given any indication of taking a more militant and radical position than one he has exhibited throughout his entire legal and political career. Obama has not.

I think a reasonable voter could take issue with someone with such beliefs being given an official position in a major government campaign.

He could if said candidate has given any indication of taking a more militant and radical position than one he has exhibited throughout his entire legal and political career. Obama has not.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well I don't know about torture, but I'd make the case that fighting pointless aggressive wars is an American value, given recent decades

Grenada was fucking asking for it, what with its aggressive runway construction and 1944 model 76mm anti tank guns of doom.