anyone see this? the reverend seems far more reasonable than he does in the sound clip that hannity cannot stop playing....i sure hope obama is ready for the swiftboating (new noun? verb? adverb? )he's getting and is going to get for the next primaries...

I will watch the whole thing when I have some time....I just watched the first 4 1/2 minutes and so far, nothing out of the ordinary. Nonetheless, it's not as though Obama has ignored that some of the statements Wright made were hurtful and inflamatory. He acknowledges and agrees with that. People say, well, why didn't he denouce/disown the pastor? I'd ask this: would you denounce and disown your parents if they said something offensive? Would you denounce/disown your children if they said something offensive? Would you denounce/disown your closest friend/ confidant because he/she said something offensive? My answer is no - I don't give up on people because I disagree with them...right Gus!?

Kessler? Good God Jombl, how disappointing. Will you be quoting from Ann Coulter anytime soon?

If one steps back, takes a deep breath, and takes down their immediate defense field, I think there can be SOME truth found in SOME of the remarks Wright made. Yes, some of the statements are based on fear and a desire to blame someone for many bad things. And I would even say that some statements are hateful. So, even if these were actual statements made by Wright, that doesn't mean Obama agrees with or believes eveything he says.

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:

quote:

Kessler joined the Washington Post as an investigative reporter and continued as a staff writer until 1985.[2] In 1972, he won a George Polk Memorial award for Community Service because of two series of articles he wrote—one on conflicts of interest and mismanagement at Washington area non-profit hospitals, and a second series exposing kickbacks among lawyers, title insurance companies, realtors, and lenders in connection with real estate settlements, inflating the cost of buying homes.[3][4] He was also named a Washingtonian of the Year by Washingtonian magazine that year.[5] In 1979, Kessler won a second Polk Award, this one for National Reporting for a series of articles exposing corruption in the General Services Administration; he won even though his editor, Ben Bradlee, had not submitted his stories for consideration

After leaving the Washington Post, Kessler authored seventeen nonfiction books on politics and current affairs.

For those of you who don't know, Widipedia tells us: The George Polk Awards are a series of American journalism awards issued annually by Long Island University in Brooklyn. They were established in 1949 to remember George Polk, a CBS correspondent slain covering the Greek civil war. They are awarded in categories, which change annually and may include:

* Foreign Reporting
* Radio Reporting
* Photojournalism
* Economics Reporting
* Business Reporting
* Labor Reporting
* Legal Reporting
* National Reporting
* Internet Reporting
* Magazine Reporting
* State Reporting
* Education Reporting
* Local Reporting
* Television Reporting

So, Kessler was awarded a Polk 30 years ago for exposing hospitals in DC. And lawyers/title company kickbacks. Think those are still going on today? Those were also the days when investigative journalism was a spectator sport. He hasn't been a journalist in over 20 years. Now he just gives windbag opinions. And in an Amazon.com search, the regular circus of right wingnuts shows up on the "if you like this trash, you will love this." And there, my friends is the lovely (erp) Ann Coulter.

I would never want to spar with Amy or Ron on national politics but...maybe this is some food for thought..or maybe not.
Those 'distractions' reveal much about Obama's character
By Charles Krauthammer | Columnist
Published: 4/26/2008 8:41 AM
Real change has never been easy. ... The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November.

-- Barack Obama, Pennsylvania primary night speech

With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics" and "trivializes the profound issues" that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.

Why? Because Obama understands the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press.

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests. In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes.

What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues."

Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers' home. Obama's own campaign says that they maintain "friendly" relations. Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? To ask why Obama does is perfectly legitimate.

Obamaphiles are even more exercised about the debate question regarding the flag pin. I have never worn one. Whether anyone does is a matter of indifference to me. But apparently not to Obama. He's taken three affirmative steps in regard to flag pins. After 9/11, he began wearing one. At a later point, he stopped wearing it. Then last year he explained why: Because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." To speak of pin-wearing as a sign of inauthentic patriotism is to make an issue of it yourself. For Obamaphiles to now protest the very asking of the question requires a fine mix of cynicism and self-righteousness.

But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than two to one-- and lost by 10 points.

And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other "issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

I don't have time to address the full article but early on, one thing stood out, "He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written..." Um, yeah. He did NOT come out of nowhere. He was the first black named to lead the Harvard Law Review and toward the end of his time with them, he was asked to write an autobiography. It was published a good number of years ago and an updated edition was re-published when he decided to run for Senator. So, I can already see that this author is simply quite slanted against Obama.

But, I will read on more later....gotta get to bed soon - I'm wiped out!

I would disagree. I've been in Illinois for 36 years and never heard of Obama until he gave the speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he was a state sen/rep, but still, never heard a word about him.

I don't think that it is unusual for any of us in the white bread area of DuPage County to be "out of the loop" on south and southeast side politics. Most of us had never heard of Denny Hastert before he became Speaker.

Let's make a deal. If your source is a right or left wing tool, don't quote them. I won't quote the liberal blogs if you don't try to pass off Charles Krauthammer as an objective analyst. Review the evidence and make your decision about him.

Since this thread is about Reverend Wright's interview, I have heard little about the interview with Bill Moyers. No, wait. Wright called Obama a politician. That's what right wing world focused upon.

Let's do a thread about Billy Ayers. Did any of you grow up with him in Glen Ellyn?

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Let's do a thread about Billy Ayers. Did any of you grow up with him in Glen Ellyn?

I did take a class from him. That could be a story for the next B-Board party.

quote:

Originally posted by scotty:

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Let's do a thread about Billy Ayers. Did any of you grow up with him in Glen Ellyn?

I did take a class from him. That could be a story for the next B-Board party.

Is he as arrogant as I think he is?

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:
Well, nothing much happened before then. He graduated from law school in 1991, became a "community organizer", started at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland and worked part time teaching law starting in '93, then in 1995 he ran unopposed in the Chicago Democratic primary for the State Legislature after knocking the incumbent Alice Palmer and three other challengers completely off the ballot by using the courts to reject their nominating petitions.

That's pretty much it until he ran for Senate in the bizarre soap opera that was the 04 race - Obama beat Alan Keyes, a three month resident of Illinois and Christian Conservative speaker.

Obama then took office in 2005 and ran for President in 07.

It all depends on what you consider nothing.

From Wikipedia:

"Following high school (grad 1979), Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[5] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[6]

Obama graduated with a B.A. from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group before moving to Chicago in 1985 to take a job as a community organizer.[7][8] He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[9] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.[10] Obama graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991."

Columbia. Magna cum laude at Harvard. "Part time" Constitutional Law at U of C. He's a regular slacker.

No doubt he is fortunate. Blair Hull, Jack Ryan, and Alan Keyes. Let's see if I remember who picked Alan Keyes as the sacrificial lamb in 2004? Oh yes. The Illinois Republican leadership. They should have run Rauschenberger. St. James of Edgar was unavailable to slay the dragon.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan the Man:
I would disagree. I've been in Illinois for 36 years and never heard of Obama until he gave the speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he was a state sen/rep, but still, never heard a word about him.

Dan, no offense but, just because YOU hadn't heard of him doesn't mean he came out of nowhere!

ronkas has done well arguing the counterpoint so I'll refrain from beating the dead horse.

It's amazing that Rev. Wright just can't shut-up, I really think this guy wants Obama to lose.

quote:

That's pretty much it until he ran for Senate in the bizarre soap opera that was the 04 race - Obama beat Alan Keyes, a three month resident of Illinois and Christian Conservative speaker.

I wouldn't refer to it as a "race". Jack Ryan withdrew because of the sex club allegations, so the GOP's replacement of him, Alan Keyes became an instant underdog. Sure Obama won decisively, but folks act as though the landslide was due to Obama's character, accomplishments and intellect, like he earned it. It's really kind of ironic in a sense. Just as some of you defend stating snippets and friendly ties to terrorists take away or deter from the real issues at hand, what do you think gave Obama the win in the first place?

Jombl,
I dare you to find a person of the same generation/age group as Obama, with an absent father and conflicted teen years coming to grips with his identity who didn't get into the alcohol and drug scene in college. Do you NOT GET all that he has overcome? Do you not get how he came from a very humble life filled with all kinds of normal life events - mistakes and all - and yet became a brilliant orator demonstrating great intelligence? Do you not get that this man has actually LIVED in another country and knows what it means to assimilate in a totally different culture? Is he perfect - oh my God, no! Who is????

Yoss, I do think Rev. Wright needs to shut his freakin' trap. He's entitled to his opinion but as long as people continue to keep him connected to Obama, he needs to shut up!

And BB, yes that race with Keyes was a joke. Ryan would have been a much tougher candidate to beat. Nonetheless, Obama is running a solid national campaign against extremely qualified and viable candidates. Anyone can disagree with Obama's ideas on policy - I get that. But I don't think the character assassinations are in any way accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
Just as some of you defend stating snippets and friendly ties to terrorists take away or deter from the real issues at hand, what do you think gave Obama the win in the first place?

The incompetence of the Republican leadership cheated the Illinois electorate in Obama's Senate race. They picked Keyes, for God's sake. Even Oberweis could have done better.

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:

quote:

Originally posted by Amy:
Do you NOT GET all that he has overcome?

This reminds me of the comments from an old co-worker of Obama's as reported in the New York Times.

quote:

Dan Armstrong, who worked with Mr. Obama at Business International Corporation in New York in 1984 and has deconstructed Mr. Obama’s account of the job on his blog, analyzethis.net, wrote: “All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation."

Jombl: Here are the two paragraphs to which you refer from Armstrong's blog. Different meaning?

"All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks. Luckily, an angel calls, awakens his conscience, and helps him choose instead to fight for the people.

Like I said, I’m a fan. His famous keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention moved me to tears. The Democrats - not to mention America - need a mixed-race spokesperson who can connect to both urban blacks and rural whites, who has the credibility to challenge the status quo on issues ranging from misogynistic rap to unfair school funding."

It's clear that Armstrong feels Obama made more of his piddling job than reality would dictate for a graduating senior. And he probably did.

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
Just as some of you defend stating snippets and friendly ties to terrorists take away or deter from the real issues at hand, what do you think gave Obama the win in the first place?

The incompetence of the Republican leadership cheated the Illinois electorate in Obama's Senate race. They picked Keyes, for God's sake. Even Oberweis could have done better.

Exactly, just like the Dems picked Kerry in '04 and will choose Obama in '08. As far as Oberweis, not sure if he could have done a better or would that be worse job.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
Just as some of you defend stating snippets and friendly ties to terrorists take away or deter from the real issues at hand, what do you think gave Obama the win in the first place?

The incompetence of the Republican leadership cheated the Illinois electorate in Obama's Senate race. They picked Keyes, for God's sake. Even Oberweis could have done better.

Exactly, just like the Dems picked Kerry in '04 and will choose Obama in '08. As far as Oberweis, not sure if he could have done a better or would that be worse job.

I know you are just trying to take a shot, but there is no comparison to the Democratic primary voters in 2004 and 2008, and what happened with the Republicans with Alan Keyes. None.