Obama's Pastor

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]

pittbulll wrote:

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.

BostonBarrister wrote:

The entire point is summed up in this question. Making negative projections about an entire race, based solely on race, is the essence of racism, and it’s poisonous to relations among groups because to the extent it is believed, it creates an artificial barrier between them.

will to power wrote:

Would you mind quoting for me what he has said that fits under that definition? Admittedly I have skipped hundreds of posts in these Obama discussions but I haven’t actually seen anything from Wright where he makes negative projections about all white people based on their whiteness. [/quote]

Sorry, I just spent 40 min. on my last post - just look through this thread.

862

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

pittbulll wrote:

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.

BostonBarrister wrote:

The entire point is summed up in this question. Making negative projections about an entire race, based solely on race, is the essence of racism, and it’s poisonous to relations among groups because to the extent it is believed, it creates an artificial barrier between them.

will to power wrote:

Would you mind quoting for me what he has said that fits under that definition? Admittedly I have skipped hundreds of posts in these Obama discussions but I haven’t actually seen anything from Wright where he makes negative projections about all white people based on their whiteness.

Sorry, I just spent 40 min. on my last post - just look through this thread.
[/quote]

No, both Will to Power and Pittbull are asking questions most of us have been asking from the beginning. You have NOT answered those questions directly other than to act as if any talk of “White America” is “poisonous” in and of itself, which is ridiculous. Instead of showing us this “poison” you use Black Liberation Theology to stand in for actual quotes when the ACTUAL QUOTES are what we are concerned about. The entire black community gets spoken of as one large group day in and day out around here, but doing the same to “white people” is “poisonous”?

863

That’s because Black Liberation Theology is the underlying doctrine. And it’s poisonous.

Here’s one I pulled up before on Black Liberation Theology:

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=8159

Here are a couple more I pulled up with a quick Google search:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/the-insanity-of-black-liberati.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=c19d4d91-618e-40d3-a5d9-c07d7a87a5ba

Here’s an article out today examining some quotes:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MThiYTZhMTZhYTFkMDgzZmI4NmEyZWU3MjAyYzQ1MmM=

Here are some descriptions of Black Liberation Theology from people who obviously think it’s a good thing:

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html

You’ll have to re-read the thread for yourself for further examples - these were just easily pulled up from Google in 10 minutes.

BTW, you keep repeating this idea: [quote]The entire black community gets spoken of as one large group day in and day out around here, but doing the same to “white people” is “poisonous”?[/quote]

Two points. First, it’s an obvious straw man that the only thing wrong with Wright’s words or Black Liberation Theology is that it commits the logical fallacy of attributing to all white people the characteristics of some mythical construct “White America.” But second, to follow from your defense, the deduction would be that there’s no problem whatsoever with committing that fallacy with respect to the black community?

864

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

That’s because Black Liberation Theology is the underlying doctrine. And it’s poisonous.

Here’s one I pulled up before on Black Liberation Theology:[/quote]

Dude, I honestly don’t care about Black Liberation Theology. Your point all along is that people have listened to poison for 20 years without showing 20 years of quotes of this poison. I am only concerned with what was ACTUALLY PREACHED IN CHURCH, not some underlying philosophy. If you can’t show this, then any leap you make about what has been taught for twenty years is one HUGE assumption without a base in fact. We want quotes of poison stated IN CHURCH. Even the Italian comment that I despise was stated outside of regular church service.

Why is this so hard to understand?

White America is no mythical construct. By definition, it stands for the fact that America is largely run and owned by whites in this country simply because you are the majority and hold most seats of power. How is this “mythical”? Further, if we get lumped into one large group, it is only logical that the favor be returned. If the goal is for this to stop, then please tell yourself and others to stop using statistics aimed at showing negatives based on race in this country.

It makes no sense at all to assume minorities which are least in number should be first at the table to stop generalizations when the generalizations of the majority cause more damage and have farther reaching effects.

the only relevant quotes you have provided came from this site:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MThiYTZhMTZhYTFkMDgzZmI4NmEyZWU3MjAyYzQ1MmM=

I went through this and fail to see the “poison”. Could you please point it out from these specific quotes? If you can’t, then what pray tell are you even talking about?

865

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Dude, I honestly don’t care about Black Liberation Theology. Your point all along is that people have listened to poison for 20 years without showing 20 years of quotes of this poison. I am only concerned with what was ACTUALLY PREACHED IN CHURCH, not some underlying philosophy. If you can’t show this, then any leap you make about what has been taught for twenty years is one HUGE assumption without a base in fact. We want quotes of poison stated IN CHURCH. Even the Italian comment that I despise was stated outside of regular church service.

Why is this so hard to understand?[/quote]

So your position is that if there’s not a transcript of a sermon in which Wright was preaching the racial poison embodied in Black Liberation Theology, then you don’t care? Fair enough - but I think it’s ridiculous and I’m willing to be a lot of voters will agree with me.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
White America is no mythical construct. By definition, it stands for the fact that America is largely run and owned by whites in this country simply because you are the majority and hold most seats of power. How is this “mythical”? [/quote]

White America is a mythical construct that is useful shorthand if you want to make claims about society (another construct) based on race, particularly if you’re going to divide the individuals who make up society based on race. Society doesn’t take actions or hold beliefs. White America doesn’t take actions or hold beliefs. Individual people take actions and hold beliefs.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Further, if we get lumped into one large group, it is only logical that the favor be returned. If the goal is for this to stop, then please tell yourself and others to stop using statistics aimed at showing negatives based on race in this country.[/quote]

No, that’s not logical - that’s “two illogicals make a logical” type reasoning.

I don’t use statistics to show anything at all based on race, because you can’t - unless you’re talking about some genetic disease or something. I can and will use statistics to make points about culture, or to point out how people who engage in negative behaviors are the cause of the problem with statistical discrimination ( The Truth Hurts: What Harford Didn't Say About Statistical Discrimination - Econlib ) because it’s rational to make such assumptions in an environment in which it’s costly and/or risky to obtain more specific information.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It makes no sense at all to assume minorities which are least in number should be first at the table to stop generalizations when the generalizations of the majority cause more damage and have farther reaching effects.[/quote]

Red Herring. It’s either OK or it’s not OK. I’m pointing out you’re taking inconsistent positions on whether it’s OK to essentially commit the “part-to-whole” logical fallacy - which, if you aren’t bothering to read closely enough, is different from statistical discrimination.

866

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

So your position is that if there’s not a transcript of a sermon in which Wright was preaching the racial poison embodied in Black Liberation Theology, then you don’t care? Fair enough - but I think it’s ridiculous and I’m willing to be a lot of voters will agree with me.[/quote]

That isn’t my stance at all. My stance is that if you don’t have proof of “poison”, then you need to stop acting like you KNOW poison was being preached in church, especially when none of the quotes show all of this “poison”.

[quote]

White America is a mythical construct that is useful shorthand if you want to make claims about society (another construct) based on race, particularly if you’re going to divide the individuals who make up society based on race. Society doesn’t take actions or hold beliefs. White America doesn’t take actions or hold beliefs. Individual people take actions and hold beliefs.[/quote]

Bullshit. America itself had to be fought for Civil Rights so where are you getting the idea that this never happened? Further, why do you think no one should be upset about it?

[quote]
I don’t use statistics to show anything at all based on race, because you can’t - unless you’re talking about some genetic disease or something. I can and will use statistics to make points about culture, or to point out how people who engage in negative behaviors are the cause of the problem with statistical discrimination ( The Truth Hurts: What Harford Didn't Say About Statistical Discrimination - Econlib ) because it’s rational to make such assumptions in an environment in which it’s costly and/or risky to obtain more specific information.[/quote]

Are you actually going to deny the use of stats in America to show black performance in school, black crime rates or even the belief that too many blacks in a neighborhood causes a decrease of property values? Because you specifically haven’t done so, this means it isn’t a HUGE problem for us?

You use that term entirely too much whenever presented with something you can’t explain away. If it is not OK, then by all means, let me know when whites stop doing it.

Has that happened yet?

If not, then why is it the responsibility of minorities to be the first to do so?

867

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

So your position is that if there’s not a transcript of a sermon in which Wright was preaching the racial poison embodied in Black Liberation Theology, then you don’t care? Fair enough - but I think it’s ridiculous and I’m willing to be a lot of voters will agree with me.

Professor X wrote:

That isn’t my stance at all. My stance is that if you don’t have proof of “poison”, then you need to stop acting like you KNOW poison was being preached in church, especially when none of the quotes show all of this “poison”.[/quote]

This is politics, not court. I will continue to act as if I believe it’s highly likely that the right Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached according to his claimed doctrine - not a stretch, really. I will repeat the inductive reasoning argument on why here:

The entire content of his 40+ years of teachings are not available for review. However, one can make a pretty good inductive case that the passages that were found are not aberrations but rather representative of his general beliefs and body of work. 1) ABC News unearthed the passages from the limited sample of sermons that the church put up for sale. 2) The church was the organization that chose the sermons it did put up for sale - so whoever culled the sermons either thought they were Wrights best and most representative, or simply pulled a random sample over a time period. In either case, that is probabilistic evidence it’s representative of his overall body of work. 3) The reaction of the church congregation to the objectionable claims was cheering, exclamations of agreement and positive - what it was not was surprised, or head-shaking about that crazy old uncle up there (which is a poor analogy in any case - more like a crazy father, given he’s the leader of the congregation, not some tertiary guy on the side). 4) The objectionable sections are part and parcel with Black Liberation Theology, which is the background of Wright’s theology - that this wouldn’t be the basis for his overall body of work is highly improbable.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

White America is a mythical construct that is useful shorthand if you want to make claims about society (another construct) based on race, particularly if you’re going to divide the individuals who make up society based on race. Society doesn’t take actions or hold beliefs. White America doesn’t take actions or hold beliefs. Individual people take actions and hold beliefs.

Professor X wrote:

Bullshit. America itself had to be fought for Civil Rights so where are you getting the idea that this never happened? Further, why do you think no one should be upset about it?[/quote]

Really - America itself huh? So all those people who participated in the Civil Rights marches - America or not? The legislators who voted for the Civil Rights Act - America or not? San Franciscans - America or not? Chicago - America or not? Southside Chicago v Northside - America? Hmmm, so tough to categorize…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I don’t use statistics to show anything at all based on race, because you can’t - unless you’re talking about some genetic disease or something. I can and will use statistics to make points about culture, or to point out how people who engage in negative behaviors are the cause of the problem with statistical discrimination ( The Truth Hurts: What Harford Didn't Say About Statistical Discrimination - Econlib ) because it’s rational to make such assumptions in an environment in which it’s costly and/or risky to obtain more specific information.

Professor X wrote:
Are you actually going to deny the use of stats in America to show black performance in school, black crime rates or even the belief that too many blacks in a neighborhood causes a decrease of property values? Because you specifically haven’t done so, this means it isn’t a HUGE problem for us?[/quote]

I can only answer for myself. And you can only speak for yourself - as you keep saying when it suits your argument.

[quote]
Professor X wrote:

It makes no sense at all to assume minorities which are least in number should be first at the table to stop generalizations when the generalizations of the majority cause more damage and have farther reaching effects.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Red Herring. It’s either OK or it’s not OK. I’m pointing out you’re taking inconsistent positions on whether it’s OK to essentially commit the “part-to-whole” logical fallacy - which, if you aren’t bothering to read closely enough, is different from statistical discrimination.

Professor X wrote:

You use that term entirely too much whenever presented with something you can’t explain away. If it is not OK, then by all means, let me know when whites stop doing it.

Has that happened yet?

If not, then why is it the responsibility of minorities to be the first to do so?[/quote]

Red Herring is just a different way of saying you’re making an immaterial, unrelated point - which I do say a lot, particularly when it’s true. I don’t address it because it doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on the conclusion.

Again, I can’t speak for whites, and there is no such thing as White America. You’re quite fond of agreeing with this when you’re bent out of shape that people want you to speak for the black community, or “Black America” - which doesn’t exist either.

Some individual people do, and some individual people do not. You have a responsibility for yourself, just as I do for myself. And just like the right Rev. Wright does for himself, and Obama does for himself. And I will hold each individual responsible for himself, irrespective of whether he wants to blame abstract “Americas” for his actions or lack thereof.

And I will hold leaders to a higher standard, particularly with regard to the beliefs and choices toward which they are leading other people.

868

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Some individual people do, and some individual people do not. You have a responsibility for yourself, just as I do for myself. And just like the right Rev. Wright does for himself, and Obama does for himself. And I will hold each individual responsible for himself, irrespective of whether he wants to blame abstract “Americas” for his actions or lack thereof.

And I will hold leaders to a higher standard, particularly with regard to the beliefs and choices toward which they are leading other people.[/quote]

But you aren’t holding individuals responsible for THEMSELVES when you try so hard to force an idea of “guilty by association”, especially when the actual evidence of that guilt is so minimal as regards to Rev Wright. The only ammunition you have is using a philosophy he stands by as if that was what was being preached every Sunday in church. The truth is, you have no idea…yet that hasn’t stopped you from painting with a very broad brush when it comes to all of those related.

869

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Some individual people do, and some individual people do not. You have a responsibility for yourself, just as I do for myself. And just like the right Rev. Wright does for himself, and Obama does for himself. And I will hold each individual responsible for himself, irrespective of whether he wants to blame abstract “Americas” for his actions or lack thereof.

And I will hold leaders to a higher standard, particularly with regard to the beliefs and choices toward which they are leading other people.

Professor X wrote:

But you aren’t holding individuals responsible for THEMSELVES when you try so hard to force an idea of “guilty by association”, especially when the actual evidence of that guilt is so minimal as regards to Rev Wright. The only ammunition you have is using a philosophy he stands by as if that was what was being preached every Sunday in church. The truth is, you have no idea…yet that hasn’t stopped you from painting with a very broad brush when it comes to all of those related.[/quote]

That’s an excellent point, except it’s not true. I’m not trying to hold Obama guilty by association. I’m holding Obama responsible for his choice of churches, mentors and leaders - and not because I necessarily care about the chuch, mentor or leader in question, but because those choices give a window into what Obama himself actually believes and believes to be important. As opposed to his canned campaign rhetoric, which is shined and spun and focus-grouped every which way from Tuesday, or his very short Senatorial record (which, however, also tends to show a radical liberal: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ ), he can’t hide his 20-year embrace of the right Rev. Wright and his doctrine, and the Trinity Church and its codes and beliefs.

As for Wright, you’re in the position of having to argue against the obvious conclusion: the man is one of the major known adherents and proponents of Black Liberation Theology ( Black theology - Wikipedia ), in his interview with Sean Hannity he was citing its progenitors as authors Hannity should have read to have understood him and his outbursts ( Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos ) and you want everyone to believe he didn’t use it as the basis of his sermons and teachings?

870

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.

The entire point is summed up in this question. Making negative projections about an entire race, based solely on race, is the essence of racism, and it’s poisonous to relations among groups because to the extent it is believed, it creates an artificial barrier between them.[/quote]

True, but you have to understand the position from both sides to fix it. Obama cannot deny past injustice and still fix the issue, just like he cannot dwell on the past (like Wright does) to move forward.

So the fact the Obama is black means he will have to deal with these issues continually. And saying that he doesn’t want anything to do with Wright because he is still stuck in the past will not help either.

You are asking Obama to deny the past in order to appear politically “white” and I would not respect him if he did that. In fact, the fact that he has not done that shows that he wants to understand all sides of the issue, like any good leader should. He cannot move forward and elevate everyone above racial conflict if he does not have a good concept of what many continue to believe (off base or not).

871

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

True, but you have to understand the position from both sides to fix it. Obama cannot deny past injustice and still fix the issue, just like he cannot dwell on the past (like Wright does) to move forward. [/quote]

He doesn’t have to deny past injustice. Why would he need to do that?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

So the fact the Obama is black means he will have to deal with these issues continually. And saying that he doesn’t want anything to do with Wright because he is still stuck in the past will not help either. [/quote]

It would have helped to not have created a mentor relationship with a pastor, and become a 20-year member of a church, who subscribed to a Black Liberation Theology that not only was stuck in the past, but projected the past onto the present.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

You are asking Obama to deny the past in order to appear politically “white” and I would not respect him if he did that. In fact, the fact that he has not done that shows that he wants to understand all sides of the issue, like any good leader should. He cannot move forward and elevate everyone above racial conflict if he does not have a good concept of what many continue to believe (off base or not).
[/quote]

No, I’m not asking him to do anything at all - and am particularly not asking him to deny either the nation’s past or his own. I don’t know who is asking him to do anything of the sort. I’m saying that his choice of mentors and congregations speaks to his values. Do you really expect me to believe his only choices for churches and pastors were from among adherents to Black Liberation Theology or similar theologies? Among others stuck in the past? And did he need to establish a 20-year relationship with this pastor and congregation in order to understand that side of the coin? And this candidate, who wants to lead the country, did exactly what to stand up and lead - even just by example - in this congregation?

872

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.

The entire point is summed up in this question. Making negative projections about an entire race, based solely on race, is the essence of racism, and it’s poisonous to relations among groups because to the extent it is believed, it creates an artificial barrier between them.[/quote]

I did not take it as he has a problem with the white race, I took he had a problem with the leadership in America that happens to be mostly white.

873

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

True, but you have to understand the position from both sides to fix it. Obama cannot deny past injustice and still fix the issue, just like he cannot dwell on the past (like Wright does) to move forward.

He doesn’t have to deny past injustice. Why would he need to do that?

Lorisco wrote:

So the fact the Obama is black means he will have to deal with these issues continually. And saying that he doesn’t want anything to do with Wright because he is still stuck in the past will not help either.

It would have helped to not have created a mentor relationship with a pastor, and become a 20-year member of a church, who subscribed to a Black Liberation Theology that not only was stuck in the past, but projected the past onto the present.

Lorisco wrote:

You are asking Obama to deny the past in order to appear politically “white” and I would not respect him if he did that. In fact, the fact that he has not done that shows that he wants to understand all sides of the issue, like any good leader should. He cannot move forward and elevate everyone above racial conflict if he does not have a good concept of what many continue to believe (off base or not).

No, I’m not asking him to do anything at all - and am particularly not asking him to deny either the nation’s past or his own. I don’t know who is asking him to do anything of the sort. I’m saying that his choice of mentors and congregations speaks to his values. Do you really expect me to believe his only choices for churches and pastors were from among adherents to Black Liberation Theology or similar theologies? Among others stuck in the past? And did he need to establish a 20-year relationship with this pastor and congregation in order to understand that side of the coin? And this candidate, who wants to lead the country, did exactly what to stand up and lead - even just by example - in this congregation?[/quote]

If his family has been going to this church for years and he did when he was younger, why would he stop now? Just because he is running for office? Would that then be sincere?

Churches, in a large part, are families and culture. Many people go to church because of the other people and the social aspect, not the crazy-ass pastor.

I think it is wrong to apply Wright’s beliefs to Obama unless Obama states them as well.

874

How active was he in his church, that’s the question. If he heads a youth group on Tues nights, goes to choir on Thurs nights, helps write the newsletter, then I think he should be disqualified from POTUS. That church is wicked.

If he sat in a pew and snored (ahem!), then the whole issue is meaningless and he deserves a chance based on the issues.

I personally like the guy, btw. I disagree with his politics but would happily buy the man a Foster’s. (I love Oz beer.)

875

Some people need to broaden their scope on this whole issue of Rev.Wright

876

We can now ask what The Clintons thought of Rev.Wright as well.

877

Some of you have found HH’s horse blinders.

So? Are they “racist” for inviting him to the White House?..IN 1998! Yet,he’s just now surfaced as a racist black minister IN 2008…um yeah,ok. People only see what their own conscience supports. Interesting that this hasn’t been talked about…if so,it was very mute…considering all this bullshit with people and their association with others.

I know what you’re gonna say:

“He wasn’t their pastor for 20 years.”

“They never been to his church and sat thru his sermons.”

“They didn’t know he was racist.”

To even argue with those statements alludes to there being SOLID FACTS that Rev.Wright is racist to begin with…and there are none.

I have listened to the sermons numerous times…I have yet to find what is so RACIST about it. Radical,YES…but racist,NO.

Hell,half of the big sermon with the whole “chickens coming home to roost” bit was quoted from Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan.
Rev.Wright touches on the fact that if America wants to hold itself to the high standard it wants to portray…it has to do better…THE GOVERNMENT has to do better…WE have to do better.

We know our country is not all “hunky dory”…so why get all offended when someone points it out?? He’s misguided on a few things,but he’s BRUTALLY HONEST about our country. Don’t be scared now.

878

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

If his family has been going to this church for years and he did when he was younger, why would he stop now? Just because he is running for office? Would that then be sincere?

Churches, in a large part, are families and culture. Many people go to church because of the other people and the social aspect, not the crazy-ass pastor.

I think it is wrong to apply Wright’s beliefs to Obama unless Obama states them as well.

[/quote]

This misses the point. On what basis did he choose the church the church in the first instance? Why did he choose to have a mentee relationship with Wright? I’m not asking the simple question of why Obama didn’t leave after 20 years, because it’s more game theory - I want reasoning behind each important decision node - I’m asking why he went there to begin with, why he developed a mentee relationship with Wright, and why he didn’t have any issues until ABC found video clips - and then you parse his reactions to the voters’ reactions to those, and look how he exactly phrased his apologies to avoid addressing the underlying doctrinal issues.

I posted this article above, and it’s applicable: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=c19d4d91-618e-40d3-a5d9-c07d7a87a5ba

879

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Some of you have found HH’s horse blinders.

So? Are they “racist” for inviting him to the White House?..IN 1998! Yet,he’s just now surfaced as a racist black minister IN 2008…um yeah,ok. People only see what their own conscience supports. Interesting that this hasn’t been talked about…if so,it was very mute…considering all this bullshit with people and their association with others.[/quote]

If no one knew anything about him before, why would anyone have an opinion about him before? He’s garnered a lot of media attention now BECAUSE Obama has cited him as a mentor and and as the source of his inspiration for his memoirs and his speech to the DNC in 2004, because people are trying to find out about Obama. There are likely 100,000 people who have photo-op pictures and form letters from Clinton - and Reagan, and Bush I, and W - and I don’t know anything about any of them unless there’s some separate, independent reason that’s been reported.

When Hillary cites - or someone demonstrates she has - a mentee or other influential relationship with someone, by all means we’ll want to know about his or her perspectives.

This is politics, and we’re talking about choosing a President.

880

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Some of you have found HH’s horse blinders.

So? Are they “racist” for inviting him to the White House?..IN 1998! Yet,he’s just now surfaced as a racist black minister IN 2008…um yeah,ok. People only see what their own conscience supports. Interesting that this hasn’t been talked about…if so,it was very mute…considering all this bullshit with people and their association with others.

If no one knew anything about him before, why would anyone have an opinion about him before? He’s garnered a lot of media attention now BECAUSE Obama has cited him as a mentor and and as the source of his inspiration for his memoirs and his speech to the DNC in 2004, because people are trying to find out about Obama. There are likely 100,000 people who have photo-op pictures and form letters from Clinton - and Reagan, and Bush I, and W - and I don’t know anything about any of them unless there’s some separate, independent reason that’s been reported.

When Hillary cites - or someone demonstrates she has - a mentee or other influential relationship with someone, by all means we’ll want to know about his or her perspectives.

This is politics, and we’re talking about choosing a President.

[/quote]

This is politics? Thanks for the heads up. And what if they did know about him? Like you said…this is politics.

What you state above is true…but it still doesn’t allude to argument and FACTS of Rev.Wright being racist…and Obama being racist…as you are presenting them to be.