3/18/2008

The Question about Obama

Suppose that a white person belonged to a club where the president of the club made multiple racist statements. Suppose that the individual criticized the president of the club but still remained a member? How difficult would it be for the person to get confirmed by the Senate to any position?

Just look at the difficulty that judicial nominees have faced because when there were obsolete and nonenforceable covenants on their property. Or the difficulties that nominees have faced for belonging to all male clubs? If a Republican presidential candidate were discovered to have any of these problems, wouldn't his campaign have imploded? How about if it looked as if the Republican candidate made it look as if he was not being honest about what he knew about any of these things? Wouldn't the press have just torn him to shreds?

Obama apparently has a major talk to give Tuesday morning. It will be interesting to see if he changes what he admits to having known. The leaks of information contradicting his claims will slowly bleed the campaign dry. If he does come clean, will the press hammer him? Will the press be allowed to ask him questions after his talk? It will be very interesting to see what happens.

Here are Thomas Sowell's thoughts on this:

If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church.

In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break!

You can’t be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views.

Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election-year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that. . . .


Here is an example of the types of leakage of information that will continue to occur:

IN the first sermon Barack Obama ever heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor railed against "white folks' greed," the bombing of Hiroshima and "the callousness of policymakers in the White House and in the statehouse."
For Obama, the experience was formative. The sermon's title, "The Audacity of Hope," became the title of Obama's second book and the theme of his presidential campaign. . . ..


Juan Williams was not impressed by Obama's talk on TUesday:

“I think it goes on,” National Public Radio national correspondent Juan Williams said of the controversy.

Williams, a FOX News analyst, questioned why Obama allowed himself to remain publicly associated with Wright. He said Obama did not address the “judgment and character” issues that he’s running on.

“I think he had to take responsibility … and that’s what he didn’t do,” Williams said. . . .


Some Republicans weren't as generous:

"It wasn't until he was forced to take a stand against Wright's screed that he finally did," Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio wrote in an email. "Why didn't he denounce what he said when he said it? Why didn't he distance himself then? What Wright said was no one-time slip of the tongue."

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger James said...

For a man that wants to be president, Obama certainly has a suspicious number of preachers and spouses that despise America.

3/18/2008 12:47 AM  
Anonymous cbar10@hotmail.com said...

If the function of "black liberation theology" is to demonize the entire white race, then what is the point of it?

3/18/2008 7:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home