Obama resigns membership from Trinity Baptist

[Tattooed Goddess]

He should have saved grace and stayed with the church. He initial response indicated that he was going to stand by Rev. Wright regardless because he's been such a close spiritual, family friend, etc. I wouldn't have voted for him after that whole affair and hearing how his wife talks just like the good Ol' Rev. He sure waited long enough to actually seperate himself from him. I could care less because you can't take the church out of the man, even if you take him out of the church. He believes what he believes and making a public statement like this doesnt change how he really feels deep inside.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

I give a toss about this shit.

Really. The same self-righteous sychophant criticising Obama was affiliated with a radical race-baiting pastor and church and pulling out as a PR move; is the same person that will accuse Obama of being that and having radical muslim ties, b/c his former step-father was Indonesian and went to a western school in Indonesia. A news program broadcasts the name for "school" in Arabic and people freak the fuck out, that it means he went to islamist fundamentalist school. No, he went a western school in Indonesian and wore a school uniform, that is on par with any school uniform in the US.

 

[Bbucko]

The 'St. Obama' thing was intended to be humorous; to characterize it as 'ugly and poisonous' is a bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Sarcasm is rarely all that funny. It's more usually one of the last refuges of bitterness. But if you're suggesting that I met hyperbole with hyperbole...yeah, I did.

Let's face it, the liberal media has given Obama a pass on numerous occasions, and tonight was no exception. In the age of the 24/7 news cycle I find it highly curious that neither CNN nor MSNBC saw fit to carry his announcement and press conference. Now, NBC has become Obama election headquarters, so no surprise there, but for CNN not to carry it either truly surprised me.

I do not watch TV. I have no opinion regarding what might be playing at any given moment, whether it's Lost, Flavor Of Love or Hardball. It's all manipulative trash in my opinion.

As to "Liberal Media Bias": of course the media are biased. They are run and operated by human beings with their own agendas and opinions, supported through advertising by those with whom they agree.

A free press is not the same as an unbiased press. Justice should be blind (though it rarely is). The press is there for perspective and analysis. If you disagree with one person's assessment, there's always another. That's what a free press (and the 1st amendment) is all about.

When I lived in Boston, we had two dailies: The broadsheet Globe and the tabloid Herald. The Globe was never suspected of being anything other than a vehicle for the left-of-center's perspective, and was eventually purchased by the NYT. The Herald was purchased by Murdoch in the 80s and went from being a weaker Globe (hardly justifiable) to the exact opposite of the Globe. It featured op-ed columnists one would never otherwise read in Boston, ranging from Pat Buchanan to Phyllis Schlafly to much dimmer bulbs like Don Feder,

I read the Herald on the subway on my way to work, and the Globe while eating lunch. But I read them both every day. The Globe was superior in terms of international coverage, the Herald was much better at local news. But it would amaze me how, when reporting on the exact same issues, the tone and subject matter of each could converge so completely.

Nowadays I get my news and commentary from two main portals: The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report, neither of which can be judged "neutral" by any standard. I read Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, Peggy Noonan and George Will as well.

That's the news biz. Do you have a better alternative to a free press?

The problem being that heretofore Obama has sold himself as one who is above the fray of "politics as usual". He has continually morphed his position on Rev. Wright, and is now walking away from a 20-year affiliation with Trinity. If that's the kind of "change" this guy stands for, then I get it.

One can be different while still being political, which is the nature of politics. History will ultimately decide whether or not GWB's unilateralist foreign policy was as much a failure as it's currently being judged, but there's no doubt that our last two elections have differed from "politics as usual" in many many ways.

What I believe Obama's main strength as a politician is, for the US and the world, is to change the divisive, us/them, red/blue paradigm that has been the hallmarks of the last two elections. It's time we got back to being purple again, with such concepts as "the loyal opposition" not being derided as equivocating.

 

[Bbucko]

Bbucko, I am SO glad that I am not the only person on this site to know the difference between beatification and canonization!

And I was raised Episcopalian, dear.

 

[VeeP]

What I believe Obama's main strength as a politician is, for the US and the world, is to change the divisive, us/them, red/blue paradigm that has been the hallmarks of the last two elections. It's time we got back to being purple again, with such concepts as "the loyal opposition" not being derided as equivocating.

From where do you believe Obama draws said strength? Excellent oratory skills and the ability to spew endless flowery rhetoric does not a "uniter" (nor good POTUS, for that matter) make. If any candidate has a proven record of being 'purple' and working across party lines, it would be McCain... the very quality that has given conservatives heartburn on many occasions.

 

[deleted15807]

I find Obama's withdrawal from his church (which must have been a terribly sad thing for him personally) no more calculating and far less destructive to the democratic process than, say, Lee Atwater's embrace of Fundamentalist Christianity in order to help Reagan get elected in 1980 (the year God became a Republican).

Indeed!!! Something that has gone on largely ignored since. Republicans have counted on the fundamentalists now for over 20 years. And they are very clear they want nothing to do with the separation of church and state. In fact they want a merger. I'm unsure if the Founding Fathers would be happy with the 'White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives'. What is that but a combining church and state?

 

[Notaguru2]

I stand corrected on the "Baptist" presumption. That was a typo - there's a Trinity Baptist church in our area...sorry for the slip.

 

[Bbucko]

From where do you believe Obama draws said strength? Excellent oratory skills and the ability to spew endless flowery rhetoric does not a "uniter" (nor good POTUS, for that matter) make. If any candidate has a proven record of being 'purple' and working across party lines, it would be McCain... the very quality that has given conservatives heartburn on many occasions.

Obama has won the admiration and support of many Republicans...more than you might think. And he's got an excellent amount of support among Independents (like me). And the more one learns of his policies (have you ever visited his website?), the more one sees that he offers realistic, pragmatic solutions to many of the nation's (and world's) most pressing issues.

His oratory far exceeds either of his rivals, that's true. But calling it "flowery" is an odd choice of words. It makes him sound feminine and weak. Real men speak plainly: effete elite intellectuals rely on mere vocabulary and we are all familiar with the cliche that in the US women are better talkers while men are more prone to mute(d) action.

I don't buy into this train of thought, and I've always found macho posturing as being more insecure than reasoned dialog. But I'm a fag.

That, by the way, is one of the main reasons why I can not support McCain's candidacy. His voting record on GLBT issues is abysmal. How could you ever vote for anyone who considers you something of a second-class citizen?

 

[rexcasual]

I don't blame him at all for for leaving Trinity's church. With the things she's been posting about him on lpsg — I'm amazed he waited this long.

 

[B_jacknapier]

20 years too late.

 

[VeeP]

Obama has won the admiration and support of many Republicans...more than you might think. And he's got an excellent amount of support among Independents (like me). And the more one learns of his policies (have you ever visited his website?), the more one sees that he offers realistic, pragmatic solutions to many of the nation's (and world's) most pressing issues.

While at face-value this may be true, I see nothing in the man's past that indicates he'd be a middle-of-the-road "uniter" as POTUS. To think that anyone can waltz in to Washington and turn it on it's ear is naive at best. Just once I'd like to hear a candidate say they are in favor of term limits.

Incidentally, last night CNN ran a very interesting feature regarding Mr. Obama's past campaign tactics. In short, he gained his Illinois senate seat by way of sending in his lawyers to challenge the signatures on his opponents petitions (including the incumbent), thereby disqualifying them. While some characterize it as "Chicago politics as usual", several of the candidates whom he "disqualified" have never returned to politics. For me it surely tarnishes the ethereal glow of a man who speaks of "unity", "fairness" and "change".

 

[Notaguru2]

Incidentally, last night CNN ran a very interesting feature regarding Mr. Obama's past campaign tactics. In short, he gained his Illinois senate seat by way of sending in his lawyers to challenge the signatures on his opponents petitions (including the incumbent), thereby disqualifying them. While some characterize it as "Chicago politics as usual", several of the candidates whom he "disqualified" have never returned to politics. For me it surely tarnishes the ethereal glow of a man who speaks of "unity", "fairness" and "change".

You left out something important in your recollection. She didn't have the requisite number of signatures for her to be placed on the ballot. She at the time was running unopposed. She took her position for granted and got burned. Obama got his signatures and the joined the race. He challenged the number of signatures because of the Illinois rules. He prevailed. Why do people have such a hard time abiding by RULES? Obama doesn't make the rules, he abides by them.

The bottom line is, that his incumbent challenger didn't take her constituency seriously enough to get the requisite signatures, and it cost her the election.

Smart politics on Obama's behalf.

 

[Bbucko]

While at face-value this may be true, I see nothing in the man's past that indicates he'd be a middle-of-the-road "uniter" as POTUS. To think that anyone can waltz in to Washington and turn it on it's ear is naive at best. Just once I'd like to hear a candidate say they are in favor of term limits.

There was nothing "middle-of-the-road" about FDR. Nor was he in any sense of the word an outsider to politics.

His programs would still be considered Socialist today, but he turned our country around at it's darkest hour by introducing ideas that would have been unthinkable four years previously.

There are many differences between 1932 and 2008. But one of the main similarities is how an extended run of Republicanism ran us so far into the ground that something decidedly radical was (and is) required.

And, BTW, we have term limits. They're called elections. Apathy is a sign of prosperity and peace. Activism is required when things break down.

And yes, it's broke...time to fix it.

Incidentally, last night CNN ran a very interesting feature regarding Mr. Obama's past campaign tactics. In short, he gained his Illinois senate seat by way of sending in his lawyers to challenge the signatures on his opponents petitions (including the incumbent), thereby disqualifying them. While some characterize it as "Chicago politics as usual", several of the candidates whom he "disqualified" have never returned to politics. For me it surely tarnishes the ethereal glow of a man who speaks of "unity", "fairness" and "change".

Your continued use of religious/messianic allusions to Obama (which you brushed off as sarcasm yet continue to employ) are insulting to his electorate. Since you continue to employ them so liberally, I presume that you either have a visceral dislike for Obama the candidate or else are incapable of finding other words in your vocabulary, which doesn't seem limited to me and what I've read.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

No one has ever said that Obama wasn't a professional politician.

Actually, I've said several times that he was a politician like everyone else, and many Obama supporters have bashed me for it. I won't even go down the list of names, but they know who they are.

I find Obama's withdrawal from his church (which must have been a terribly sad thing for him personally) no more calculating and far less destructive to the democratic process than, say, Lee Atwater's embrace of Fundamentalist Christianity in order to help Reagan get elected in 1980 (the year God became a Republican).

Let's just hope the rest of the world (or at least the voters in the USA) can recognize this.

 

[D_Cyprius Slapwilly]

It sure feels good to know that I vote on real issues instead of superficial garbage like this. Don't care.

 

[deleted15807]

20 years too late.

I hardly think it's 20 years too late. To be tagged with everything that is said in your church as being your views implicitly is so flat out wrong. Republican candidates are allowed to have all kinds of 'partnerships' with wacko religious types and not a WORD is said about it until recently but they've been given a free ride for years.

 

[B_jacknapier]

I dunno, man. My priest has certainly never said anything from the pulpit that wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny. Nothing that could be construed as racist or hateful. I wouldn't attend a church that focused so heavily on the negative.

And yes I have seen more than the "goddamn america"-type soundbites.

 

[VeeP]

And, BTW, we have term limits. They're called elections. Apathy is a sign of prosperity and peace. Activism is required when things break down.

I disagree. Apathy is a sign of a lazy, complacent, ill-informed electorate. Things have been breaking and/or broken for many election cycles, dare I say even pre-Bush. It's much easier to bitch and expect handouts than to bone up and vote your convictions, though. Without a doubt there will be those who will be motivated to vote merely because the price of gas is too high. Do they have a clue why it's so high? Hell no. But this is one of many reasons there is an all-out offensive to tie McCain to Bush.

Your continued use of religious/messianic allusions to Obama (which you brushed off as sarcasm yet continue to employ) are insulting to his electorate. Since you continue to employ them so liberally, I presume that you either have a visceral dislike for Obama the candidate or else are incapable of finding other words in your vocabulary, which doesn't seem limited to me and what I've read.

I make these allusions not to denigrate well-informed supporters such as yourself, but rather to characterize the scores of starry-eyed know-nothings who support the man merely because he can give a great speech. This is readily evident when they're pressed to cite even one of his policies or accomplishments, and it infuriates me that their vote counts as much as mine or yours.

Until proven otherwise I believe Mr. Obama to be an empty suit with great aspirations who, if elected, will have much to deliver on. Perhaps he will get the opportunity to prove me wrong, however I don't honestly believe it will happen with the same clowns in Congress. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, if you will. I too believe change is needed, but not at any cost. At least McCain has ample experience in dealing with the congressional Bozos and has a tangible record of being able to cut through the crap.