2 words McCain/Magee......(and I think the only "plan" senator Obama has is to win the presiency and serve the country)..the was you say plan makes it sound as if their is something insidious and devious afoot.
I guess I have more faith in the American Electorate
I thought the media was supposed to be the tank for Barack Obama.
But why does it seem like the Jeremiah Wright story gets far more media echo chamber than McCain and Hillary’s associations with religious figures who make controversial statements?
In the arena of financial corruption, why does the Tony Rezko story, in which no one can find that Obama did anything wrong, get far more play the
Hsu story...or the
Guistra story.....or the
Burkle Story?
Why is “anti-special interest” John McCain’s coziness with a lobbyist like
Iseman only a 2 day story primarily focused on the sins of the New York Times, virtually ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of McCain’s lobbyist ties even if you ignore the red herring question of a romantic relationship?
Personally, I do not like playing guilt by association with anybody...but people seem to do it a lot with Obama. I think it is then only fair to point out that Obama’s political opponents and media critics may not necessarily meet the standards they set for Barack Obama.
The Media witch hunters:
Ok, you might be saying that it is really the media that is driving this story, not Obama’s opponents. Well, let’s play guilt by association with the media too:
CNN employs Bill Bennett as a pundit, who
said the following:
“But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
MSNBC employs Pat Buchanan, who has
quite a record of accomplishment for intolerance to blacks, Jews, and gays.
Then there is Fox News.....do I really even need to go there?
I want to know why many will not be satisfied unless Obama strangles Jeremiah Wright himself, but seem to be so darn agnostic about their own associations with questionable figures.
Novel idea: Pick a standard and apply it equally.
Without weighing in on whether or not the content of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons should be denounced by Barack Obama, I do find one aspect of this story quite troubling. We have now seen more sermons from Barack Obama's minister in 48 hours than we ever did of Mike Huckabee ---- and Mike Huckabee was a presidential candidate for
14 long months. Why is it acceptable to scour every last sermon given by Wright, but only weeks ago we weren't allowed to see or read Mike Huckabee's sermons? In fact, not only was it totally ignored by the traditional media, but the few times the question of Huckabee's sermons was raised, it was brushed aside as inappropriate.
Why the hypocrisy? After all, Mike Huckabee was an evangelical Southern Baptist minister who's entire campaign was based on the fact that he was
the Christian candidate. Are we to believe that he didn't rail against the US government over abortion in previous sermons? Or homosexuality? We know what he had to say about AIDS victims. I don't imagine one gets to be the be president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention without passionate fire and brimstone sermons as part of his repertoire.
So, I find it curious that the traditional media now has its white hot focus on Barack Obama's religion and a few select words by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. After all, Huckabee made his career as an actual preacher. Why the change of heart in the last few weeks? Why does Obama have to be held responsible for every word spoken during Wright's passionate sermons - while Huckabee is allowed a free ride and never questioned about his own words? From his own mouth?
Well, it's fair game now. If Huckabee reappears as a VP contender or decides to get in the race in 2012, I think we can safely point to this as justification for wanting to see Huckabee's past - in his own words.
As several commenters have pointed out, whenever the subject of Mitt Romney's religion came up - it was portrayed as essentially un-American to even whisper about Romney's Mormonism. I agree that it has no place in politics, but let's make sure this is going both ways.
once again:
in his own words;
“I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country.
“That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.”
But Obama acknowledged that “there’s no doubt this is going to be used as political fodder, as it has been in the past.”
“What I hope is [that] what the American people will trust is what I believe,” he said, that “my values, my ideas, what I’ve spoke about in terms of bringing the country together will override a guilt by association.”
This won't end the debate, and shouldn't. But it's a classy move. You don't disown a man this close to Obama's spiritual development over the years for political reasons. Obama's not a Clinton. But a more forceful explanation of why and how Obama rejects Wright's most inflammatory sound-bites would be helpful at some point. A bigger speech reiterating his own rejection of racial resentment would be even better - soon. Why not in a black church? Obama's more developed explanation for his membership of Wright's church and closeness to the man is in his first book. A critical passage can be read
here.