How evangelical & ecumenical Christians see Obama's dilemma

You guys seem to be having fun, so I'll just step out and get some snacks. The extra bag of ice is in the downstairs freezer.

..you be sure to let me know when that happens, okay?

I always enjoy pointing out hypocrisy and folks who sling bull droppings. :-)

..you don't even know how much fun I am having with you today.

I'm here til about 4:00 pm. But I'll be back.

I simply pointed out that you were being dishonest in your ungrounded criticisms of Obama based on a distorted caricature of the former pastor of his church. You seem sensitive to my having exposed your tactics.

"Calling me out"--that rich. As you bask in the glow of yourself and your ability to "unmask" me, I can only reply: Whatever.

But I'm also spot-on when it comes to unmasking the slur tactics that you're using. It's bogus and I called you on it. All the pseudo-psychologizing in the world you might engage in ain't gonna change that.

I don't care if you're a reluctant right-wing McCain supporter trying to undermine Obama, a Hillary supporter using the same underhanded tactics she's decried again and again, or simply someone who's brought the "Obama's an America-hating terrorist" line hook, line, and sinker -- what's clear is that the manufactured storyline you're selling is full of horse poop, and needs to be called out as such.

Whatever you think that will make you feel better about yourself, hey, I'm all for it.

Obama is a fraud. He's a manufactured candidate just as GWB was. I wrote on this blog months ago (if you care to look it up) that Obama needed to start defining himself because that whole rock star act wasn't going to wash for long, and if he didn't the GOP was going to do it for him. They know how and do it very well.

So here we are today, Obama is being defined by others (and you really aren't helping his cause, if I may say so) because of Wright and other comments he has made. His campaign has totally screwed this up--it is no one's fault but his own. Some things cannot be overcome in the minds of the voters.

I don't like excuses or whining. The Democratic Party has effed this whole campaign up--who would have thought McCain would have a chance, now he does. A good one.

I grieve the highjacking of politics -- the detours down irrelevant roads that keep us from advancing as a society, that keep us from talking to one another in a civilized manner.

I'm sad too that this thread got off track. I had hoped to use it as a jumping off point for evangelical and ecumenical Christians to find some common ground and talk a bit. I'd be curious to hear from clergy with politicians in the pews. Do pastors feel obligated to consider their public figures' sensibilities as they compose the message for the week? Is this incident giving them a chill? I'd be interested to hear from congregants -- how important is a single bad sermon in terms of deciding whether to stay with a church? Is one enough to push you out the door for good? Two? Seven? Seventy Seven?

Is correct -- as am I for pointing out that you're using the basic tactics from the right-wing playbook: distort, smear, distract from any substantive discussion.

In light of your use of these tactics, it's the height of hypocrisy for you to be labeling your caricature of Obama a fraud, when that caricature is itself fraudulent. Good "strategery," but bullhockey nonetheless.

Search my comments and then come back and tell me I'm right wing. Couldn't be further from the truth--but then again, I get your need to write that in order to play the game. Beats the alternative.

Swift-boating? Nice. Got anything else--or are your feeling just hurt?

"For the record, I think Obama is a fraud."

It's quite clear from your Swift-boating posts that you had your right-wing mind made up from the get-go, and that you're simply using the Wright storyline as a vehicle with which to smear Obama. It's disingenuous for you to be labeling Obama a fraud when you're engaging in such bogus tactics.

Oh well, 'tis a free country -- and I'm fortunately just as free to call you to task for the bull-droppings you're throwing about.

I think the same of someone who sits in their cubicle listening to Rush everyday as I do someone who sits in a pew every week for 20 years listening to Rev Wright. If either one tells me they don't agree with everything that is being said, I call BS to that. And neither one shows much "good judgement". But that's just me.

For the record, I think Obama is a fraud. If you want to think Wright is irrelevant (and therefore not to be discussed) that's your prerogative as a voter. I guarantee you it does matter to many people. It doesn't take a genius to see why the Democrats lose national elections.

Gosh, Jenniferm, you can decide to vote for someone because of how he or she parts her hair, or what symbol he or she wears or neglects to wear on a lapel. No rules are in place, it's true. That's part of living in a Democracy.

Since there are no rules, we the voters need to discuss, thoughtfully and respectfully (with good humor, as appropriate) what is and isn't relevant. I'm offering the opinion that a politician's pastor's body of sermons isn't relevant. We don't even know which sermons Barack Obama heard, much less those he agreed with. A pastor's sermons are relevant only if a politician has explicitly made them part of his platform.

It's funny, but many people listen to less than an hour of sermonizing each month at church, have maybe a dozen small conversations with their pastor throughout the year. On the other hand, there are people who listen religiously, maybe 15 hours each week or more, to talk radio. (Their pastors fantacize about having such devoted listeners.) Should we hold politicians responsible for merely listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Ingraham and Sean Hanity, and assume that they agree with the most inflamatory words these personalities speak? Should we keep tabs on when they switch to Air America, to assure they're allowing equal time in their gray matter for alternative opinions? Or would all this monitoring and assuming be irrelevant and distracting?

People form opinions by evaluating a variety of sources. We listen, we agree, we disagree. This one single contributor to Barack Obama's mental storehouse is getting way too much credit for his influence.

Are you making a distinction between judging Obama vs voting for him because of his judgement on this issue? That is apples and oranges if you ask me. Last I looked people can decide who to vote for on any number of factors--no rules are in place, right?

If he wants to sit in any church in America for the next 20 years and listen to whatever comes from down on high that's his business. But once you decide to run for POTUS all bets are off, aren't they? This became a political issue for Obama the minute his campaign decided to 1)remove Wright from the official campaign and 2) when he made his Checkers speech.

I don't think anyone should be "obligated to leave" either, but he's a politician and that puts him in a whole different category.

No, you didn't. But hey, like I said, if you love the guy, then love him.

Looks like you get the talking points memo from the campaign to share with us--the life story angle was working over the weekend. Pandering, today. Good job.

Hit pretty close to home, didn't I?

Spare me the santimony, okay?

At the sizable amount of baloney that folks like you are tossing about? Like many Americans, I'm tired of smear campaigns that end up with us having utterly incompetent leadership -- we've had two presidential terms based on this tactic, and I think we should stand our ground before we get a third.

Agree with Obama or disagree with him, but by golly, have the basic honesty (and self-respect for yourself as an American) to actually confront the guy himself -- his actual words and positions -- rather than play the smear game.

You seem to have some bent up anger yourself, pal. If you love the man, then love him. But don't write all that stuff and not expect people to see a whole bunch of bull.

There are people in this world who are not going to vote for Obama and it has nothing to do with racism. I get that's the game plan of the campaign, though. It seems to be working in some quarters, but not all.

Have a nice day.

Jenniferm, thanks for reading the post and responding. You ask for whom I am "providing an excuse." Hmmm. That's not my intent. I'm using this issue to say that we set a dangerous precedent when we hold people responsible for merely hearing controversial content. I'm also saying that people stay with their churches for a variety of reasons, and they shouldn't be obligated to leave because the pastor's message from time to time (or even a lot of the time) wouldn't pass muster with Fox News or fit tidily into a Chicken Soup for the Soul book.

Regarding the reverend's controversial sermon count: No, I wasn't counting anything after Obama's repudiation.

Look, Rev. Wright may have a few nutty opinions, or he may be certifiably crazy. It's not important. He's peripheral. The issue is whether we want to judge and be judged by what we hear, read, watch, tolerate, forgive. To me, that's scary.

Obama's repudiation of Rev. Wright was slow, but I think that's because the United Church of Christ (his church) has an ecumenical tradition, where human error and broad opinions are tolerated.

I'm just calling you on your own bs-laced and baseless comment. It's clear from your own words that Obama's own merits are precisely not what you want Obama to be judged on -- you'd rather smear him by association with a caricature of his former pastor than have folks actually look at Obama's acts and words.

Fact -- he's a biracial American, and was raised by his white mom and grandma (which kind of undercuts the "America-hating racist" storyline). Fact -- after college he worked as a grass-roots organizer in impoverished inner-city areas of Chicago, helping folks help themselves better their lives. Fact -- after graduating from one of the nation's top law schools, he chose to go into elective office, and has served more than 11 years in elective office on both the state and federal level.

Of course the folks who don't want to see him win the nomination, whether because of racism or because they seem him as the most viable threat to McCain, or because they want Hillary at all costs, want to gloss over the actual Obama and portray him as some sort of America-hating caricature, which simply ain't a reflection of reality.

...to your lengthy comment, I would guess you don't put any responsibility of this whole Wright mess at his (Obama) feet. It is all the media's fault, Hillary's fault and McCain's fault, right?

"though he's clearly passionate about social justice (as is shown by his own decades of public service), it's quite clear that he has his own worldview and his own words"

I don't do hyperbole and this clearly falls in that category to me. But hey, if he's your guy, great.

with jenniferm, when she says that "but Obama is being judged here on his own merits."

It's clear that both the Clinton camp and the right-wingers want to smear Obama by (1) claiming that his pastor "hates America and whites" (which ain't supported by the record), and (2) arguing or implying that the pastor must have spewed bile at every sermon he ever gave (which also ain't supported by the record).

Aside from Wright's admittedly kooky conspiracy theory about the origins of the AIDS virus, I don't find his worldview to be all that "weird," even if I might disagree with him on a number of points (in my experience, there is room for disagreement amongst reasonable folks in most matters). Certainly Wright is correct to argue that racism and classim are alive and well, and to condemn the U.S. government and politicians for inaction in addressing the problems of the urban poor sure ain't "weird" in my book. Neither is making the observation that many of U.S. policies over the past several decades laid the groundwork for the 9/11 attack.

Basically, Wright is impolitic and a bit kooky, but much of what he's being condemned for saying really isn't all that "weird."

It is a bit beside the point, though, when going back to the original question of whether Obama is being judged on his own merits -- that's clearly not the case when it comes to the vast majority of those keeping this "controversy" alive by stoking misconceptions about what was actually said, and how often -- Obama didn't say those words that Wright did, and, though he's clearly passionate about social justice (as is shown by his own decades of public service), it's quite clear that he has his own worldview and his own words, quite distinct from those of the guy who preached in his church.

It's strange -- I've been a regular churchgoer, and I can't imagine others ascribing wholesale my pastor's words and views to me or to other members of the congregation. But for some reason many people want to buy into the idea that Senator Obama's views are identical to those of his former pastor.

That's weird. But it's wholly understandable in these days of bumper-sticker, Swift-boating politics -- it's much easier to knock down a caricature of a politician than it is to engage the actual person. That's what got us eight years of Bush, and both the Clinton and McCain camps know that.

Are you providing an excuse for Rev Wright or for Sen Obama?

"who went over the top on two or three sermons"

I think it is a little more than that--and are you including his recent NAACP speech and National Press Club interview in your count?

This is the real world of presidential politics and Obama's campaign knew last year Wright might be an issue. The fact that this has blow up in his face is very telling for a guy running on "judgement from day one".

You know, I could give a rats a$$ about Rev Wright's weird views of the world, but Obama is being judged here on his own merits.