Well put Jim. We need, I believe, seek to understand each other; but ultimately we must decide how we will live.
Igor

Posted by: Deryll | March 19, 2008 2:12 PM

Great, yes, let's have an election that is related to issues. All for it. So where does Obama stand on, um, anything?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 19, 2008 2:26 PM

Genetically, he is equally a white man. Yet you and every other media voice, see him as black. I see him as American, where mixed genetics is the rule, rather than an exception as it is in most parts of the world. And that is our strength.

In this country, however, if you have any black ancestry you're considered black.

Great, yes, let's have an election that is related to issues. All for it. So where does Obama stand on, um, anything?

You mean that finally addressing our sordid racial history, which at times spills over into politics, isn't a legitimate issue?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 19, 2008 2:35 PM

"It would seem to me your bias is showing."

Perhaps I am, since I am still thinking of this as an issue of a political candidate and of a nation.

But you are right in implying that this is a global problem. Genetically, we are all human! And our ability to adapt (change), even in our thinking, has our greatest strength. And boy do we need to adapt going forward!

Posted by: James Bridges | March 19, 2008 2:44 PM

I would not have a problem with that speech being played in classrooms , as part of any civics class .

Posted by: Mick | March 19, 2008 3:00 PM

"You mean that finally addressing our sordid racial history, which at times spills over into politics, isn't a legitimate issue?"

Sure. What does he want to do about it?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 19, 2008 3:22 PM

I've said since last summer Barack Obama may have the best speech writing team (based on their performances of late and not their resumes)that we've seen in a long time in American politics. Since the Reagan era possibly. But this would be of no value if he could not close the deal with impressive and convincing presentations. Whether it was yesterday, or in Atlanta in Feb. or in Iowa in Jan. he has been clearly the most effective communicator in these elections. I am convinced that this is where his momentum has come from, because as some here allude to he's a little vague on the specifics of the major issues. His performance yesterday was as Jim seemed to infer was one for the ages, yet I believe it was also one that he delivered with a lot of conviction. Whether you consider him black, white, or whatever his speech was clearly one that needed to have been made, and one that most certainly needs to be heeded. doug

Posted by: Doug | March 19, 2008 3:43 PM

I wept frequently during Obama's speech, moved by his vision of what we can be as Americans and as people. It is the fact that he has lived overseas, exerienced other cultures that has me voting for him. (And forgive me, but do we not practice freedom of religion in this country?) In general, we Americans are an insular, self satisfied people who know little and appreciate even less about other cultures.

How is it that for far too long, we have seen ourselves as the center of the world? We desperately need a President who is culturally eclectic and who can envision a world in which military might is not the only criteria for leadership. Our current President has all but destroyed our reputation and our role in the world and it is now time for 'something completely different'.

I, too, grew up in the far east (of missionary parents), my daughter studied and worked in Indonesia and we both find ourselves adamant Obama supporters. We Americans are indeed part of the world community and need never to forget that. The color of Obama's skin and where he goes to church seem so very irrelevent.

Posted by: constance capen | March 19, 2008 3:59 PM

Obama is his own best speech writer.

Posted by: LJ | March 19, 2008 4:27 PM

What I find very disturbing is how this all started. By the continuing questioning of Obama's faith. Funny how we never talked about the current Presidents pastor. Why is that? Race? Islam?

Posted by: Daniel | March 19, 2008 4:40 PM

Until such time as people in this country are not identified by color, ethnicity or race, Barack will be seen as black. Because of his African father, he is an authentic African American. My daughter is a very fair skinned bi-racial child. My husband & I have agreed to identify her as a Black Latina. Why? She has a spanish surname and because she has black parent (me). She is being acculturated as black because her sense of identity is pretty much influenced by me. What she self-identifies with later on is her decision. I would rather she not identify as white because if someone were to know me, they would automatically categorize her a black. It's just easier this way.

As for Kevin -- just because you don't like his positions on issues doesn't mean Obama doesn't have any positions. I've noticed most right-wingers do that. They completely ignore or dismiss ideas they don't agree with as not have positions or plans. If you want information that you don't feel you are getting, go to his website for specifics.

Posted by: Nuttshell | March 19, 2008 4:47 PM

I can understand why Jim Wallis doesn't really want to get into the weeds of "Black Liberation Theology", but my gut feeling is that this was Obama's last chance to make a clean break with Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC. Obama gave a good speech but he didn't make the break, and that could still end up costing him.

I'd be surprised if we don't hear a lot more about this before it's all said and done.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 19, 2008 5:29 PM

"If you want information that you don't feel you are getting, go to his website for specifics."

Yes, I am aware that he has a website (powered by hope, no less) and that there are ideas on that website. I want to hear him talk about the fair pay act, and explain how he is going to pay for a $4,000 per pupil tax credit for college tuition, and how that differs from his plan to pay students $40 an hour in tax credits to volunteer. Since he proposes to keep troops in Iraq should Al Qaeda remain, I'd like to know how he squares that with his promise to bring the troops home in 12-16 months.

But he'd rather talk about how it's awesome to be unified and such and pretend that he is post-political. His support from moderates and independents isn't based on all the money he's going to spend, it's based on this misnomer that he is some sort of non-partisan moderate.

There is a difference between housing an "issues" section on your website and defending your ideology in the public square.

Posted by: kevin s, | March 19, 2008 6:00 PM

There is a difference between housing an "issues" section on your website and defending your ideology in the public square.

For God's sake, Kevin -- don't you realize that not everyone is as obsessed with "ideology" as you are? "Ideology" is what got us into Iraq in the first place, let alone other Bush disasters, and people are getting tired up it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 19, 2008 6:12 PM

Funny how we never talked about the current Presidents pastor. Why is that? Race? Islam?

Maybe most pastors are not controversial? Though I do remember a discussion with a Romanian Orthodox Monk in an American Greek Orthodox Monastery telling me about the time he ran into a group of self-proclaimed anarchists on a bus (in Romania), which he used as a segue to tell them about the greatest anarchist of all time, Jesus. So maybe a pastor by definition (at least the good ones) are controversial. So we can only conclude Bush's pastor is rather mundane and boring.

Posted by: aaron | March 19, 2008 7:50 PM

For all the grammartistas, please forgive my varied use of tense, I'm a scientist after all.

Posted by: aaron | March 19, 2008 7:58 PM

Duh-sciple I think you missed a few of those same steps in making your point . Thats politics for ya .

Posted by: huh | March 19, 2008 8:25 PM

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

Posted by: dipsciple | March 19, 2008 8:31 PM

Posted by: Peggy | March 19, 2008 4:41 PM

Obama talks about change but gives no specifics. Words matter - now that is one I can hang my hat on - but Obama is about as good a word smith as Bill Clinton. You have to read between the lines and make sure you know Obama's definition of the word. Make no mistake - it was old time Dem Gangland - Mayor Daily politics that got him to DC. He owes them bigtime and they will be there to collect.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 19, 2008 10:48 PM

Are you going to be as excited when Hillary gives her speech about sexism? Or is that not as big a problem? Obama is a pure opportunist with no concern for anyone but those he sees as minorities--his attitude towards gays, women, and Jews is reprehensible.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 19, 2008 11:54 PM

"For God's sake, Kevin -- don't you realize that not everyone is as obsessed with "ideology" as you are?"

I am, but that does not mean that Obama does not have one that he wants to advance. He won't call it that, of course, because the term has negative connotations. And so we avoid talking about political approaches because such talk is offensive to people. Great.

"Question: is "walking away biblical or unbiblical?""

The steps you introduce do not necessarily apply to church leadership, or whether one ought to remain under the tutelage of bad leadership. That said, please don't expect me to believe Obama engaged in any of these steps.

"For those who wanted more detailed proposals - he doesn't give them because he trusts the American people to work them out."

So America is a direct Democracy now? This verges on parody.

"M-Lad and Kevin (aka "dittoheads"):"

I don't listen to any conservative talk radio.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 20, 2008 12:43 AM

The inability for some folks to think for themselves amazes me. I know it is much easier to let Hillary Clinton tell you Obama doesn't stand for anything than to actually look for yourself. You might start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama.

Posted by: dlowen | March 20, 2008 4:56 AM

This speech rang hollow to most Americans because of how it came to be.

If Obama had given it a year ago it would have been great, but he was forced to give it and actually lied in it by saying he never heard these comments while at Trinity.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 20, 2008 6:33 AM

From today's NY Times column by Nicholas Kristoff:

"“The big thing for Wright is hope,” said Martin Marty, one of America’s foremost theologians, who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. “You hear ‘hope, hope, hope.’ Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope.”

Professor Marty said that as a white person, he sticks out in the largely black congregation but is always greeted with warmth and hospitality. “It’s not anti-white,” he said. “I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.”"

So, if he's good enough for Martin Marty, he's good enough for me to at least consider before writing him and his chuch off. I'm visiting Trinity UCC next time I'm in Chicago to experience it for myself. I've been wanting to do this for years.

Thanks to the many writers who posted insightful articles here in recent days, and thanks to Sojo readers those who posted thoughtful comments afterward. I'm seeing Wright's comments with new eyes. He may have been over the top in some cases, but much of what he said is what White America needs to hear. Let's stop pretending that racism is no longer an issue in this country, and let's stop hiding behind certain conservative political positions to hide whatever lingering prejudices we might hold.

Another beer, please.

Posted by: I and I | March 20, 2008 10:37 AM

Please note that the comments that I write that follow, are written from someone who is still planning to vote for Mr. Obama. I have voted Republican, by and large, all my life. Although I have been independant in my views, not registering my life as a republican, I have voted republican based on a belief in conservative (albeit not quite in the Rush Limbaugh vein) values and principles.

I have to say, in all honesty, that Mr. Obama's speech did not address any of the questions that I have regarding his relationship with Rev. Wright, and consequently the influencing power of that relationship. To be fair, it was an eleoquent speech, well thought out, and on the par with some of the greatest sermons and literary works that I have ever experienced. It made me feel great...but in the end it did not answer some of the more pertinant questions regarding the situation with Rev. Wright.

I live near Chicago, and go to school in the city. I travel there daily to finish work on my degree. I have many friends who go to the Church in question. Through my relationship with them, and the fact that I have purchased more than 50 sermons from Rev. Wright I can say that I find it incredulous that Mr. Obama is and was not in some way a faithful disciple of those teachings.

To be fair, I have to say that I enjoy Rev. Wright's sermons, despite the racial rhetoric. I find that there is an underlying value to listening to him, and his exegesis of certain passages in the Bible has opened up a few doors of interest for me. Having said that, after listening to over 50 sermons of his, it is clear that the racial and hate filled speech is and was a regular feature of his teachings. Point blank: the sound bites that we are hearing, are not isolated outbursts of anger and frustration...they are practical theology of the Church and preacher in question.

Mr. Obama has been there for 20 years, and because he did not address the situation directly...because he did not answer the questions at hand and did not disengage himself completely from this situation...I just have to pause and wonder if Mr. Obama is all talk. I have to wonder what he is like in private moments with close friends who speak ill of me only because I am white.

Like I said, I still plan to vote for Mr. Obama. I prayed about the situation and decided to cool my head and wait and see if anything else comes from this that gives the situation a more positive shape. But I just have to say, in all honesty, this whole event has caused me to pause for a moment.

Posted by: Gary Davis | March 20, 2008 10:54 AM

I have read this all and have heard all of these arguments before. I am not the only person who has of course.
Currently I have two children in my house that I will probably need to adopt. Their situation is bad and it is all wrapped up in the undocumented immigrant story. Last week I had 12 year old boy stay with us who had been kicked out of his home by his grandmother. He has never even seen his mom and dad and is not in anyway an immigrant. Yesterday I had to take him back to his drunken grandmother as the other two children's situation dictated I do so. Child protective services has done nothing.
He was homeless again within twenty four hours.

These three children are just a drop in the bucket of my life, which of course is just a drop in the ocean of this nation's reality.
I have dealt with situations like these for close to three decades now. I have seen Republican Administrations answers and I have lived through Democratic Administrations answers. I have watched over and loved hundreds of children. I have watched them fail and I have watched them die and have felt each and every "drop" of destruction as it took place. I have housed, fed, clothed and educated more children of poverty than I could ever possibly count. I have buried over twenty five children whose lives were destroyed before they ever had a chance to vote or even think of the things we talk about here. Unfortunately I cannot help but count them today as my history tells me I am watching another drop go down life's drain.
I have lived the life of "church meeting the needs of the poor" and not using Government as the foundation or the answer all society's ills. I have quite frankly saved the taxpayer thousands and thousands of dollars and met all the demands that those who call for such responses, and who hate their dollars being "stolen" from them in some kind of government wealth redistribution scheme, ask for. In short I have been in a laboratory that has tested all of these ideas and can attest to the weakness of them all.
Today I am just finished. I will not quit, I am just fed up. Tomorrow I will be better because God is good.
If anyone thinks Hillary and the old line has any new ideas, I must respond that I think you are nuts. If anyone thinks that the Republican party has any corner on answering our dilemma I would ask you to come live with me for a year and see our national reality first hand, not just think about it or tell me your grand economic theories.
If any one thinks Ron Paul is the answer,...or wishes Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney had won the Republican nomination, all I can say is, WOW!
I do not know if Obama has a chance, but if he can do any of the things he talked about in that speech, if he can bring us anywhere closer to the ideals he talked about and get us working together as a nation instead of continuing this futile bickering and political posturing, I for one am now willing to give him the opportunity to try.

Posted by: fed up | March 20, 2008 11:48 AM

"Like I said, I still plan to vote for Mr. Obama. I prayed about the situation and decided to cool my head...." Gary D

Most posts, I just take on face value, from whatever point of view.

On one hand your's seems reasoned, balanced, considered--and on the other hand seems very strained. You are trying so hard to understand Dr. Wright and find him so helpful that you bought 50 tapes; and yet are so troubled to the point you are deeply troubled about Obama, a man you still plan to vote for even though you are a conservative Republican----

and before I really re-digest what you said---I conclude your post is phony.

I'm not sure which side of yourself you are lying about.

I am often given to challenging persons views here. But my heart is one of gratefulness to the posters--even if they are in 'ugly attack mode.' And my intent is clarity and furtherance of dialogue.

Frankly your post is the first one that genuinely angers me. It is either the post of a profoundly honest and torn soul or one aimed with complete disregard for honest dialogue; one beyond angry hatred.

I want to qualify my post, welcoming the fact I may be wrong. But I find your words convincingly deceptive. Lies are profoundly more evil than aggressive attack against ideas or even hateful personal attacks.

If you wish to email personally if I am wrong you can use runwiththechariots@ya hoo.com

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 1:10 PM

Obama candicacy is a reflection of individual achievement by a man. Pastor Wright's Church reflects a conservative viewpoint on helping people.

Which black churches have been doing for decades. But you'll note that blacks don't vote that way because the issues they face are often political in nature and can be dealt with only by government. And Wright will tell you that.

Not at all, the democratic party has pimped black votes, and taught you to hate the conservative. The republican party used the same method to the Evangelical voter. Its actually easy to understand.

The conservatives themselves have proven incredibly hateful toward anyone who disagrees with them but are so out of touch with what they really believe they don't understand why people reject them. And you can start with Reagan -- he consistently told blacks to "stick it," and did you notice that when he died not one black person was asked about his legacy?

For your questions, blacks have never demonstrated the kind of loyalty, especially financially, to the Democratic Party that would make them players (many don't even vote). On the other hand, evangelicals were the foot-soldiers for the Republican Party's conservative wing thanks to the scapegoating leaders who promoted conservative policies as akin to the Gospel. Don't blame the GOP; blame Christian leaders who misused the combination of faith and politics for the sake of power and thus found it waning.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 20, 2008 1:22 PM

Letjustice

You of course are right. again all of the methods already tried do not work.
We religious can say that we need to strengthen families and who is to argue with that? The child I mentioned has no real family to be strengthened. The personal choices of drugs, crime, alcohol and the environment of poverty have done their work. If by some miracle one or both of the parents could be found or the grandmother were to sober up, the difficulties of this 12 year old child would still remain. He is perhaps salvageable but the psychological damage, the pain, and the anger will not go away or be deterred. The fruit of his life is already on the branch, it just needs another year or two until his harvest, and ours begins. Once that occurs you can bet that the Governments ignorance of this child will stop. We will no longer want to ignore this kid nor will we be able to do so. We will invest tens of thousands to incarcerate him and feel completely justified in spending tax dollars to do it. No one will mention unfair wealth redistribution at that point.

The immigrant children are the offspring of two retarded individuals who themselves have been here since they were children. Some would say they all should just go back to Mexico. Others would make them wards of the state. My wife and I will attempt adoption.
I doubt anyone here will offer to send enough money to pay for their upbringing or to make up for what it will cost us in regards to our soon to come retirement years. Thankfully neither of us want to retire and live a life of ease, but our health could fail I suppose. Will people think of us my wife and I a drain on the economy if that occurs? Will anyone take into account the money my wife and I and many, many others across the nation have already saved the tax payer?

As a nation we have to be brought together to develop ideas that will entail community involvement, personal investment and personal sacrifice. That cannot be accomplished if all we do is argue politics and economics. That cannot be accomplished if we just debate the role of government versus private charities and churches.
Unless we just want to appear smart and garner the praises of those who already agree with our view points, or self appoint ourselves as the martyrs for our own political creeds, seeing ourselves as the victims of each other's wrong headed ideas, all of this is vanity.
When Obama stated that these are OUR children, he hit the nail on the head.
To paraphrase the patriot; "we either "hang together" (come together) or we will surely hang (SUDDENLY COME TO THE END OF OUR ROPE) separately"

Posted by: fed up | March 20, 2008 1:36 PM

Obama is a gifted orator and that facility of tongue belies the text of his speeches. I would encourage everyone to read the speeches to really "hear" what Obama is saying. The fallacy of Obama is that his "message of hope" is based on convincing Americans to accept that our lives are hopeless. According to Obama's refrain, we are the unwitting victims of our corporations and of our government. And the consumers of his message nod in agreement as they drink their lattes, text on their cellphones, and blog on their personal computers.

The candidate who refuses to wear a single flag pin on his lapel because he views the pin as having become a substitute for true patriotism after 9/11 delivered his "state of the racial union" address while standing in front of 6 American flags. A disingenuous show of patriotism apparently deemed necessary to inspire that "we the people" may yet have the opportunity to unite under the flag if we unite under Obama.

Obama said nothing new in his speech on race. He reiterated the complexities of our racial history, and he reiterated that whatever our ethnicity, our moral values, we can become victims or choose to become victims. The most hopeful note of the speech was the anecdote about Ashley who symbolizes initiative and independence in contrast to the "woe-is-me-I'm-entitled-to-better" mentality that is so pervasive.

Obama has and does play the "race card" each time he calls himself an African American. If he is not running as such and if he truly wants to bridge racial division, he should call himself an American.

Obama's message is not new nor is it uniting. His message is exclusively that of the left. He has never "crossed the aisle" to compromise, and to date, has given no indication of willingness to do so.

Posted by: judithod | March 20, 2008 5:00 PM

"White men have a chance to reconize the importance of this election to strike a blow for equality, inclusion, repentance, and atonement; hopefully they will avail themselves of the opportunity."

Would you (I'm asking Don. Rick, I know your answer) say the same thing if a black or female Republican were running?

"One look at him and you know that won't happen, nor can it right now."

This was the point Ferraro was making. On his merits, he is not all that interesting of a candidate.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 20, 2008 5:35 PM

I would absolutely say the same thing about a black or female Republican. If only John McCain were a black woman, he would have my vote.
Again issues are not near as important in this election as is the opportunity to help make America a truly inclusive nation.
There has not been a election between FDR and George W. that really mattered. None in that time frame has made a difference, good or bad. That is the heart and soul of issue voting. It doesn't ever seem to really matter, no matter how good our intentions.
This election there is an opportunity for the election to really matter. To matter beyond current issues, beyond politics, beyond ideology. We have an opportunity to witness and be part of a truly historic moment in this country. Let us not lose sight of this opportunity in the guise of ideology and issues. Issues matter but right matters more.

Posted by: Don V. | March 20, 2008 5:53 PM

Ms. Valerie -- you identify exactly zero of the questions Obama must answer that no one is asking.

Do you have a secret list?

Why not reveal one of them.

Which reprehensible view that Dr. Wright actually holds (not that Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh asserts he holds) are you talking about??

I don't know why I keep asking these kinds of questions. It almost makes me wish Mark would come back. At least he had the arrogance to argue.

I agree Black Liberation Theology is not preached or taught in every black church--although I am not exactly sure what you reference as Black Liberation Theology. Theology that conveys that the death and resurrection of Jesus breaks the hold of sin, brokennes, disease and death; a Gospel able bring hope when there is no hope; and is powerful enough to incarnate righteousness and justice that breaks a systematic oppression of a race of people is liberationist. In the final analysis all you are talking about is a Jesus who comes to humanity to pursue, save and free--not from a theoretical state of sin/oppression that someone mythical person is in that lives in Greenland--but frees real folk in real places in real situations in real history.

My mind and ears were trained to not even think words like "gee," "gosh," or "stinky." I was embarrassed when my minister said the awful word, "sex." In the 35 years I knew my father, I never heard his voice raised. I was born and bred conservative, white, evangelical, male.

If I can hear and understand Dr. Wright while ducking some of his style that distracts me--it really is not all that hard.

But I am interested, Valerie, in these unspoken questions that Obama must give an account for.

It is OK to listen and disagree. It is OK to ask good questions and listen for an answer. It would not be fair for me to say, Valerie

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 20, 2008 6:22 PM

Please elaborate on your comment. In what manner is Obama compromising?

Compromise is part of the liberal mindset, that everyone has something to offer and can wor together to benefit everyone. In my experience, however, conservatives want to control everything and often accuse everyone else of being the same way.

That's why Obama is so popular these days and Bush's name, in contrast, is mud -- the latter was divisive from day one (even though he pledged to be "a uniter").

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 20, 2008 11:39 PM

It seemed that Obama wasn’t a very good “disciple” of Rev. Wright, as Obama’s overall speech didn’t reflect the sentiments of Wright in those media clips we continue to see. Obama apparently was trying to do what Paul says in Romans 12:9, i.e. “hate everything that is evil and hold tight to everything that is good.” One can hear for themselves Rev. Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon” in 2 parts via:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZROa0rlMU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9_LQKlLSBo&feature=related
We all certainly need to keep our politics in prayer at this time.

Posted by: Ron Mitchell | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM

Well said, Mr. Wallis. I agree that ten years from now people may well point to this speech as a turning point in our history, or at least that is my hope. I also agree that the debate has now shifted focus from Sen. Obama's relationship with his pastor to our relationship with each other as citizens in a pluralistic democracy.

What we are seeing is a presidential campaign that for the first time in my recollection is truly focused on transcending partisan politics for the common good, and I am encouraged by it. It is a worthy test for us as a society, and I thank you for helping us make it happen. My prayers and my efforts are with yours.

May God bless us all in this; we need all the help we can get. :)

Posted by: Jonathan Tong | March 21, 2008 2:09 AM

"What we are seeing is a presidential campaign that for the first time in my recollection is truly focused on transcending partisan politics for the common good, and I am encouraged by it."

How is Obama's campaign more about transcending partisan politics than McCain's?

"Kevin -- I will do so, but I can guarantee you that the perceived radicalism you're referring to is a direct reaction to institutionalized conservative arrogance,"

Nothing perceived about it, and I wouldn't call them radicals, considering the site gets millions of visitors daily. Either way, if that is the liberal response to anything, I'm certainly not interested.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 21, 2008 10:57 AM

judithod -- You're confusing ideology with partisan politics, which are not the same thing; in fact, really hard-core ideological liberals represent a minority in the Democratic Party. (Liberalism was all but dead in this country until the war in Iraq revived it.) FYI, the Democratic Party in Florida and Michigan broke the party's own rules in scheduling primaries, and such "strong-arm" tactics of which you accuse Pelosi have always been fairly common.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 21, 2008 1:03 PM

How is Obama's campaign more about transcending partisan politics than McCain's?

McCain received Bush's endorsement, and Bush has been the most partisan president in my lifetime. 'Nuff said.

Nothing perceived about it, and I wouldn't call them radicals, considering the site gets millions of visitors daily. Either way, if that is the liberal response to anything, I'm certainly not interested.

You just made my point. Remember, I don't consider anyone who disagrees with me lower than dirt -- but a lot of conservatives think that way. That's why they're done.

Do you think he should consider Michael Steele as a running mate?

That would not help McCain in the least.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 21, 2008 3:06 PM

Al -- You're in the wrong place.

Would Wallis say the same thing if any other person made that speech? Yeah, I believe he would. But you can't stand Obama's views, so you want to discount his message. Guess what -- that won't fly here and it exposes your agenda.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 21, 2008 5:43 PM

Harjo - this Hupa woman thanks you for your comments. True and worthy is your speech.

Posted by: Sharonna | March 21, 2008 6:57 PM

As I see it, Mr. Wallis has always been careful not to endorse particular candidates or to let Evangelical Christians be bound to any particular political party. His focus has always been on the issues, on helping the weakest and most vulnerable, and on addressing the common good.

I believe his enthusiastic support of Sen. Obama's words are totally consistent with this focus. And I have no doubt that if any of the other presidential candidates had made the same speech he would have said the same things about them.

I am encouraged that this dialogue is happening and that there are other leaders like Mr. Wallis and now Mr. Richardson who are showing the courage to stand up for what is right and to take an active role in helping us all work toward forming a more perfect union. I cannot help but believe that God smiles on this, and I pray for more help to come this way.

Posted by: Jonathan | March 21, 2008 11:22 PM

It’s Not About Him Now—It’s About Us

NO - It is about him. I am not running for office and asking people to trust my decernment or judgement - he is. The people that are closest to him and have the greatest influence on him - that is important. The people that have 'mentored' him are important. Bush - Reagen - Nixon, the dirve by media always tried to hang them with the company they kept - Obama is being looked at with the same lens. (This is the Clinton Camp doing their best to discredit him)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 22, 2008 11:20 PM

"They really show how much disdain and fear you have of Obama- just one more reason for me to like him all the more!"

Cute.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 23, 2008 12:59 AM

This is the Clinton Camp calling in all the chips of the big four to go after Obama. (I am starting to be convinced that Hillary would go to hell for the White House.)

Garbage. All the major media (CNN was the first, truth be told), including print, were broadcasting or publishing glorified tips from right-wing media about Clinton's alleged corruption -- charges that, upon examination, had little or no basis in fact and led indirectly to the collapse of the conservative apparatus that supported Bush and in particular the war in Iraq. Bottom line, the Clintons have no "chips" to cash.

A Republican speaks at Bob Jones and the Big Four go nuts trying to label the person with anything that will stick.

If you understand Southern racism at all, you would know that it was a big deal. Keep in mind, however, that the school had tacit support from the Reagan Administration, which is when the controversy first surfaced publicly.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 23, 2008 11:09 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 23, 2008 11:09 PM

'...Clintons have no "chips"...'

They are collecting even as we speek. If Hillary wins - Kennedy, Richardson and all with be personna non grata in the next Clinton White House. They have bailed on the Clinton's for Obama right now, ricking a lot I might add. If Obama wins - will be interesting how he handles all the people that threw their support behind him.

The big four were very late to the table on the Clintons. May other new organizations were out with the story before they were. Even when they had to tell the Clinton Story - they did a very poor job investagating.

I as a conservative have not supported Bob Jones - Fawell and others. I have support their right to free speech and expression. I have invited them to the table on any number of issues so that everyone had their say. Liberals and Wallis just like to lump us all together so they do not have to deal with us. There are several issues that I agree with Wallis on - I will not give him support because of the way he and his supporters have handled Dobson - Kennedy and all.

To Wallis - because I am a conservative - I am just a Fawell Follower with no ideas or convictions of my own. That would be like me (and I have never supported this) saying that all liberals are just like Pres. Clinton - looking for the next girl to service me.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 24, 2008 8:50 AM

If I might echo Moderatelad's comments, I have never been a supporter of Bob Jones University. I have never contributed to their ministries and I changed churches largely to get away from the influence of his followers.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 24, 2008 10:51 AM

I want to sit in pews full of people that remind me of America's diversity. I want to sing music that reflects that diversity. I want to study scriptures that remind me that there is still so much that we can be doing together.

I've been blessed to attend a church just like that for over nine years.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 10:16 AM