David asks: “Is Obama’s failure to apologize courage or is it arrogance?”
Well, we’ve been seeing a lot of “Obama arrogance” lately. It emerging as a well-established pattern with him, akin to Bush’s stubbornness and Clinton’s tendency to exagerate. A basic character flaw.
As to courage, how much of that — if any — have we ever seen in Obama? Brains, yes! Ambition, for sure! But courage? I don’t think so. Courage is what McCain, though, is about. That’s the one you want to ask about courage.

You know what the arrogance is? It’s when people take it upon themselves to assume that they know exactly what a speaker did mean, when they jump to take offense, when they refuse to accept any explanation other than an apology that may not even be warranted. I don’t know if I’d call it courage, just intellectual honesty. How can an honest man apologize and un-say his words, if he believes the message is fair and that it’s being misunderstood and exploited to emotionally manipulate people who never take the time to read or watch all his talks in entirety? It’s an ugly sickness in this country also how people can’t even agree to disagree on issues of opinion but someone must always shrivel down and apologize.

Senator Obama seems medium-brave to me but the trap he’s in is that it is hard to tell people what they want to hear without offending anyone because as a nation we’re addicted to scapegoats. It may have played well with the crowd in San Francisco that less educated people are pawns and it may play well in depressed regions of Pennsylvania that NAFTA caused the economic recession or predatory lenders or China did. The hero is whoever will tell workers who will tell those that have lost jobs that’s up to them to develop the skills necessary for the next job and who will tell the elite that they have to live with the rest of us regardless.

“[I]t’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Obama’s statement while not politically smart is accurate. It is an all too human tendency to cling to what supports a person’s identity and creates a sense of security. We all do it, not just the poor and the uneducated. Fear affects people at a deeper level than intellectual argument and analysis. It is very difficult to tame fear, to not react by projecting fear onto the “other” in forms like xenophobia, anti-trade sentiment and so on. Tell the man who is on the verge of losing his job because his employer is moving offshore, and who must now retrain in an area in which he may have no aptitude, at substantial cost, that trade agreements have benefited the U.S.. What is good at a macro-level may and often does translate to hardship at particular micro-levels.
I feel for people who lose in the global economy. Government has a role in cushioning these people and helping them to adapt before their industries leave and leave their former employees in desperate straight.

In for a penny…
…given that he made essentially the same statement in ’05, David, I think this attempt to put him out as a liar is strained.
There’s a statement he made at the Compassion forum that wasn’t directly tied to this, but bears on it. He talked about Rev. Wright, and the role of imperfection in religion, how people — pastors and members — can be imperfect, yet still under God’s grace.
Given his history of talking on this issue, I think that’s much closer to the mark he’s making. He’s not trying to demean religion, esp., but to put things, good and bad, into a context where they do get used, and driven, to win votes.
As he himself said — it was a bad way of making a complex point. He’s apologized for the potential offense more than once, now.

Obama also made the same point on Charlie Rose in 2004, a couple of weeks after being elected to the Senate. You can find the full interview on YouTube; it’s the first one that comes up when searching for “Charlie Rose – Barack Obama.” The pertinent segment comes at about the 10:00 minute mark.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, first, gun ownership is a constitutional right. Not a fear-based desire. Honest lawful citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in the America built by the founders and NOT in the America hated by Leftists like Obama. This man is a product of corrupt Chicago socialism.
Obama is a typical standard secular Humanist that believes he is superior to others because he has a degree and they don’t. Look at the way these people act and talk, that IS what they are. He fully believes – and his supports trumpet the position – that he and he alone is charged with “changing” America for the better.
Why not actually believe reality. Obama is an elitist with a typical superiority belief system. People that don’t go to Harvard are just as smart as those that do. That Obama is a brain-washed Liberal Elite that believes that he has enlightenment and others less fortunate than he do not.
Those of this type of person are typical in their feelings and beliefs that the uneducated are their own problem and that they – the educated elite – are in charge of ruling them. Obama is one of the educated Elites believing this. The man cannot hide this belief. Read The Humanist Manifesto for a clear picture of people like Obama. They hide in plain sight.
The San Francisco socialism that he was pandering to represent some of the most corrupt and immoral behaviors and actions the world has ever seen. Obama has contempt for good people and offers nothing but horror for American families. San Francisco values (and Chicago politics) are not that of decent people.

Seth Zlotocha: Thanks for mentioning the 2004 Charlie Rose interview with Obama. In his defense, at least Obama’s been consistent in his condescension. You can find the video clip from 2004 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
Frankly, I am amused by the “pass” that Obama is getting on this. The idea that he’s been truthful and candid about small town folks is totally boffo.
Here’s what really happened: He got caught saying one thing to ONE group (wealthy donors at a San Francisco fundraiser) about ANOTHER group (small town folk). He spoke in a condescending way, and the audience derisively ate it up. He DIDN’T THINK ANYONE WAS WATCHING …. but lo and behold, somebody taped the event and now we all get to watch (including folks from small towns). Obama tries to explain himself … and when he does all the kool-aid drinkers in the media and on blogs like this one gasp in admiration and say, “Ooooh, ahhh, he’s so eloquent, so Lincolnesque.” Actually, he’s Nixonian and Clintonian wrapped up in one hip little package.
This is part of a pattern. For 20 years he sat comfortably in the pews at TUCC, and collected “street cred.” He listened to the “nutty uncle” and even gave him plenty of dough. And when the “nutty uncle” delivered all those nutty sermons, he didn’t think anyone would ever notice. Well, he got caught, and then had to give a speech to explain himself, and his “amen corner” in the media all sang their hosannas about how terrific and brave and candid his speech about race was.
Are you all getting the picture now? This will go on indefinitely. When some damaging tape or document surfaces that ties him to Rezko, he will undoubtedly gather up his speechwriters (including JFK’s leftovers) and they’ll hammer out a real beaut of a speech. He’ll read it off the teleprompter. He’ll wag his finger in the air (like Bill C.) and declare that “I did not have financial relations with that man” and then the media will PRAISE HIM FOR HIS BRAVE DISCUSSION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN AMERICA. You heard it here first

David,
You worked for President Bush who said in 2000 – to win rural Evangelicals over – that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher.
Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill is right in saying:
“He’s not trying to demean religion, esp., but to put things, good and bad, into a context where they do get used, and driven, to win votes.”
If rural Evangelicals aren’t xenophobic towards Mexicans; if rural Evangelicals don’t have blood lust why does the NRA advocate for automatic weapons; if rural Evangelicals don’t like illegal wars in which their own young die… why are rural Evangelicals constantly supporting Rush Limbaugh, FOX news, and the GOP establishment?
Maybe if Republican Evangelicals like Ted Haggart (busted with gay prostitute); James Dobson; Pat Robertson (said we deserved 911); Jerry Falwell (said we deserved 911); Ralph Reed; etc. … weren’t brainwashing PARTS OF rural populations, Red States would turn Blue.
Why are you so offended by the notion of Obama pointing out that rural Evangelicals cling to their rugged cross of brainwashing by their own Republican elite?

Brian Horan: Good question you ask. What’s the difference between Bush confessing his love for God … and what Obama said at that San Francisco fundraiser?
Say what you will about Bush, but his professions of faith seem sincere. He wasn’t describing OTHER people’s relationship with God (he leaves that to them) he just spoke sincerely from the heart. When Bush said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher in that 2000 debate, do you remember the reaction? The mainstream media and the Washington pundits enjoyed a collective goofaw. They ridiculed him as a boob.
The difference with Obama is his intellectual detachment. He’s not revealing the nature of his own intimacy with God. Rather, he’s talking about THEM, THOSE PEOPLE, the “hicks in the sticks.” He speaks with the clinical detachment of an etymologist describing the anatomy of a cockroach.
It’s a character flaw the public is coming to know. You can place “Obama arrogance” on your shelf of cracked heroes next to “Bush stubbornness” and “Clinton dishonesty” and “Kerry elitism.”

I have a charitable interpretation of Obama’s remarks that makes some sense to me, FWIW: The bitter people to whom he refers are not embracing, wholeheartedly, a comprehensive and deep committment to Christianity, but rather a narrow, angry “tribal identity politics” version of the faith.
Look, I grew up around people who were “Twice a Year Christians”, who didn’t seem to embrace and model the Christian virtues of love, patience and kindness, but who were quite willing and able to misquote selective passages of the Old Testament — to justify their hatred of homosexuals; to find a way to feel superior to the “mooslims” and “rag-heads” in Iran; to explain their discomfort around Jews or Hindus. This “my team rules, your team sucks” tribalism is rife in the USA, and is promoted by the Limbaugh and Coulter types. (By analogy, think of the “NY Yankee fans” who couldn’t tell you the players’ names or the team’s record, but are darn sure that “our Yankees” are better than the hated Red Sox, Blue Jays, etc).
I would argue that a similar interpretation can apply to the “guns” part of Obama’s description. Again, there are peace-loving, responsible, solid-citizen types who understand, cherish and defend the 2nd Amendment. And then there are the overcompensatingly macho types who turn gun-respect into gun-fetishism and a love for the violent trash culture. That is, idolatry.
Is it really so absolutely incorrect or “elitist” to posit that economic insecurity may lead some people to seize hold of such “idols” for a sense of power, security and belonging? (Just as other forms of insecurity may cause other people to find an illusory certainty in their favorite left-wing causes?)
We would all do well, IMHO, to avoid putting too much credence in stereotypes. Just as the vast majority of rural folks are not racist, “git a rope” rednecks, likewise the majority of people in the San Francisco Bay Area are not Marxist, leather-clad pornographers. Most folks just get up each day hoping to get or keep a job, love and protect the people they love, or even make the world a better place. Personally, I think Senator Obama knows that, and is trying to do the right thing. But I understand that others here are more wary, less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Respectfully,
E
PS Sorry for the long post. Henceforth I shall eschew verbosity.

Brian, it seems to me you’re playing Donny’s game, and, frankly, Obama’s to some extent of assuming overlapping homogenies. As someone who was a church-going rural young man I can tell you that, by and large, hunters are different from gun nuts and anti-government libertarians are different from bible-thumpers in rural and small-town America. There is overlap but ascribing the actions of the NRA to rural Evangelicals is a little like, say, ascribing NAMBLA’s advocacy to people from Massachusetts or Democrats. It’s generally offensive any time one person tries to explain the motivations of an entire demographic of which they are not a member at once.
I think we can agree that comments along the lines of “Urban liberals rejoice in the death of babies because they worship Molech” are false, intentionally idiotic, mendacious and contrary to the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha and Betsy Ross. The problem with Obama’s comment is that it is similarly constructed and about as wise. Lots of people say stupid things when they are running for office or having coffee with a friend and I, personally, am more than happy to say “that was dumb” and move on to a more useful and more important dialogue. But it would be nice if, before we do, Senator Obama and his supporters could also say “that was dumb. Let’s move on, though. The Thai are stealing our jobs!”

Exiled in Canada: “The bitter people to whom [Obama] refers are not embracing, wholeheartedly, a comprehensive and deep committment to Christianity, but rather a narrow, angry ‘tribal identity politics’ version of the faith.”
You’ve got a lot of nerve. How do you know what kind of faith they have? You speak with the same clinical detachment towards THOSE PEOPLE that Obama demonstrated in San Francisco. As someone here put it, it’s akin to an etymologiest describing in cold detail the anatomy of a cockroach. Brilliant, yes! Condescending, yes! Heartfelt, no!
By the way, why are you “exiled to Canada?” Should we be looking for your porrait at the Post Office on the FBI Ten-Most Wanted Poster? Or was it that you so annoyed your hometown neighbors with your condescension that they sent you packing for good?

“Why are you so offended by the notion of Obama pointing out that rural Evangelicals cling to their rugged cross of brainwashing by their own Republican elite?”
More importantly, how does this differ from the message you put out in your own book, David? Did you not also suggest that evangelicals were being hoodwinked by the GOP?

I don’t understand why we look for the silver bullet–the magic phrase to fix what people didn’t understand about Obama’s statement.
I live in the South where people do exactly what Obama is describing. I have a bitter relative who blames China and Mexico for taking his job but won’t look for another one. He wastes his energy being angry instead of looking for a new way to use his skills. I have deeply religious relatives who send me angry emails about Oprah and Barack Obama. I don’t know what they’re so angry about. Neither is attacking my personal faith.
His statement speaks the truth. Much like Bill Cosby did when he complained about the misuse of the English language by teenagers. You speak the truth, and you get attacked. You use double speak (like most politicians) and you bore people to death but you may get elected.

“Say what you will about Bush, but his professions of faith seem sincere.”
Translation: His professions of faith sound like mine and support my preconceived notions of what faith should be.

Bush faith is sincere. ” go to war and kill”. Go to war and steal the Iraqis oil. Go to war and create jobs in Iraq for corporation and contractors from America. Yes, real faith. Obama was saying that people who are suffering from this goverment get angery at the outsourcing of their jobs. They pray thart God will restore their stolen blessing. The thief come to kill ,steal,and destroy. Obama is the only real candidate for America.

Mccain a senile warmonger is grasping at straws by jumping on the “bitter comments. Does he really remember yesterday or a minute a go. He needs someone to think for him. And you are worried about words? Obama’08 is great.

RJohnson and Lj:
So know you two are into reading minds and souls …. and explaining Bush’s faith in terms of your own twisted agenda political agendas.
If you don’t LIKE Bush’s policies, don’t blame them on his faith in God.

Lj:
Wow! So, the main thrust of the Democratic attack this fall against McCain will be his age. That’s sure to work (LOL).
Nothing more will motivate the folks in the nursing homes to vote (and vote for McCain) than remarks like yours. Smart, Lj! I pray that the Democrats (or moveon.org) send people like you on tour around the country to spout your anti-elderly rant.
I’ll bet that even Obama’s grandmother will vote for McCain (assuming she recovers from being thrown under the bus recently by her grandson)

“If you don’t LIKE Bush’s policies, don’t blame them on his faith in God.”
Why not? If his faith in God is genuine, then his policies should reflect that faith, shouldn’t they?
Can you tell me how Bush’s signing of the Texas Futile Care Law back when he was governor (the law that permitted the hospital to remove an infant from life support against the will of his mother) is an reflection of his sincerely held Christian faith?

“Nothing more will motivate the folks in the nursing homes to vote (and vote for McCain) than remarks like yours. Smart, Lj! I pray that the Democrats (or moveon.org) send people like you on tour around the country to spout your anti-elderly rant.”
So you think Huckabee was wrong to mention McCain’s age?
elections.foxnews.com/2008/01/20/huckabee-blames-thompson-for-his-second-place-showing/
“One day after a disappointing second place finish in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee got back in the saddle Sunday to party at the ranch of action movie icon Chuck Norris, who suggested that Huckabee’s chief rival may be too old for the job.
In a day that had much piling on against McCain, who won the South Carolina primary the night before and is maintaining the lead in polling for the next contest of Florida, Norris, 67, suggested McCain, 71, is too advanced in age for the rigorous job of president.
Norris said he really likes McCain, but the presidency has an accelerated aging effect on the office-holder such that for every year of an average person’s life, a president ages three years.
“If (he) takes over the presidency how much will he age in four years? He’ll be 84 years old,” Norris told reporters.
Asked about McCain’s age, Huckabee, 52, kidded, “Only John McCain and his hairdresser know for sure.”
“I think he’s got a lot of vigor,” Huckabee continued. “I think, you know, Chuck’s point is, it is a very stressful position. … I’m not going to say he’s too old. I think he has a lot of strength, good genetic factors from his mom. So you know, I don’t know. I know more about whether I’m fit to do it, and I think I am.””
Hey, if Chuck Norris is concerned about McCain’s age, then shouldn’t the rest of us be?

To Reaganite in NYC:
Hello, sir/madam. You wrote:
“You’ve got a lot of nerve. How do you know what kind of faith they have? You speak with the same clinical detachment towards THOSE PEOPLE that Obama demonstrated in San Francisco.”
Not trying to insult anyone here. In my experience, people can have differing levels of committment to *anything* at a given point in time. Could be the Christian faith, could be NY Yankee baseball, could be Italian cuisine or Karate or fishing. If you disagree with this, please explain how.
Simple corrollary: At a given time, the number N of people expressing some sort of “Christian affiliation” is higher than the number M of people deeply committed (whether measured in hours, or amount of scripture read, or works done, etc.)
In my experience, some people, at some point in their lives, claim to be “Christian” for fairly shallow reasons; and some people claim to be against Christianity for equally shallow reasons. Same goes for “Marxist” or “Buddhist” or “feminist”; or “Democrat” and “Republican”. Is this really controversial? Why the anger? In all cases, I think we’re talking about small subsets of people, and often only for a particular stage of their life. (I.e., people can be attracted/repelled by something for superficial reasons, and then over time make a deeper investment in learning about it).
As for “clinical detachment”, sure, it is helpful sometimes to speak in a scientific or sociological way. In other circumstances, one must instead embrace and love a particular individual and try one’s best to understand him/her. Again, what’s so controversial here? Sorry if I’m missing something.
As for me talking about a “them”, well, sorry, I certainly include myself in “them”. I’ve lived in rural America, and in urban centers. I’ve been for or against all sorts of things for shallow, self-serving reasons at different times. When I can, I try to spend some time to learn something about a subset of those things. Perhaps I need to do the same here.
Peace,
E

To Reaganite (#2):
You wrote:
“By the way, why are you “exiled to Canada?” Should we be looking for your porrait at the Post Office on the FBI Ten-Most Wanted Poster? Or was it that you so annoyed your hometown neighbors with your condescension that they sent you packing for good?”
Sorry, not interested in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. If you want a p*ssing contest, please find someone else.
A reasonable person can understand why someone might move to Canada — go for one career opportunity “just for a year or two”, meet a good woman, buy a house, make some friends, and before you know it you’ve settled into a lifetime of shoveling snow, paying higher taxes, and watching too much hockey.
Peace/Paix,
E

Exiled to Canada: “Sorry, not interested in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. If you want a p*ssing contest, please find someone else.”
Well, first of all, my friend, you might try to clean up your language.
Secondly, I’m sorry to see that you have no sense of humor (looks like you’re blending in well up there).
Thirdly, with the kind of broad swipe at people of faith that you made in your VERY first post today, I dare say that you engaged in a personal attack on a whole group of people — although your approach is admittedly quite crafty.
The first of your two responses to me (posted at 1:20 PM) was not much more than an army of words in search of an argument. Please be more concise and clear next time. Who’s got time to search for a needle in the haystack (assuming it’s there)?
Peace/Paix to you, too!

To Reaganite:
You wrote, “Thirdly, with the kind of broad swipe at people of faith that you made in your VERY first post today, I dare say that you engaged in a personal attack on a whole group of people”.
I did nothing of the kind. I asserted that there are *some* people who loosely affiliate with what they perceive to be “Christianity”, and that they extract (or make up!) the bits from scripture that serve their own personal biases or political agenda. Is this really in dispute? I’ve heard it said by (and documented by) people of both “left” and “right” political orientations, and of “conservative” and “liberal” interpretations of Christ’s message.
You also wrote: “The first of your two responses to me (posted at 1:20 PM) was not much more than an army of words in search of an argument. Please be more concise and clear next time. Who’s got time to search for a needle in the haystack (assuming it’s there)?”
Yes, that earlier post was long-winded. That’s because I felt I had to insert all sorts of qualifiers, because you completely misread the content and intent of my first posting today. I normally don’t think it necessary to include things like, “I am guilty of the same mistakes I am criticizing in others, and I know it”, or “I am not talking about ALL Christians/Jews/Marxists/whatever, but only about a small subset”. Your personal attack led me to believe I do have to include such obvious things. I’d rather not. I’d actually rather we (you) drop the personal stuff entirely, and just debate the actual issue again:
Is there any truth at all to what Obama said? If not, is it still possible he was well-meaning, rather than hateful in his intent? Are there some people in America for whom a Christian (or atheist, or Buddhist, or Muslim) affiliation is more of a posturing or a bandwagon effect than a deeply-held life-long committment?
I’d actually be interested in hearing your views on this real topic, rather than snide insinutations about what I’m doing in Canada or attacks on my writing style. If I want personal criticism, I’ve got a boss and a wife for that, thanks anyway.
E

David,
You know I find Obama interesting and intriguing, but my real concern with someone with such a short record is that we don’t really know what he thinks until he is surprised by questions and his handlers and writers can’t frame it and tweak the language. Your reaction originally to his statement was dead on correct, at least as a warning.
I’m not ready to write him off completely, but your careful articulation of HOW he used the words he chose in the original statement is crucial. Will the “us”/”them” language continue in the off-the-cuff remarks that reveal more of his true thinking? Will the “intellectual elitism” that marks the Hillary bunch show up with Obama as well? Will a more liberal version of the “I’m taking the high ground and everybody in the Beltway is against me” kind of paranoia of the W bunch show up in Obama? Each of those positions could lie underneath what he said and how he said it. Don’t repent on your original observations just yet, just keep reminding us to pay attention to more than campaign ads, slogans, and jingo-ism from both sides.
BTW, does anybody else thing it would be nice to find someone who was a moral conservative who still heard the prophet’s call to care for “the widow, the orphan, and the alien among us” and who considered Psalm 72 as still part of a national leader’s job description?

Phil:
You write: “BTW, does anybody else thing it would be nice to find someone who was a moral conservative who still heard the prophet’s call to care for `the widow, the orphan, and the alien among us’[...]?”
I think there are a great many such moral conservatives. They are, in my experience, often not the loudest or most politically powerful ones. (That’s what I meant in my postings today — though clearly I failed to make my point clearly, based on Reaganite’s reaction). In my community, I count many evangelicals in this group, sincere and active in both their moral conservatism and Christian charity.
On a more broadly visible, national level, it seems to me that many Catholic leaders meet your definition as well. Hence the shifting/complex political alliances — Catholic bishops will vote with the “conservatives”/GOP on issues of sexual morality, and with the “liberals”/Dems on issues of healthcare, welfare, peace, and against demonization of immigrants.
Peace,
E

Mel. what make you think I am a Democrat. I am a conserative who call it like it is . Obama is the best candidate. Mac is senile,and he need assintance to help him to remember. You don’t have to be old to be senile. People are going to vote their private convictions whether it race ,age or gender. Mel are voting along racial ,age, or gender line? Ofcourse Mac’s age is going to be an unspoken reason to not vote for him. Once in the voting booth,you can throw out everything.

We’ve talked about yellow-dog Democrats on here … sounds like Carter is an elephant Republican (as in, he’d walk for an elephant marching in a parade over Obama, no matter what the Illinois senator says).
Tough to take criticism from such a corner seriously.

Exiled to Canada:
Let’s take another look at your set of questions which you posted earlier: “Is there any truth at all to what Obama said? If not, is it still possible he was well-meaning, rather than hateful in his intent? Are there some people in America for whom a Christian (or atheist, or Buddhist, or Muslim) affiliation is more of a posturing or a bandwagon effect than a deeply-held life-long committment?”
Re: the first question: If you ask people from small towns, their views would be divided on the objective truth of his statement. Some would say he’s right, a larger number would say he’s wrong, and a good slice would resent anyone trying to make generalizations about them. How would inner-city blacks feel if John McCain were to make the same kind of broad and sweeping generalization about them to a private group of wealthy donors — none of whom were black? Wouldn’t they feel entitled to be annoyed if not outraged?
As someone who was raised in a small town — and whose family/friends still mostly live in that town — I posted earlier that I felt that Obama’s assessment of small town people was objectively wrong.
Your second question: Was he well-meaning or hateful? Examine the evidence. He made the statement to a group of wealthy fundraisers in what he thought was a private meeting. His language bordered on the sarcastic and he made broad generalizations about a group of people in this country that played on insulting stereotypes. Judging from the audio file, the wealthy urban audience was amused. Again, imagine a scenario described at the end of the second to last paragraph. Would blacks have considered such remarks about them made by a white politician at an all-white meeting of fundraisers to be well-meaning or hateful?
Your third question (as it relates to Obama): Is he sincere in his faith commitment, or has he assumed it for political/career reasons? By his own description, he found Wright’s church to be a place where he could answer questions about his racial identity and place in society. Joining TUCC — then and now the largest black church in the south side of Chicago — was also a convenient way for him to ease the qualms of black community leaders towards this unchurched outsider with an upbringing supplied by whites. This is not my description, it is his.
Unfortunately for Obama, politically, the type of Christianity which TUCC/Wright embraces is a black liberation theology that provides little comfort to the 88% of Americans who are Hispanic, Asian or white — let alone for many African Americans who don’t buy what TUCC/Wright is trying to sell.
Exiled to Canada, does that help any?

“Secondly, I’m sorry to see that you have no sense of humor (looks like you’re blending in well up there).” Reaganite
as did Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Dan Akroyd, … we brot Exiled up here to train them.

If you’re White and profess faith in God, you’re sincere. If you’re Black and do likewise, don’t be so sure. It’s better to talk the talk than to walk the walk. That’s why Limbaugh does so well with the White, angry males in this country.

When will Obama say the truth about immorality and selfishness in the inner city dwellers that can find hundreds of dollars for new basketball shoes and hair extensions, and then blame white people for their place in the world, and then go to Church on Sunday while still recovering from the sex and drugs they did at the club Friday and Saturday night, while momma is watching the baby for the baby’s momma? Yes, yes, let’s start accurately describing people and places shall we?

Sen Obama did not say anything that wasn’t true
Therefore he has noting to apologize for
Why can’t we have a smart President?

For “Apostles were….”:
You ask why Obama doesn’t criticize [crude racist stereotype omitted for brevity]? In case this was a sincere question, rather than just an angry rhetorical swipe, here’s the answer:
He regularly criticizes self-destructive and immoral behavior in the black communities. I’ve seen him do it, live in Chicago. Here’s one of the many references to this that I found in 30 seconds of google search:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/03/obama-criticizes-black-co_n_47544.html
Excerpt:
“Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is delivering pointed critiques of the African American community as he campaigns for its votes, lamenting that many of his generation are “disenfranchising” themselves because they don’t vote, taking rappers to task for their language, and decrying “anti-intellectualism” in the black community, including black children telling peers who get good grades that they are `acting white.’”
There are problems, and unhelpful habits and ideologies, in every community; black, white, Asian and hispanic; urban and rural. Obama is honest enough (foolhardy enough?) to say so. Can we — here, as Christians — stop fanning the fires of hate, and talk calmly about potential solutions? If we can’t, then who can? Just wonderin’,
E

I vote arrogance.
(A curious observation–when Dubya makes a verbal stumble and refuses to recant he is crucified in the media. Yet the same media seems to bend over backwards to help Obama explain himself.)

I vote arrogance.
(A curious observation–when Dubya makes a verbal stumble and refuses to recant he is crucified in the media. Yet the same media seems to bend over backwards to help Obama explain himself.)
Posted by: Rocks In My Dryer
What stupidity.Where have you been for the last 7yrs.Tell us when once Dubya apologozed for anything ?Puh-leeeeze! take your damned fingers from your ears.Sheeeesh!

“Sen Obama did not say anything that wasn’t true
Therefore he has noting to apologize for
Why can’t we have a smart President?
Posted by: alison | April 15, 2008 10:02 AM”
Thank you for voicing my exact thoughts!

Alison and maxcat06:
If Obama is so smart, how come he keeps getting caught with his foot in his mouth?
David’s initial question had to with Obama’s arrogance, not his IQ. High IQ doesn’t equate with ethics or character … and, in Obama’s case, with common sense and simple respect for other people..
Obama got caught making sarcastic and steretypical comments about small-towners at a private/secret meeting with an elite group of wealthy fundraisers. How would inner-city blacks feel if John McCain were to make the same kind of broad and sweeping generalization about them to a private group of wealthy donors — none of whom were black?
Wouldn’t they feel entitled to be annoyed if not outraged? You would be jumping down McCain’s throat if had down that. But, you don’t hve to worry about McCain doing something like that.
That’s because he’s not a jerk like Obama.

David, you hit the nail on the head. The question isn’t whether Obama is an “elitist”– after 7+ years of GWB, a lot of us would welcome an elitist President!! Rather, the problem is arrogance. First, he conflated faith with passing political fads (protectionism) and ignorant bigotry (xenophobia). Then, he compounded the problem by suggesting this was merely a poor choice of words. Unbelievable. Granted, politicians are notorious for lacking the basic humility and decency to apologize when they are wrong. I expected more from Obama– my bad.
Mel, I hope your last post is merely rhetorical, because it’s frightening if you truly don’t grasp the difference between belittling white people from rural America and belittling people whose ancestors were brought here in chains and treated as subhuman. One is bad manners; the other summons the ghosts of slavery, segregation, lynching, bigotry– in sum, the darkest things we are capable of.
Peace.

Aquaman;
Oh, OK, we get your point. Stereotypical thinking, belittling others, hypocritical behavior is OK — but ONLY against CERTAIN classes of people. Gosh, thanks for being candid about exposing your double standard here.
As for people whose ancestors were brought here in chains and treated as subhuman … perhaps you have Barack Obama in mind. But, oh no, that can’t be. His African ancestor came here 48 years ago as an exchange student, met Barack’s mom, had a baby, headed off to Harvard, got his degree … and then left mommy and baby behind to return to Africa and his first wife. Gee, I wonder who got exploited in that situation?
Yes, slavery was — and is — an awful stain on our country’s history. But my ancestors came to this country in the early part of the 20th century and settled in the northern part of this country. What is their culpability — or mine — in this matter? What am I and all the other white, Hispanics and Asians in this country supposed to do as reparation?
What will it take for the “guilt card” to stop being thrown in our faces? When will the double standard end? When will it stop being OK to insult, disparage, belittle anyone who isn’t African American?

That’s because he’s not a jerk like Obama.
How civil of you, Mel. You can go back to listening to Rush or Shawn now.

Ando:
So then you don’t deny that Obama behaved reprehensibly in this matter? Excellent! That’s what I gathered from your “comment.”

Mel,
I was responding to your comment about “inner-city blacks.” What does Obama’s personal history have to do with that??
My wife and I are both white, and the products of small towns. My family did fine, but hers was poor by any reasonable standard. It would be unkind for someone to belittle our roots, but those roots don’t hinder us when it comes to getting a job, getting a good education for our kids, or getting treated fairly when we get stopped by the police. It’s not a double standard; it’s a recognition of two drastically different histories. As the great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.”
Peace.

What I like about Obama is that he recognizes nuance. It’s possible to cling to traditions that are both good and bad, sometimes exclusively one or the other, sometimes nuanced in and of themselves. Thus, people in the communities he speaks of can cling to religion (the good) and antipathy towards immigrants (the bad). The problem is that American politics are leeched of all nuance, so such an explanation isn’t really acceptable.

How sad that somehow Senator Obama’s comments are taken as “racist” and “elitist”. I am a Black American whose family hails from the smallest of small towns. As that town dies we do cling to our faith and our Lord (refusing to cling to the Lord has caused more problems than pretty much anything else IMHO), we do cling to our guns in the form of hunting. Hunting is the time that our family gets together, we bond and tell stories, and we kill meat for the freezer which is divided up by need. For some it is pretty much the only meat they get. Is there antipathy towards immigrants? Sadly, yes. The Black community is especially wary of the effect of immigrants on the economy. Is that right? Perhaps not but it is a fact. There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to see everything that Senator Obama says through the lens of his race. If we tried to just see it as humans and realize that poor comes in all colors, that intolerance is not the sole province of any nationality, and that it will take all of us to move forward, things would be a bit better. You’ll pardon me if I continue to hope for this while clinging to Christ. It’s the only way I know how to be.

I hope McCain is elected, and I hope his policies of ceaseless military action and continued tax breaks for the rich bankrupt this nation. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price. Enjoy their food riots, their homeless shanty-towns, and their police-state politics.
It will be nothing less than we deserve.