You know, Obama and his campaign manager strikes me as pretty shrewd, they figure out a way to game the system so that they can beat the forerunner county by county but when it comes to Obama’s church, they seem like they are politically tone deaf. They knew it would be a liability in the fall, that’s why they wouldn’t let Wright speak, yet Obama continued as a member of the church and even when the church kept making news they stayed. If you’re running as a post-racial, post-paritisan candidate, why would you want to be associated with a church that is anything but post-racial? I think that Obama’s association says more about his views on race than he probably wants us to know:
Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that he has resigned from the church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created repeated political headaches for the Democratic frontrunner.
“We don’t want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in the church,” Obama told reporters. “We also don’t want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes.”
Obama said he was resigning “with some sadness.”
“This is not a decision I come to lightly,” he said.
posted May 31, 2008 at 9:36 pm
And they say Obamaism is a cult of personality. They never met Harriet Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
Gotta make you happy, Michele. McCain picked up a vote from today’s Dem meeting.
posted May 31, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I see there are some new McCain vids on YouTube. Interesting stuff, Michele. Reminds me of breakfast waffles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
posted May 31, 2008 at 9:46 pm
What were folks saying about dealing with terrorists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzDBi2nURNk
posted May 31, 2008 at 9:53 pm
She was a tad excessed, huh? You knew this was going to happen, that women were mad that Obama won. They thought they finally were going to see the day that a woman would be president and now it’s not going to happen and they’re mad that Obama took it away from them.
It does speak of entitlement though, doesn’t it? That they should expect the party to support them since they supported the party all these years. I bet the blacks feel the same way.
But I’m guessing the real reason that you posted the link is because of the fact that McCain is going to get the racist vote, that’s it right?
posted May 31, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“What were folks saying about dealing with terrorists?”
Um…why the blast from the past that’s already been proved false?
posted May 31, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Resigns from his church? Oh, that’s a good one. Why didn’t I think of that? Ha.
If you’re running as a post-racial, post-paritisan candidate,
Apparently you forgot “post-Christian” …
posted May 31, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“Apparently you forgot “post-Christian” …”
Why would you say that?
posted May 31, 2008 at 10:49 pm
It’s nice that politics has forced him to come to his senses, but you would have thought that somewhere along the years he would have sat in that church and said to himself, “This is not a church, this is an insane asylum.”
posted May 31, 2008 at 11:01 pm
“This is not a church, this is an insane asylum.”
Or at least, where is the gospel in all this hate?
posted May 31, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I’ve asked the same question about your comments on this blog. Go figure.
posted June 1, 2008 at 12:00 am
I’ve asked the same question about many of your comments on this blog. Go figure.
posted June 1, 2008 at 12:03 am
Pardon the double post. I forgot to add my tag to the first one & thought it hadn’t gone through.
posted June 1, 2008 at 5:00 am
What concerns me is if he leaves a church, what support will he have. And being on the campaign trail doesn’t really lend itself to finding a new church. So does that leave him as a man without a church?
Now, I don’t think he should stay there, I agree that its messages come off as hate filled and lacking the gospel. My point is it just seems like something he should have done long time ago if the action was genuine, and not simply a reaction to infamous statements being rightfully discussed in the news. It leads me to think that his commitment to any church probably isn’t that strong. And that makes me wonder about his character and leadership.
posted June 1, 2008 at 7:41 am
“I’ve asked the same question about many of your comments on this blog. Go figure.”
I could turn around and so the same thing to you.
posted June 1, 2008 at 7:43 am
“Now, I don’t think he should stay there, I agree that its messages come off as hate filled and lacking the gospel. My point is it just seems like something he should have done long time ago if the action was genuine, and not simply a reaction to infamous statements being rightfully discussed in the news. It leads me to think that his commitment to any church probably isn’t that strong. And that makes me wonder about his character and leadership.”
I think your reaction is probably an appropriate response. There isn’t much character and leadership if you leave a church because it has become a political liability.
posted June 1, 2008 at 10:28 am
Just goes to show that he was only attending for political purposes all along.
posted June 1, 2008 at 10:48 am
wait… he attended attended the church for political purposes? you people really do make this stuff up as you go along. fiction is fun, huh?
“There isn’t much character and leadership if you leave a church because it has become a political liability.”
ah, yes. another case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. no matter what his decision here, michele and ilk would find fault in his character.
posted June 1, 2008 at 11:26 am
Why don’t you run for President? You seem so righteous.
posted June 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“Apparently you forgot “post-Christian” …”
Why would you say that?
Yes, you’re right … I ought to be charitable enough to wish him all the best in finding a new church.
But the whole matter of resigning a church … doesn’t set well with me. Nobody should be asked to do that for the presidency. Nobody should be willing to do that for the presidency.
I guess so long as he remains UCC?
posted June 2, 2008 at 9:29 am
My problem is the fact that he never got heavy-handed and called his church on the carpet for being hate-filled.
For him to say he’s leaving the church to keep the church from being affected and/or his political success from being affected,by his run.
He has been there for 20 years,listening to the hate-for-whites jive, he chose to stay and he’s a smart man..if he felt this church was incorrect in it’s teaching,as smart as he is,he would have known whetether it was offensive or not.
He is finished!
I have voted democrat my entire life and I will vote for McCain,rather than this bigot…and,I won’t be the only one!!!!
posted June 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
As Juan Williams, said, Obama still has to answer for why he belonged to this church for 20 years. Either he did it out of political expediency, or he did it because he agreed with the views of the majority of the parishioners. Either way, this doesn’t look good for Obama.
posted June 2, 2008 at 8:45 pm
first of all, how could a 20-year love of his church be considered “political expediency”? if it had been for political expediency, i’m certain he would have chosen a church more to your liking, yes?
secondly, let me again describe a similar situation in my life. i love my family, but i don’t quit them or disown them because of their views, and yes, their views are harsh and racist at times, especially toward mexicans and blacks and asians, in that order. i strongly disagree with their views on race, but i love my family and see them and spend time with them often. in that time spent with them, their views have not become mine. why should i have to answer for why i still love my family and stay with them over the years?
obama has gone to greater lengths than ANYONE in the spotlight for more than a decade to address his beliefs on race in this country and it’s as if you’ve all forgotten what he had to say. more likely you are those who just don’t care to listen. he has said that many blacks and many whites see this country in very different ways, and he (like me and a few others on this blog) are able to see both views.
why do you get to decide that there are only 2 reasons that he stayed with his church? why only 2, and why those 2? and what, exactly, are the views of the majority of the parishioners? are you telepathic enough to know? the book “Obama: From Promise to Power” offers some logical insight (based on obama’s known history) as to why he chose and stayed with the trinity church. if you don’t want to buy it, there’s a related quote from the book on http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3459.
finally, what does this issue of guilt by association have to do with the economy? with iraq? with foreign policy? with the deficit? nothing.
posted June 3, 2008 at 9:41 am
You are right that there may be more than two explanations, anon reincarnate. But I think these are the two most likely explanations, and I was actually paraphrasing what Juan Williams, a liberal commentator, said about Obama.
The most charitable explanation, in my opinion, is that Obama didn’t really tune in to what was going on at Trinity. That he was there but he wasn’t really a part of it to the extent that he says he was, and that he gradually became disillusioned.
Or, if not gradually disillusioned, that he was so used to hearing the kind of language and the tone of those at his church that he forgot how that tone would come across the the outside world. In which case, he was to a certain extent corrupted, or at least co-opted, by belonging to this church. If his true values are as you say, then he did betray those values by continuing to belong to Trinity. Oprah at least had the sense to leave Trinity after about 5 years. But perhaps she was a better politician than Obama.
posted June 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm
it seems like you’re really trying to make a reasoned argument here, but i would disagree with your assessment, strictly because of what obama said. he understands that whites and blacks look at this country differently (and i hope that you have enough empathy to understand why that’s true). because many blacks in america might see that the country has not always made the right decisions when it comes to the rights and freedoms of people, they are also more in tune with the fact that america often makes the wrong decisions still. so while he doesn’t agree with what is sometimes preached at trinity, i’m sure that he understands why many parishioners might. what better way to understand the people that he went there to serve than to join them in church? and what better way to heal what divides our country than to get into the thick of it and understand it?
“or at least co-opted”
i believe that he left trinity to avoid being co-opted. it seems to me that the leaders of the church were using obama’s profile to raise their own.