Obama calls Wright comments 'outrageous'
Barack Obama has shown remarkable loyalty to Reverend Wright, a loyalty which must have been tested to the extreme when Wright decided to embark on a tour during the election battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Worse still, he has chosen to repeat some of his most contentious remarks on AIDS and race relations, and again praised Louis Farrakhan, a black Muslim leader whom many see as anti-Semitic.
It would seem that for Obama enough is enough and that the preacher has to go.
I actually admired the way that Obama stuck by his pastor and refused to disown him when this whole mess hit the airwaves. However, I have found the fact that Wright has chosen to conduct this tour while Obama is fighting an election to be naive and self serving to say the least. I thought he did a wonderful interview with Bill Moyers, but apart from that, this tour was - for Obama at least - an accident waiting to happen.Speaking in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where a primary is scheduled for May 6, the Illinois senator sought quell attempts among his political rivals to link him to the pastor, describing Wright's recent public appearances as "outrageous," "appalling," a "distraction" and a "rant".
"The problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided," Obama said during today's news conference. "What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing, and I believe an exploitation, of those old divisions."
"It is antithetical to our campaign, it is antithetical to what I am about, it is not what I think America stands for, and I want to be very clear that moving forward Reverend Wright does not speak for me, he does not speak for our campaign … It contradicts everything that I am about and who I am."
Now, at last, Obama has felt the need to put some permanent distance between himself and Wright.
I have always thought it a tremendous hypocrisy that Obama was attacked for his association with Wright whilst McCain was never really questioned about his seeking endorsement from John Hagee, a man who said that Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge for a gay pride parade."What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said.
In particular, Obama said he was angered by Wright's, "suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing".
"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said.
The press have chosen during this election to give McCain the easiest of easy rides, falling over themselves to explain away his every error and accepting associations which he has with controversial preachers whilst questioning the same associations when it comes to Obama.
This will be the "Liberal" press that we always hear about in action.
I am always appalled during American elections to see how often the tactic of guilt by association is used, but I am even more appalled by how one way the tactic is applied.
Obama has now distanced himself from Wright, when will we hear cries in the press for McCain to reject the endorsement of John Hagee? I won't hold my breath waiting for that.
Click title for full article.
4 comments:
It was nice of Obama to reject these statements (which have been made before) now that Wright has become a huge political liability. And any attempts to draw comparisons between the Obama and Wirght relationship that has persisted for over twenty years, and Hagee who is some guy who happense to have endorsed McCain (there is no evidence that he specifically sought his endorsement) are completely different situations of course, but the Obamatons need something to hang their hat on in order to try and draw some kind of parallel.
Politicians are not responsible for every nutcase that endorses them (if they were, Democrats would never be elected), but they are responsible for close and continuing relationships they have held over long periods of time. Otherwise, Obama would have gotten beat up when the terrorist organization Hamas endorsed him.
And any attempts to draw comparisons between the Obama and Wright relationship that has persisted for over twenty years, and Hagee who is some guy who happens to have endorsed McCain (there is no evidence that he specifically sought his endorsement) are completely different situations
You are either being duplicitous or you don't really know what you are talking about. Hagee says that McCain sought his endorsement.
He said so quite clearly:
"It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."
So we have McCain's campaign seeking the endorsement of a man who thinks that Katrina was the fault of the people of New Orleans for allowing a gay parade; and McCain standing on a public platform and happily accepting this endorsement, which you have no trouble with, presumably because McCain has said that he does not agree with everything Hagee says. And yet you think there is no equivalence with this and statements which Wright made and which Obama has publicly said he does not endorse.
And I presume you were one of the people who insisted that Obama should reject Farakan's endorsement, which Obama did not seek, so why should McCain not reject the endorsement of Hagee?
Tut, tut... Those old double standards, Jason.
Clearly, in their attempt to shore up their conservative creds, the McCain campaign did not correctly vet Hagee and didn't seem to know much about him. They should have vetted him before allowing McCain to say anything about him. That said, despite pathetic attempts to draw parallels by the extreme left, there is no comparison to the situation regarding Hagee and the situation regarding Wright. The Wright situation is a question of a lasting and close personal relationship, Hagee is not. Nice try though.
Obama should reject Farakan's endorsement
While I personally didn't need to hear it, given that Obama was relatively unknown on top of the comments that came to light about Wright, I think Obama's campaign may have believed it was important to reject Farakan's endorsement, lest there appear to some to be a history of associating with extreme elements.
On the other hand McCain is very well known and a rejection of Hagee, while it probably wouldn't hurt, does not hold the importance that Obama;s rejection of Farakan did for Obama. That's just my guess. A well known moderate who is endorsed by the odd right-wing extremist won't be affected as deeply as an unknown who appears to be having repeated relations with the likes of Wright and Farakan (that is, racist black extremists). Is that a double standard the electorate may levy on him? Probably, but I suspect it's more a result of Obama's status as an unknown element than anything else.
Clearly, in their attempt to shore up their conservative creds the McCain campaign did not correctly vet Hagee and didn't seem to know much about him.
So, you are claiming that McCain sought the endorsement of someone that he knew nothing about? Hagee's views were well enough known for everyone else to condemn McCain as soon as he accepted the endorsement, and yet you would have us believe that McCain knew nothing about this man whose endorsement he was seeking? And it's that level of incompetence which you would want in the White House? Jeez...
The Wright situation is a question of a lasting and close personal relationship, Hagee is not. Nice try though.
It is easier to ignore the views of people with whom one has close and personal friendships, most people understand this. Do you agree with the views of all of your friends? It is far worse to seek the approval of a bigot - who you do not have such a relationship with - simply to shore up your Republican base. I would actually find that deeply immoral.
On the other hand McCain is very well known and a rejection of Hagee, while it probably wouldn't hurt, does not hold the importance that Obama;s rejection of Farakan did for Obama. That's just my guess.
Ah, the old we know McCain line so beloved by the right wing press. He might confuse al Qaeda and the Iranians but we know he's an expert so it must have been a slip of the tongue.
On the other hand McCain is very well known and a rejection of Hagee, while it probably wouldn't hurt, does not hold the importance that Obama;s rejection of Farakan did for Obama.
McCain not only didn't reject Hagee's endorsement, he openly welcomed it and said he would happily accept it. He accepted the endorsement of a man who said that New Orleans deserved what happened to it.
And your notion that he didn't know who Hagee was when he sought his endorsement makes McCain look stupid and desperate. It's pathetic to claim that McCain didn't know who Hagee was when he sought his endorsement.
A well known moderate who is endorsed by the odd right-wing extremist won't be affected as deeply as an unknown who appears to be having repeated relations with the likes of Wright and Farakan
"Moderates" don't embrace extremists in order to shore up their right wing base.
McCain's reputation as a moderate is nonsense. The man who once called Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance" has since embraced both. And, again, he has done so purely for political purposes. The man who opposed the Bush tax cuts, and claimed that the offended his conscience, now embraces them... and he does so for political purposes. He's not only a flip flopper but he flip flops on matters which were previously matters of conscience. The man who opposed waterboarding then voted to allow that very thing. So it takes quite a stretch to imagine that he didn't know exactly who Hagee was when he sought his endorsement. He's been embracing extremist positions, which he previously rejected, ever since he started running for the Republican nomination.
Post a Comment