Comments on: Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and Trumpet Magazine

By: Freedom1

Freedom1 — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:14:55 +0000

(See Another Trumpet Cover PIX) - Farrakhan Featured on Cover of Rev. Wright’s Trumpet Magazine Three Times

Caption reads: “Empowerment: The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan”

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29943_Farrakhan_Featured_on_Cover_of_Rev._Wrights_Magazine_Three_Times/comments/#ctop

By: Freedom1

Freedom1 — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:34:39 +0000

(See Trumpet Cover Pix) - Rev. Wright’s Trumpet Magazine Featured Obama on Cover with Farrakhan

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29931_Rev._Wright_Magazine_Featured_Obama_on_Cover_with_Farrakhan/comments/#ctop

By: Matt DiBari

Matt DiBari — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:12:34 +0000

It was of course, later determined that the story was “untrue” because the Obama Campaign was talking to the Canadian consulate-general and not the ambassador.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/obama_parses_his_words.html

The meat of the story, that Obama was talking out of both sides of his mouth and lying repeatedly about it, remained true

There is also Susan Rice’s assertion that Obama never promised to meet dictators without preconditions. Which, of course, Obama said repeatedly.

Or the time he denied filling out the questionnaire that had his handwriting on it.

By: KMorrison

KMorrison — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:22:18 +0000

You have a point Joe, his extended close connection with Wright leaves few suitable explanaions. However, if he said that he joined for political reasons at least that would be somewhat understandable. He wouldn’t be the first politician to make a bad choice for political expediency. The biggest problem comes if he even tacitly accepts the radicalism espoused by Reverend Wright, and so far his that’s what he has left people with. I simply don’t think his, I didn’t know what he was preaching explanation is even close to acceptable or honest.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:00:48 +0000

Fair enough KM. But what would be an acceptable explanation in your eyes?

If he says he disagreed with the radical things that Wright said, you would say he should have left the church.
If he says he agreed with everything, you call him a racist.
If he says not even close to all of Wright’s sermons had any racism included you would call him a liar.
Above you said he should admit that he joined for political purposes. Then you would claim he is using the church for political purposes.

Would there be any acceptable explanation for you?

By: KMorrison

KMorrison — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:35:43 +0000

The whole point of the article is giving context and background. The Trumpet articles show that this is not an isolated instance of a few radical speeches, it is a consistent pattern of radicalism that Senator Obama would have to have bee blind not to see. He was even on the cover of one of these publications, how could he not know that he was supporting a radical preacher who repeated espoused hateful divisive remarks? There is a stark contradiction in his close association with this man and who he now proclaims to be. That is the issue that I would like to see him address.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:12:00 +0000

Hate speech coming from the pulpit is a serious problem whether it comes from the left or the right.

So you don’t look at the context of the speech or the background of the person giving the speech? Is it right to just look at that one 45 second spot and pass judgement of another person’s life?

NAFTA, his foreign policy, his state senate and US senate record) Obama responds by lying and his acolytes tow the line.

Remind me of those “lies”?
Are you talking about the NAFTA thing with Canada just before the PA primary? The one that Canada said was “untrue”?

Please do remind me of those “lies” so I can address them and not just make a blanket statement that he lies about everything. Thanks.

By: Matt DiBari

Matt DiBari — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:43:13 +0000

If Barack Obama is going to run on “judgment” (because he can’t run on anything else) the fact that Barack Obama willingly associates himself with terrible people is a legitimate issue. No one has given me a legitimate reason for why Barack Obama launched his political career in an unrepentant terrorist’s living room. That sure seems like awful judgment.

Besides, when someone attacks Obama on an “issue” (NAFTA, his foreign policy, his state senate and US senate record) Obama responds by lying and his acolytes tow the line.

By: KMorrison

KMorrison — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:38:52 +0000

Picking a candidate is all about ‘judging’, that’s what a good voter does. You can divert from the issue by bringing up family members or the lapel pin matter, but go ahead and check my writings, I don’t criticize family members and I think the lapel pin thing was silly.

Jeremiah Wright, however, is an issue. Hate speech coming from the pulpit is a serious problem whether it comes from the left or the right. If one associates themselves with someone who does this they should be given a hard time particularly if they run for president. Senator Obama’s rationale for staying in that church has a decisive ring of old time politics, and if he’s going to run on ‘hope and change’ then he needs to explain himself better.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:21:35 +0000

BTW - If he came out and simply said I joined the church for political reasons, the issue likely would have passed by now.

No…. if he said he joined the church for political reasons you would be screaming that he is trying to use the church for political reasons. So either way, you get to yell about something.

By the way… I am still a Catholic (40 years) and attend church despite the Priest scandals. Does that make me bad?

Keep yelling about the Rev Wright all you want. The only people that get fired up over this are the 28% staunch Republicans that are still Bush-supporters and put party over country.
Do you yell when Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin too?