Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NAG1 who wrote (58819)	4/12/2008 2:02:11 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 543544

<<<I think there are some mitigating circumstances with how the press has treated her >>> It is like playing basketball when the ref is rooting for the other team. They are getting all the free throws. It is amazing that HC is still in the game with 2 minutes to play.

To: NAG1 who wrote (58819)	4/12/2008 2:52:58 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543544

Steve's criticism of HC was based on who she is having around her. Obama has had the reverend around him for 20 years. I really disagree with you on this, Neal. What you look for in a church or a reverend is very, very different from what you look for in political advisors. There are plenty of angry and/or bitter black people around, and, frankly for good historical reasons. Especially people of Wright's generation. It is easy for white people to say that times have changed, they should give up their anger. OK, I buy it that they should "give up" their anger. But I also know and understand why many can't give it up. Just as plenty of white people can't give up their bigotry. It will take the passing of generations for this too to pass. Sure, it warps people. My father and grandfather were, in their own way, warped by the anti-semitism they experienced in their lifetimes. They built a shell of distrust about gentiles around themselves. Even when the anti-semitism was largely (but not completely) gone, they still felt that way, they still believed that it was only a matter of time before people in this country too would turn against Jews once more, and our family would have to leave. Again. But just because Wright was scarred and warped by the racism he had experienced, just because it affected his perspective in some respects, doesn't mean that the whole man was warped. It doesn't mean that he didn't have a moral center. And it doesn't mean that Obama or any decent person couldn't sympathize with him and the church at large, accept his pastoral leadership while not accepting everything the man stood for or said. Indeed, remaining in the church was one way to counterbalance what Wright said with other members of the church. It could easily have been a way of remaining in touch with the bitter past--which was still at least a psychic reality--even while looking to the future, preparing to overcome that past. By all accounts, the church did a lot of good for the black community in Chicago. You join a church warts and all. I doubt I would completely agree with the views of any rabbi of any synogogue I would belong to. I know plenty of Catholics who disagree vehemently with much of the explicit dogma of the Church, and yet still go to Church and consider themselves good Catholics. People who have had abortions. Who have used birth control. Who actually like sex for its own sake (imagine that!). I think you've gone overboard on the Wright business. Anyone who has experienced bigotry first hand, who has read deeply about Jim Crow and the "separate but equal" farce that existed for generations in the South, surely can grok how Wright's soul was shaped by anger and mistrust.

To: NAG1 who wrote (58819)	4/12/2008 2:55:34 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543544

The problem is all the bizarre things that are equated. Did Obama spend 60 hours a week with his reverend and pay him a salary to be his counsel and support staff for all his policy and political work? Is there any indication that Wright ever directly influenced Obama's policy choices and preferences? Anyone who has worked in Washington knows how important staffers are; who someone chooses for those key staff positions often defines their image. HC paid Penn millions and millions for his "advice" and gave him top billing in the campaign. As opposed to a minister Obama probably listened to a couple of hours a month from a seat in a congregation, then said hi to him on the way out the door. The valid criticism of Obama's staff is that some of his foreign policy people were not very politically experienced, and gave Obama some bumps and bruises as a result. Since we haven't heard anything like that lately I assume he fixed the problem and righted the ship. As the political novice, we should have expected more staff problems in the Obama camp, not the Clinton camp which has operated for two decades or more.