Will Obama's Church make him unelectable?

I like Obama. This isn't meant as an attack on him. I'm disgusted by the race baiting that dragged him into a frenzied reactionary media with the GOP hounds licking the blood drawn by Clinton. HOWEVER, what's done is done.

Obama has a serious problem.

I'm of the opinion that smears work particularly well against Obama, because of who he is and because america isn't perfect. There are millions out there who really believe he may be a muslim with radical ties. There's no basis for that, but there was no basis for WMDs in Iraq either... yet the majority of Americans believed otherwise.

Here's a challenge:

1. Before you investigate his church itself, just google "obama black church" and notice the stuff that comes up.

Sounds like absurd attacks, right? Predictable smearing... but now look at the church carefully.

2. The Trinity United Church of Christ http://www.tucc.org/

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain 'true to our native land,' the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. "

That's not going to play well with mainstream america, especially if Obama's trying to run as a race-nuetral all-american boy with a dream for everybody. His church very much is a pro-black south chicago phenomenon that most americans just will not be able to comprehend once the smearing begins.

http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Black Power and Black Theology???? Liberation theology? This might make lefties smile and nod, but it's not going to fit the image of Obama or support his message. It begs whether they are "normal christians" and insinuates they are radicals who separate themselves from america. Roh oh.

His ties to this church are understandable, but I honestly cannot fathom how he can get elected with such a close affiliation to something most americans will not comprehend. This church will be represented in the worse possible light and will make the campaign entirely a question of race, religion and radicalization.

Am i wrong?

I do not believe a black candidate can survive any systematic racialization of the issues, no matter what he or she says. Once issues become spun into race terms, americans will be too nervous to support the black candidate and minority voters will tune out (and not turn out).

Want my opinion? People who don't want him to win are just seeing him the way they choose to see him. Which is normal. It's a shame, though, that so much of it has to do with the color of his skin...

...yes, it does. I didn't realize how much whites distrust a black man in a position of power until the New York Post Gossip Page posted something second-hand about Obama crunking to a profanity-laced Jay-Z song at his Iowa Victory party....and as absurd as it was, SO many people bought into it whole-heartedly until it was debunked. Because, after all--isn't that what all Black men do in private? Call women bitches and ho's?

This church is going to make for one of the bigger "jerry springer" moments in national politics.

I do not see how this ends well... and the GOP have already done their homework.

What tripe.

This isnt an issue that will just go away by pointing at it and laughing it off.

Educate yourself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ

Edited.....cause I got educated. :)

United Church of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_church_of_christ

as far as I know. He's a member of the UCC.

:hi:

"Unitarians Considering Christ" ;)

opponent and his smear machine? Have you read some of what Obama's pastor says? I agree that it is either meaningless, religious mumbo-jumbo or "funds-raising" talk, but a lot of people take this shit to heart. Don't think about what WE think, think about the Republican Swift-Boaters and be ready...

Sad but true.

YOu can google around to see them already starting their attacks and research.

Obama just cannot afford to have half the headlines being about rappers, Farrakhan, black power, black theology, etc.

Americans just cant handle that...

I dont think so.

The truth of the sermons won't even matter. It's how they are presenting their mission and purpose. It's affiliations will not play well in the political reality of 2008 america, im afraid.

I'm not trying to bash the church.

I'm just being a realist. This is a huge sink hole for Obama.

But if that's what you think this is about, so be it...

will be an issue? Huckabees? If you think Obama's church affiliation won't be an issue in the fall campaign, you haven't been paying attention...

"Black power" rhetoric.

post #3.

:hi:

hicago South Side preacher hates whites… and is a favorite of Barack Obama
Ask most Chicagoans if they know of an anti-white “religion,” and most will immediately mention Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. But right here in Chicago is

another black religious body that routinely blames whites for all of humanity’s ills. It calls itself the “Trinity United Church of Christ.” And Barack Obama is a routine

attendee of the services.

According to a report in NewsMax.com, Obama credits the church’s pastor, Jeremiah A Wright, Jr., with nothing less than his own conversion to Christianity. “Since

the 1980s,” the report further states, “Obama has not only remained a regular attendee at Wright’s services in his inner city mega church, Trinity United Church of

Christ, along with its other 8,500 members, he’s been a close disciple and personal friend of Wright. Wright conducted Obama’s marriage to his wife Michelle,

baptized his two daughters, and blessed Obama’s Chicago home. Obama’s best-selling book, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ takes its title from one of Wright’s sermons.”

Wright’s beliefs and preaching, however, are suffused with anti-white hatred:

Wright says its doctrine reflects black liberation theology, which views the Bible in part as a record of the struggles of “people of color” against oppression.

A skilled and fiery orator, Wright’s interpretation of the Scriptures has been described as “Afrocentric.”

When referring to the Romans, for example, he refers to “European oppression” — not addressing the fact that the Egyptians, who were also a slave society, were

people of Africa….

Wright on 9/11: “White America got their wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in

the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” On the Sunday after the attacks, Dr. Wright blamed

America.

Wright on the disappearance of Natalee Holloway: “Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba,

goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months.”…

Wright on America: He has used the term “middleclassness” in a derogatory manner; frequently mentions “white arrogance” and the “oppression” of African-Americans

today; and has referred to “this racist United States of America.”

When a NewsMax reporter attended one of Wright’s services, this is what he heard:

Wright laced into America’s establishment, blaming the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression

suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the “United States of White America.” Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in

apparent agreement as these statements were made.

It's so convincing, isn't it?

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2695778

Whoever gets the nomination, there will be ample opportunity for unfounded smears. We saw that with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. The smears went from the scurrilous (Bill Clinton fathered a black love child) to the preposterous (John Kerry, awarded three Purple Hearts, was a coward, charges made by proxies of a draft-dodger and a cocaine-using deserter).

The question that should guide you in your deliberations over who to vote for is who you think is going to handle the lowest of the low-down bullshit. By that measure, I'd like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards the best, but I think Barack Obama is also pretty capable of dealing with the negative campaigning. Hitting him on his faith appears to be a plump, attractive target. But my impression is that Obama is perfectly comfortable discussing his faith, in ways that other Democrats aren't comfortable, and I'm confident that he can hold his own on that score.

Now, if Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, any questions put to Obama about his liberal faith can be fairly asked of those two gentlemen (not that fairness has much to do with campaign coverage). And we're a little readier this cycle than we were in 2004.

My point being that while Obama may handle the race baiting and smears with grace, his message can easily get lost among a reactionary media that's unable to often focus on the truth. If there is drama and spin-off issues to react to, the media will do so.

If Obama wins the nomination, i can easily imagine weeks of headlines about black separatism, black theology, black churches, etc... that has NOTHING to do with what Obama himself says or believes.

I guess Obama should just go shoot himself in the head, since there's no overcoming the reactionary media.

Doom, despair and agony on us!

If you have an idea for how he handles this without snide indignation, i'd like to hear it.

Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't give you one.

If your "point" just like my "concern" is that we can't put our heads in the sand in fear... then obviously i agree since i have the nerve to bring this topic up and stand up to PETTY FLAMES from people refusing to address the topic.

Irony.

Now, the problem is that this fear is legitimate... the concern is authentic.

This issue is going to come up and the question is how to handle it, how to understand it and how to move beyond it.

Attacking me with these implications that my "concern" isnt even real... is pathetic and the root problem.

As far as i'm concerned, the best solution here is to get this issue out into the open EARLY and on Obama's terms... before he can be swift-boated completely. There's no way around it, tho, and many voters will never get over his belonging to a church that uses rhetoric they take to imply separatism.

Yes, Newsmax is wrong and you're wrong. If you think any of our candidates don't have something of this weight in their backgrounds which the Repukes will carry as a banner, you're more than wrong, you are foolish.

Listen in to a service from the Chruch on Sunday before you accuse.

Sorry... but you're entirely missing the truth.

Major GOPers on national TV have already made this an issue. It's not going away by us self-righteously insisting there's no issue there... when a casual glance at the church's website shows all kinds of "black power" & "black theology" stuff that most americans just will not be able to understand.

Black theology?

I know what's implied but that story isn't going to play well...

:scared:

I'm sick of this message.

Cuz unless you think americans are all above fear mongering and race baiting, I'd like to know.

I choose courage :hi:

It sounds radical. If it is not addressed in the primary, you can be sure it will be addressed in the general (if the dems are stupid enough to choose him as the candidate).

The one tactic i can imagine, that could work, would be two-fold:

1. he jokes about how the church can express fairly heavy-handed and radical rhetoric, adding that it's base is in the south side of chicago where hope and pride are essential

2. he then conveys that he's not interested in religious debates and that his church is a PRIVATE matter

He'd need to do this during the primary, imo, and make it stick. That way if it ever comes up, he has a short response that is referenced, and he's already claimed it's a private matter.

Perhaps he's already done this but the issue has new weight after the Clinton race baiting.

And in a country in which folks voted for a KNOWN murderer in '04, we've got to understand that rational appeals just will not reach many voters and things are getting worse as we speak.

When Obama was said to be a muslim it was a crisis. Now the smear machine acknowledges he's a Christian and it's still a problem. :shrug:

Most people won't research...they will believe what the MSM spews..

Again..perception.

I assume the Obama camp has some type of plan to turn the attacks into an opportunity.

But after the Clinton race baiting, i'm concerned.

white power! white power!

By a christian church preaching "black" empowerment and liberation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJWQ

This guy is not going to help the cause, as sincere as he is. I respect where he is coming from, but what americans hear is: black black black.

Liberation theology? Come on... this is a DISASTER on the horizon. =(

This kind of defensiveness and aggressive deflection is ineffective. Even when Colmes reaches a hand out in support, he fails to clearly deliver his message. Ranting about being subjects of history rather than objects of history doesnt cut it on a Fox News smear piece.

In summary... if this is the best explanation the church itself can give for its uncomfortable rhetoric (yes, it's uncomfortable for mainstream americans), Obama is in SERIOUS trouble.

And let's be clear... he dodged on the issue of separatism.

I really like him, but this is going to freak americans out. lol

There is an opportunity here, probably. I'm not sure how it's handled effectively tho...

this situation is:

One of the things I like least about Bush is the way his life put him where he is, not because he's qualified, but because of who he/his dad knows.

I'm not saying Obama is anywhere nearly as unqualified as Bush, but his answer to the "weakness question" last night made me visualize this un-organized person who has been brought along to where he is by who he knows. That's partly a matter of his church, but it also whispers of the DLC again. How'd he get to this position without organization?

I realize this perception is colored by the fact that I see organization as a manifestation of caring, not a sine qua non, but a mature behavior of those who care about something.

Obamistas, please don't be angry at me. I offer this as a genuine concern during a time in which everything about you and me and our loved ones is at stake here on what we do.

:hide:

I wish he had another 4-8 years outside of congress in some form of "executive" position, to build a real platform.

His message and charisma are strong, and he certainly has enough organization to go toe-to-toe with Hillary (which says volumes, being able to fundraise on par with Hillary Clinton). However, the problem is that Democrats keep putting up congressmen against Governors and VPs.

American hates Bush but hates Congress even more.

We elect a Commander-in-Chief, not a Legislator-in-Chief. The last time we elected somebody from Congress was 1960.

You say he has organization; are you referring to him personally or to the organization(s) around him?

As for organization, i think the organization around him obviously reflects on HIM whether folks want to admit it.

This young guy is going toe-to-toe in fundraising, campaigning and endorsements with Hillary Clinton and you're suggesting he has no capacity for being organized? Come on...

i confess i didnt see the debate (yet)

an apparently limited one.

Please review his answer to the "strength and weakness" question.

I'll tell you something about what I saw when he answered that, because in my personal life I am a person very like what he said. The ability to "bring different folks together" can be the flip side of inattention (purposeful or otherwise) to some human details. It IS good to bring folks together as long as you don't loose track of their important differences. It's that lack of focus (i.e. organization) of their human details that makes the charisma work. Someone who IS more focused on who and what the differences are is more like Hillary.

I respect your concern, but i'm just saying that i doubt whatever his point was in the debate... equates to saying he has no organization skills in terms of management, analysis or mobilization.

I do not mean "no ogranization skills", obviously most people can't function without some organizational skills. I have questions now about how one would characterize BO's organizational skills and how who he knows could make up for certain deficits that could affect job performance in ways that matter to me.

He's actually being VERY slick here, imo, by making this into a joke about being a tad sloppy.

This has several meaningful elements from my analysis:

1. he's showing humility and imperfection in a humorous manner.

2. he's defining his weakness in a way that shows his strengths (i.e. he has strong people around him to track "paperwork").

3. he's getting ahead of the attacks on his experience to be President and trying to establish a popular image of himself

There are many executives precisely like him, which is the irony. They do not handle all the paperwork themselves and will often joke in precisely the same way about this kind of stuff. It's taking a stand as a certain type of strong leader, not as a micro-manager.

To attack him on this is to both attack his sincerity and also the idea that a president doesn't sit around shuffling papers. It's a smart move and lays a trap for somebody who attacks him on this point.

It won't work against Romney, though... but it deflects the question of experience into his strengths.

I may be chaotic in my personal life, but I'm an obsessive organizer at work, which resulted in actually being made Release Coordinator at Sprint, where I got an enterprise wide bird's eye view of how little executives know about what is going on, before I was laid off. (BTW, I'm re-employed now in a job that I love and in which I continue to use my passion for controlling information, but it still feels pretty insecure since it's a 501(c) 3.)

To clarify, I'm not "attack"ing. I'm raising sincere questions because, essentially, I believe in the dialectic. However, the dialectic has some vital caveats; the first of which is that the interactive positions should be CLEARLY defined as to their similarities and differences and all I've heard from the BO camp thus far, except for Public Finance of Campaigns, is all about similarities.

She jumped on him, suggesting that MANAGEMENT SKILLS are essential for a President (i 100% agree, which is why all 3 dems are weak against Romney or Rudy... or Bloomberg). She effectively beat up on a strawman argument.

Obama retorted that this wasn't his point and denied having weak management skills (it was a trap). This guy was magna cum laud at Harvard Law for a reason. =)

He then went on a funny rant about how Bush's management skills didn't make him a good President, and he turned the topic around to emphasize his strengths. Very smart move.

He isn't saying he's a bad manager.

He's joking that he can't keep track of paperwork and scheduling details, hence why he brings in good people around him. He's actually making fun of himself in a way that makes him seem like a STRONGER leader.

His argument is that he's the better visionary and bi-partisan leader who will actually bring people together to get stuff done on what's important. He also made his case that speaking truthfully is at the core. He didn't say it, but that's certainly his attempt to differentiate himself fomr Clinton.

He attended on a scholarship. Columbia? Harvard law where he was editor of the law review and from where he graduated Magna Cum Laude? Was his foregoing the money track to work as a community organizer not a sign of maturity? His Illinois Senate career? His career as a lawyer and lecturer in Con law?

He made a cute off the cuff comment to a fluff question. People are being silly over analyzing it.

I'm sure you don't mean to appear so arrogant.

A thing I learned in teaching highschool: Whatever I thought about how people ought to be (i.e. "smart" and not "silly"), they are what they are and it is better to start from where they are than from some place that is more a projection of me AND MY AGENDA than it is of them.

Indeed, you dont graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law based on who you know...

But it does help to fund raise!!!




Against Hillary Clintong... (lol)

Some of the responses here crack me up (and yet make me sad).

I mentioned a possible way to deflect and put this issue to rest, but if he gets the Dem nomination i think this church is the "swift boat" issue. And it is NOT just a matter of distortion.

There are going to be serious, legitimate debates about christianity, african american empowerment and integration that bubble up during this... mixed with the distortions. My point is that those who will want to "win" the debates on these serious issues will keep the campaign buzz focused on complex racial matters.

Call me cynical but i dont believe USA is mature enough to handle those discussions during a presidential campaign.

As a woman in a male dominated field, I have very strong opinions on how Clinton should handle the issue of femininity (sp?) when it comes up. I know what works, what doesn't, what is worth standing up for and letting go, etc. I've been immersed in it, I know it tons better.

It strikes me that for most racist, bigoted Americans, even those with smallish biases, that they probably see it as an advantage for Obama that his heritage is from modern Africa and doesn't include generations of slaves. I have noticed blacks are treated differently, more accepted, by people if they know they are "recent" immigrants, or their parents are. It would probably be to Obama's advantage to deflect it (the church issue) in a way that highlights his family history in that way, which will resonate will many Americans. I've read that 90% of Americans have at least one ancestor who immigrated to the U.S. in the last 100 years. Anyway, he can probably work the choice of church in that way.

I'm sure others can give a much more educated and thoughtful answer than I.

For me... as an inter-racial male... it's really simple.

He cannot "defend" himself in any ways that imply victimization or an assault on meritocracy. This culture is always quick to attack black leaders who engage in either/both. The irony is that the Al Sharptons are the ones the mainstream media love to have speaking on issues, frankly, because i think his indignation is so easily blown off.

I do not think this is a "conspiracy" by racists.

I think that's just how our culture functions right now, unfortunately.

He can play the fence on his ancestry, but what's galvanizing people and making his voice so strong... is that he taps into core values with a unifying vision. He cannot turn around and defend a "pro-black" message while maintaining a race-neutral message. That may work in academic circles, but not in the national dialog.

He cant play the race card, and EVERYTHING about this church "plays the race card" and americans understand it.

My hunch is he has to playfully show respect for "his church" and then basically say it's off-limits as a private religious matter. He jokes about not wanting to get into theological debates with his pastor on national television, etc. He doesnt abandon his church but he thus distances himself from discussions of it.

He could insist this church is a positive force in a place often without hope in the last 30 years, but then deflect debates over the specifics. He can also cite the wider church affiliation that's very "white" and mainstream... thus putting the entire affiliation in the spotlight... and nobody would dare attack that.

I don't know much about his church, but if it is specifically focused on blacks, then it can be seen easily as non-inclusive, which chips away at what Obama's strongest point seems to be (the unifying point, which he's very good at).

You know it's going to come up, though. If Obama and Clinton continue to be frontrunners, they're both going to go through the ringer this summer and whatever fires they endure, it will surely be easier for the next non-white-male candidate. They are pioneers and I'm excited about both of them.

This isnt a Fox News question, i'm afraid.

They would just simply say "Will Obama's Black Separatist church turn off most american voters?" lol

I'm so concerned about Obama's neckties. Will they render him unelectable? Gosh, oh gee. The concern very real.

No, it won't make him unelectable. The well-to-do anti-gay fundis and evangelicals will fund and GOTV for Obama. He's their kind o' candidate.
Obama/Huckabee would be a killer ticket.

A calendar of monthly events from their Singles Community page: http://www.tucc.org/single_community.htm

Community Families Monthly Meetings
o Never Married Family - Every 2nd Thursday – 7:00–9:00 p.m.
o Single Parent Family - Every 2nd Saturday – 11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.
o Divorced/Widowed Family - Every 3rd Friday – 6:30–8:30 p.m.
o Same Gender Loving Family - Every 4th Saturday – 2:00–4:00 p.m.
o 40 P.L.U.S. Family – Every 4th Friday – 7:00–9:00 p.m.
o Unmarried Couples – Every 4th Friday – 7:00–9:00 p.m.


On the one hand, he hires the same gospel singer as Bill Clinton did when president for a single event only to learn at the last minute the guy is some "cure the gays with religion" whacko.

On the other hand, his church, a significant part of his life for a very long time, not just a one night stand, supports same gender families.

If you want to continue judging Obama by a single event rather than a lifetime, that is your perogative. But you have no excuse for libeling his church which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that event.

lack of flag lapel pins, because a True Patriot would never not wear a flag lapel pin. Two is even better.
failure to put his hand over his heart, because it probably means he's a damn al Qaeda spy.
lack of First Lady experience, because nothing's more important than luncheon menus and seating charts.
scary middle name, because that DEFINITELY means he's a damn al Qaeda spy.
Islamicness, because my neighbor would never vote for an Islam.
raising the false hopes of Americans, because what Americans need is more hopelessness!
stealing Edwards' populist message, because this election's only big enough for one populist.
liberal church, because, um, who's he trying to kid, pretending not to be an Islam?
blackness, because, you know, it will prevent racists from voting for him, and we need that racist vote, otherwise it's eight freakin' years of President Huckleberry!

get my/our candidate the nomination.

The primary agenda is to win with a candidate that best represents our issues.

On this board, I definitely feel commitments to a specific candidate supercede who can actually win and outright rejection and ridicule of concerns about that pretty much substantiates that perception.

Everyone (and that includes me) needs to ask him/herself, "What do I want the most: for __________ to be our nominee and MAYBE win? - or - for the next pResident of the U.S. to be a Democrat who is relatively close to me and mine on our issues?"

And his record is the most consistently progressive of any of the top three Democrats. Works for me.

Here's mine http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/9/164528/2571

http://detroit.craigslist.org/pol/536041483.html

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/democrats_would.html

etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/poll.matchups/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican presidential field appears to face a tough general election fight in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Saturday.

According to the survey, both of the Democratic front-runners, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, hold mostly double-digit -- and statistically identical -- advantages over Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, drawing greater than 50 percent support in each hypothetical matchup.

The Republican candidate who gives Clinton and Obama the closest race in the new poll is Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is essentially tied with both: He draws the support of 48 percent of those surveyed to Clinton's 50 percent and Obama's 49 percent.

_______

So, okay, he only beats McCain by one point (49/48—see the PDF). But he still beats him. As I said, I guess the Edwards supporters can relax a little and stop being so TERRIBLY CONCERNED that their racist next-door neighbors are going to throw the race to Huckabee if Obama gets the nom. Sure doesn't look that way at this point.

it's too early to make much out of national polls, besides to look at up/down trends.

You give yourself away. You are as credible as someone arguing that Soros may be a member of the Jew International Communist Conspiracy.

Your post, rehashes the Email Libel going around. You use the weasel worlds of a radical, trying to whitewash their own prejudices by invoking the American People: 'That's not going to play well with ...', 'not going to fit the image of .... ' 'understandable but ...' 'uncomfortable for mainstream Americans...', Americans just cant handle that...'.

There's nothing in your post which is not a toned down elaboration of the Email going around saying Obama attended a radical muslim madrassa.

Obama is black. Black churches have been on the American scene as long as slavery. No doubt those who burn down black churches in the south still object to them.

The United Church of Christ is mainstream evangelical congregationalist church.

Your post has nothing to do with concerns about all Americans, most Americans, mainstream Americans, some Americans, or even the millions of Americans you say believe Obama. It's got everything to do with the fact that you say a black person can't be elected.

"I do not believe a black candidate can survive any systematic racialization of the issues, no matter what he or she says." As as you know his opponents will racialize as a tactic. I mean, here you are doing it. Therefore the black candidate is unelectable. I've got three words for you

YES, WE CAN!

Yes Obama ia black!! You rehash the RW claptrap going around, present it as a concern, worry about the millions who are ignorant bigots, then say DU should address it? I don't think so.

You took the name Essene, a Jewish Sect that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls which are not accepted by either the Christian or Jewish traditions. A polite way of saying heresy. I'm sure you can find the purity of thought, deed and color that you are looking for elsewhere.

And i find it comical how you start off by pretending im some right-winger who has "no credibility" just because i sincerely ask how on earth a black candidate is going to negotiate this predictable assault.

You even try to attack me for my alias? lol

And then you say IM the one lacking credibility and honesty?

Yes, the wider church is mainstream and that may be the angle of deflection to rely on. HOwever, the church itself has a history, has a message and has a lot of stuff that's very uncomfortable for mainstream america.

Just saying it's so and acting indignant isnt going to work.

You're conveniently and insincerely pretending im some hatchet guy repeating an email that has NOTHING to do with what im talking about... at all.

In fact, im a minority who supports obama in this primary and is sincerely concerned.

Flame away...

How do I know. Google is your friend.

Grow up.

The only thing that email said about this church was that he joined it to attempt to downplay his muslim background.

You dont even have a point.

You are stupid.

Stick to the issues, rather than pretentious personal attacks.

I judge you not by the color of your skin but the content of your character.

indeed

I don't want any religious nut cases of any color or stripe or political party in office again. That some on this thread are dismissing this like it's no big deal or that it's some kind of targeted smear is alarming.

Denial gets us NO WHERE.

Haven't we had enough religious bullshit from * & Co to last a lifetime?! :banghead:

Is it really radical?

Folks will sincerely disagree on that question, but the point is that it will BE an open question in the general public discourse... and the debate could consume all other dialog. Perhaps it is an opportunity, but i see it as a huge trap.

Religion does NOT belong in politics and if Obama's church is a politically oriented church-whether it's "radical" or not-then that's an issue that just can't be ignored and swept under the carpet.

I do not think it can be swept under the carpet, either, obviously. And it's sad to see people flaming me for just daring to ask the question (i'd love to see these arrogant people try that in person).

A church being politically oriented isnt a problem.

The issue is the underlying rhetoric of black power, black theology and black liberation. I have no problem with those goals, but my point is that this is INHERENTLY perceived as "unamerican" by the mainstream... and will become THE defining smear by Republicans.

I don't really listen to the talking heads in the corporate media, but if they don't like a candidate, you can be sure they will go at him or her with both barrels.

I'm not fond of the theocratic impulses in our culture, either.

on this site are having a shit fit over it.

"Reverse racism" in the mainstream mythology of america.

WHite america rejects any claims of difference that imply power inequalities. It's a big happy meritocracy and how dare a CHURCH suggest otherwise.

Just as the Fox News interview with Pastor Wright from a year ago indicates, the spin is that this is a radical separatist church. In being "for blacks" it is thus seen as inherently unamerican.

"What if that was white power or a white church?" is the reaction.

Folks can attack me for legitimately being concerned about how Obama handles this issue, but it's a very serious issue. I haven't read his book(s), so perhaps there's some explanation in there?

It occurs to me that he likely discusses some of the underlying issues in his book (which i havent read).

They seem to support gay marriage, yet Obama cites his "religious traditions" as basis for his objections to it.

The wider affiliation is very progressive, but this church itself has some very conservative leanings.

I mean... i get it in the sense that i understand that local churches in black communities often ARE conservative on social issues (i.e. work ethic, families, responsibility, etc)... but his position itself makes no sense to me.

The pastor Jeremiah Wright traveled with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Qaddafi in Tripoli. Obama has named Jeremiah Wright as his mentor and borrowed his book title "The Audacity Of Hope" from a sermon that reverend Wright delivered.

In 2007 Louis Farrakhan received the “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer” And Mr. Farrakhan is the cover story of the November/December 2007 issue of Wright’s Trinity United Church Of Christ’s magazine. Louis Farrakhan is referred to as "the Honorable Minister". Farrakhan is a racist and anti~semitic hate~monger. Obama's ties to the Trinity church need to be examined. Does Obama consider Farrakhan to be "honorable"? If so, he should admit it and let the voters decide if he is fit for office.

This blew up today.