Strange that the Rev.Wright addresses the same issues as Martin Luther King Jr did in the 1960's and for one we have a national holiday and for the other we apparently have national rebuke.

I wouldn't quite compare Martin Luther King to Rev. Wright, but I will repeat what I once heard on the Smiley Davis show by one of his guests. "Thank God Martin Luther King is dead" I won't quote him any more beyond that because I don't remember the exact exchange, but basically what he was saying was that if King was still alive and still talking America's view of him would be very different. And I think that applies to both black and white people.

well said shiva. it appears some folks are talking about two different incidents. anyway, as to the god damn america bit here is what he said;

like the chickens coming home to roost bit i cannot disagree with him in either case.

it appears to this 'ol gringo in the outback of new mexico some americans have a problem with the truth

Sure Rev. Wright is tarnishing Sen. Obama's Golden Boy image. He may hit the nail on the head about some of the things done in the past, but how about his wild theory that the U.S. government created the H.I.V. virus to kill black people? Or his racial comments about Italians or what he said about Israel?

I don't think Americans, despite their skin color, want that type of religious leader. If Sen. Obama is going to be criticized, it should be for his policies or his own political blunders. But I don't think it's fair to punish him for his association with Rev. Wright.

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

The only thing Reverend Wright is tarnishing is his own public image and credability, not Obama's. To assume that anything that comes out of this lunatic's mouth is even remotely relavant to who Barack Obama is, and, more importantly, what he is capable of, is as naive as saying that the Dali Lama is necessarily an evil man becasue he has publicly shaken hands with George W.Bush, and must therfore be guilty by association. Just because a ridiculous personality such as Wright has unfortunately crossed paths with the Presidential hopeful does not say a damn thing about his politics, his value system, or his personal character. I believe in the value of freedom of the press, but this has gotten so out of hand it is beyond my comprehension. There hasn't been a more impressive politician (in any capacity) in three generations as Obama. Truly intelligent, honest, his politics are dead on, and he might be the greatest natural orator since Churchill. It doesn't hurt either that on top of all this he's a youthful African American with an untarnished reputation in the field. And what happens? Nobody can find a single thing on this guy for months, then they dig up this cook. This absurd "reverend" who happens to be a part of this great man's past and all of a sudden Obama is not to be trusted? For everythign he is, the existance of Wright is enought to erdicate all of it? They turn what should be a three hour story into a multi-month long 24 hour/day story. If there's a soul out there who has heard Omabama speak, read his books, or done any research on the man, who is even CONSIDERING allowing the existance of Wright to affect their opinion of him in any way shape or form, said person might be well served to carefully consider why it is they are so easily swayed by media coverage. The horid fact is that humans will swallow whatever you give them. brittney Spears doesn't sell records because she has one scrap of talent, McDonald's doesn't sell burgers because they are good. If the media hands something to the public they will take it. Period. If the same media had brought up Wright and treated it like it should ahve been treated, as an incidental sideline to the real issues on the table, it would have been forgotten within 24 horus. This mass coverage has done more damage to the future of this nation and, directly, the future of the global political climate, than can be iamgined at this point. For the first time in my lifetime this country has a chance to carry into the Whitehouse someone worthy of the position to lead the nation. Not some half-assed joke idiot son of someone, not some lying, cheating crook, not some stubborn out of touch conservative...a real, honest, human being with the intelligence worthy of the post. And what are we doing, we're alllwing for the possibility of stiffling this man's opportunity. If the worst you can say about this candidate is that he knows someone who is undesirable, than you MUST elect him. I mean can you even imagine if that was the only bad thing you could say about Hillary? I'm laughing out loud at the absurdity of the notion. The guy is damn near perfect people, and I say that with an almost 30 year record of voting conservative Repiblican. if you can't see that, if you can't see how DIFFERENT this man is from NAy politician that has graced the TV screens, the podiums of the regional conventions, the benches on capitol hill, than you shouldn't be casting a vote at all. This man, Barack Obama, is the best any of us will ever see in our lifetime. Do NOT let the goddamn press have ANY effect on your vote. If you ahve a brain in your head, and any semblance of a soul, you KNOW that this man deserves every chance to run this country. I mean, for God's sake, if we even CONSIDERED the idea that G.W. Bush deserved a chance at running the country then obviously, we MUST let Obama have a shot. Otherwise we'd all just look like complete idiots! Let's show the world that we're not actually the stupidist country on the planet, and let's actually elect someone ABLE to lead the free world. Turn off the damn news, distance yourselves from this waste of space Wright, and let's get our eyes back on the ball: ensuring that the greatest political hope in our lifetimes wins this nomination. If you're finding yourselves entangled in media buzz-of the week, just revisit any of Obama's speaches from the last year. Listen to the man speak, and reacquaint yourselves with why this man has been able to consistantly knock the socks off anyone who listens to him. Remember that, yes, he really is THAT good.

I don't know that Obama is the best thing since slice bread, Mickey Rooney's Father. Sure, Obama has a great image of hope and energy that seems to be lacking in the current candidates. But some of his policies should be questioned.

For example, he wants to bring the troops home, but (like the rest of the candidates) he haven't gone into great detail on how to do that or what actions he will order if and when Iran invades Iraq or what to do if the country falls to the insurgents because of the quick pull out of troops. Even Iraq says it isn't ready to handle things on their own.

His Web site doesn't even have guns in the Issues section and that's because he's been in favor of gun laws that don't make gun owners happy. Sure, anyone can say Americans shouldn't have guns at all, but no one ever goes into detail of how to combat the growing criminals who will still have guns once the honest citizen gave up his or her firearms.

As I have written more than once, Obama's association with Wright shouldn't be taken into account. Sadly, though, it will with many people, from Republicans to Democrats.

But I have to ask, since I'm a journalist and blogger myself Mickey Rooney's Father, how are people going to find out what Obama says in his speeches if you are advising all of us to turn the media off?

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

All right, you got me on a semantic technicality with regard to the definition of "media." I was referring to "mass media" or "news media," not synonymous with electronic "media," i.e. streaming audio of Obama speaking, etc, which can be sought out by any discriminating researcher on any number of websites without allowing themselves to be bombarded with network spin and editorial. The whole point of my post was to illustrate the absurdity of how easily swayed people are by the News irrespective of the value or merit of the content in question. Simply by virtue of the fact that this man Wright gets press, Obama has lost supporters. Which, in my estimation, can only be construed as a negative effect of the power of the news media. The bottom line is that Americans will swallow anything you give them. The press downplays their sway over these things, claiming only to bring the news as objectively and with as much journalistic integrity as is possible, but by putting this out there with such dramatic fervor, implying that it's even newsworthy at all, they are in fact changing peoples minds about a man who has about as much in common with Rev. Wright as I do. It's beyond absurd. This is why I don't watch the news. Every American has the right to formulate their own opinions, not to be forcefed someone else's. Maybe Obama isn't "absolutly perfect in every way" but he's clearly the closest of the three to fitting that description, and certainly the closest to that description in many years as far as politicians go. The idea that this man might actually lose the nomination now because of this, just because the press has the "right" to turn a nothing story like this into a national scandal, is just as much of a downright sin as allowing a clearly guilty murder defendant off scott free because of some loop hole his attorney found in the legal system. Both scenarios might be technically "admissible" by national law, but is either one at all "right," "good," or the best thing for the people of the community?

Obama is the most impressive politician I have ever heard speak. I'm talking, this guy is on a Lincolnian, a Rooseveltian level. He might be the next truly great leader. On the other hand, he might not, we don't know for sure yet, but I'll tell you this, there's no one more deserving of the opportunity, no one better equipped to give it a shot. If we are willing to allow someone like Bush, or Dukakis, or Kerry, or Hillary the chance to run the nation, we MUST allow someone like Obama. If we didn't... it would be like not picking Michael Jordan to play on your gym class basketball team. Here's this guy who's the OBVIOUS choice, and now this thing might actually ruin it for him. If that happens I'll tell you this, I will officially lose all faith in the American public and certainly in the press. If Obama doesn't take this thing, EVERYBODY loses, that's the point. It's in everyone's best interest to help this guy win. We've just come out of two terms of the worst administration in the history of the nation. A man who I wouldn't trust to tie my shoes has been leading the country into the most precarious gobal-political position since Viet Nam. We are hated globally on a level only akin only to how the rest of the world felt about the Nazi's in the 40's. We NEED this guy to bail us out of the unforgivable mess that Bush got us in. It might be irreversable at this point but we have to try. Can you even IMAGINE a nation who would elect someone like G.W. Bush for TWO TERMS and then NOT elect Obama after that? I mean it's so far beyond being funny, it's just scary. If it happens I swear I'm moving to Canada. If a nation fails to do what's right a couple times you can forgive them. So we screwed up HUGE by electing Bush, everyone is willing to admit that. So now here's the opportunity to fix it. Obama is like a freebee handed to us from the Gods or something. We don't deserve to get him after electing Bush a second term, but lo and behold here he is, ready for us to let him try to save the country. The timing couldn't be better, and if we don't make it happen, it'll be on no one's conscience but our own.

If you get bit by a rattlesnake you don't PASS when the antidote is offered to you for free. Unless you're an idiot, of course. And I might be willing to admit that this country is comprised entirely of idiots...we'll see what happens in November.

I'm sorry to budge into this conversation, but I just wanted to point something out, hope oyu don't mind

Iraq has enough militias to keep the sole remaining superpower at bay, there's no way Iran will ever successfully invade Iraq. Arabs and Persians are basically natural enemies and have been so for centuries, with the US and therefore the mutual enemy gone, there's no reason for them to cooperate.

As to insurgents taking over the country...even Al Sadr has said that he would consider disarming his militia only to a government that drives the occupiers, aka the US, out of the country. And between us, he'd be dumb if he disbanded it now. A vast majority of Iraqis have a huge problem with US presence in the country and want the US out. A great deal of the insurgency in Iraq is sparked by the very presence of the US. How can you fight and insurgency when you are to a substantial degree the very reason for that insurgency?

And obviously Iraqi government says it's not ready to stand on its own. Not only is the support for the government not overwhelming (it is a majority, but by no means a vast one), but it's of course always easier if you have someone else to foot the bill for you. In other words, the points you addressed, appart form the "how will he pull out the troops", don't seem too meaningful to me.

I'll be taking a look at your blog though

__________________

Mickey Rooney's Father, you are right, people need to form their own opinions based on facts. However, the media has a right to report what Rev. Wright said.

Here, I'll give you an example of the three knows. There are three categories of how a story gets reported on: People need to know, people want to know and people have the right to know.

Now somewhere the Rev. Wright story falls in one of those categories for most people. Just because you don't think it was a worthy story doesn't mean the person next to you feels the same way. And trust me, if they didn't report the story, then the media would get hammered on by someone else with your passion. It's a no-win situation. Besides, it is the news and the media has to report on it. It can't help how people react to it.

I have to say, I don't think President Bush is as evil as you are making him out to be. He has done some good, although I don't think we should have gone into Iraq the way we did. However, he did push an offense to the war on terror and it has either stopped terror attacks or arrested or killed terrorists.

And speaking of Iraq that brings me to you Aztek. I think the term "invade" wasn't the best choice of words, I admit. But if it's true that Iran is supplying the insurgents, and in the beginning they were former Saddam leaders who weren't happy with giving the people freedom, then I'm sure Iran would want a strong foothold in Iraq if the U.S. leaves prematurely. That can't be allowed to happen.

I agree that there are a lot of non-insurgent Iraqis who aren’t happy with the U.S. presence, as I wrote before. If they convinced their government to tell the U.S. to get out of Iraq, then we should do so. But if the government isn’t ready to defend itself, then who should go back in and help them out?

And speaking of things I wrote before, thank you for stopping by my blog, by the way. I hope you liked it. Please stop by again.

__________________
Like what I have to say? Go to: The Times Observer

There's really no problem with the media reporting on Reverend Wright, but the way they've taken his words out of context surely falls under the category of misinformation (not on purpose) or even borders on disinformation (purposefully misinforming). In any case, both are certainly not very desirable things for a serious news agency to do.

I don't know if you've listened to any sermons of his in its entirety, but eventhough maybe the choice of wordings might have been misunfortunate, there is truth to them if you stop and think about it. Yet the media completely masked most of that away and concentrated playing "God damn America" in a loop all day long. Now obviously, if that snipped is all you hear, it does seem outrageous.

__________________