Letters to the Editor
-
@ Stellaa
Wright loses my respect in another way. Once one ministers to someone at a time of need, one loses the luxury of later criticizing that person on that particular issue. It is a breach of confidentiality.
-
@ Wynter
"I don't truly believe Sen. Obama when he speaks on Unity and Hope. And now I doubt him even more seeing the religious mentor he had chosen for the past twenty years."
It's fair that this raises doubts for you. In fairness, though, I would urge you, if you're really interested in forming an informed opinion, to try to find a more fair and authentic picture of "the past twenty years" rather than seizing on one sermon delivered in an extraordinary time, one of tremendous stress, meant for a particular congregation.
For his part, Obama agrees with you. Remember, he said (from memory), "If all I knew about this man was that one sermon, I'd be put off too."
He then went on to offer what he considered a more balanced view of the twenty-year association.
Whether you choose to accept that or not is another matter, but if you're actually trying to think your way through all this to arrive at an informed opinion, shouldn't this factor in?
As far as Wright's ministry, I've read several very heartening assessments of it, including social work and messages of love and hope and self-reliance.
So even if you find the one sermon troubling, I do hope you'll put it in perspective. Having done so, you might find on balance the one sermon outweighs all the other stuff.
That's fine, just please consider doing some more research, if it means that much to you.
"The problem is the discrepancy between the two versions of Obama... the one that chose Rev. Wright to listen to.. and the one spouting flowery speeches of hope and unity. Which one is the REAL OBAMA?"
Obama is not a cardboard cutout, he's a human being, as we all are.
We contain multitudes, you know?
-
@ independent thinker
I'm sorry, but a "completely sane, educated, Democratically-minded voter" is not one who is convinced that Obama will
"let Muslims into the country and they will overtake us!!"
I've got relatives like that, too. But despite my familial affinity, I consider them neither "completely sane" nor "educated". Rather, ignorant and deluded.
-
@ independent_thinker
"What I (and a very few others) say is this: you can wish all you want for people to elect Obama based on his logical arguements, BUT THEY WILL NOT! One of my relatives, a completely sane, educated, Democratically-minded voter, will not vote for Obama. Why??? Because she's convinced he'll let Muslims into the country and they will overtake us!! Unfortunately, MILLIONS of Americans feel like her. So, here's the crossroads: Obama, to get their votes, MUST convince people that he IS a patriotic American (I have no doubt that he is), OR, he can talk all the logic he wants, and McCain will be the next President. Period, end of statement. It's times like this when theory needs to be tempered by reality, and all the philosophical BS in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans, especially when that's all we'll be eating when McCain is elected."
I get it, but again, I ask, are there not potential consequences as well to the pandering you suggest?
Might not that pandering itself be largely responsible for the lemming-like obedience shown to the current president?
In other words, I believe that our deepest problem is not the Bush administration, but the fact that so many signed off on its misadventures.
You're talking short term (winning this election) and I'm talking long-term (challenging the mindset that got us into the war).
We are indeed at a tough spot, and there are costs and benefits both to pandering and not pandering.
I, for one, believe that winning under false pretenses (i.e., by pandering) is not winning at all, because there will be no clear mandate as to what the victory means and because it leaves in place the structures by which the right, in the the next election cycle can simply outpander the left, as it's been doing for decades now.
For me, I see the Clinton years as part of the long-term, structural problem.
I do not believe a return to that sort of politics will be worth a hill of beans in the long run.
Do you at least take my point, because rest assured, I take yours.
-
for weeping for brunnhilde
Ok, so I'm at the Olympics. Call me silly, but I'd be rooting for the Americans in say, ice hockey. OOops! I can't wave the American flag. Hmm. What to do? Or, is waving an American flag (or any other flag) for some athletes a bad thing? Just wondering how far you'll take this thing.
-
@ independent_thinker
One other thing:
"Unfortunately, MILLIONS of Americans feel like her. So, here's the crossroads: Obama, to get their votes, MUST convince people that he IS a patriotic American"
The factors which lead people to vote or not to vote are complex.
It may all boil down to what you say it boils down to, but I'd need to see some data to convince me your analysis is sound.
-
ShawnWM
ShawnWM wrote:
"Yeah. That'll fly. Obama and the liberals telling all of Americans it's their own fault that 3000 of their fellow civilians were incinerated while 90% Of the Muslim world was all happy out in the streets celebrating it.
And if that doesn't work, lay on a big liberal guilt trip about race when Americans are paying 3.25 a gallon to fill up their tanks and praying they don't get a pink slip (if they haven't already)."
Shawn, are you not aware that the reason gas is $3.25 a gallon is the illegal war in Iraq?
Obama never said the 9/11 is all the fault of Americans!
Please watch a news station that isn't FOX!
You sir and your ilk are responsible for that war.
Saddam had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11.
It is not Americans as individuals that are at fault, but it maybe America as a nation that is at fault.
You just keep on wearing your flag lapel pin, so we will know who the "real" patriots are.
Ignorant is as Ignorant does!