Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From:	Holly (67.184.34.179)
Subject:	I think the analogous situation
Date:	May 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm PST

In Reply to: So-called Conservatives takes the low road, again. Obama takes the high road -- anyone notice? posted by Jaq on May 4, 2008 at 7:07 am:

is Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama and Obama's response compared to Hagee of McCain's and McCain's response.

You're not going to agree with every kook who endorses you. The reason Farrakhan liking Obama is no big deal is because Obama clearly doesn't endorse his views, said so and didn't have any special or long term relationship with Farrakhan.

McCain's Hagee situation is much more similar to that than to the Wright/Obama situation. While I'm glad McCain did speak out against Hagee's anti-Catholic views, he should have been more strong in his rejection. His tepidity will come back to haunt him and I believe MoveOn is already spinning pretty hard on that one.

I think this will hurt McCain in November, as will Parsley. But is anyone fooled by McCain's sudden appreciation of ridiculous pastors? It seems obviously and nakedly political as the man clearly knows evangelicals aren't his strongest base of support and he's trying to shore that up. That he thought Hagee and Parsley would be useful endorsements shows me (an evangelical) how little McCain understands the evangelical vote. Or at least any evangelical I've ever interacted with, none of whom would sit through even one sermon by either of those pastors. So not only was it a distasteful person from which to receive an endorsement, I think it will hurt, not help him with evangelicals.

However, with neither man did McCain have an extended 20 year relationship, nor did McCain name a book after either of their sermons, nor did they baptize McCains' kids nor did they marry Senator and Mrs. McCain. That, and not race, is what makes McCain's situation different from Obama's.

McCain's was clearly a craven political move.

Now, perhaps Obama's was too, afterall Trinity Church was helpful to Obama in Chicago politics.

The problem for Obama is that he is left either looking foolish--he had no idea his pastor held these views? really? cuz the pastor certainly seems shy and retiring about them, doesn't he? If Obama doesn't look naive then he looks like a liar when he says he had no idea. Neither one is a pretty scenario for him.

Frankly, I think Michelle Obama probably liked this church--she's from Chicago, Obama's not and Obama thought it would be politically useful to help him in IL politics, so he went there. But he can't say that on the national stage because then he looks like just another politician (we already know McCain is that) but Obama's whole campaign is selling us on the notion that despite Wright and despite his Rezko real estate fairy that he's NOT just another politician; he is hope, he is transcendence from that (anyone who has spent more than five minutes in Chicago is rolling their eyes right about now).

So, since he can't admit that Trinity was likely very useful in his Chicago/IL days, he's left with the naive or untruthful dilemma. And say what you will about Obama, he is certainly no fool. I guess it's just good for him that at this point he's running against Hillary, not exactly known or valued for her honesty.

Now, why Wright is throwing Obama under the bus this past week with his antics, which are sure to have an impact on the national stage, I have no idea.

What Obama finally said this week is what he should have said a year ago when these stories started to surface. Had he dealt with it decisively then, it wouldn't be hurting him quite so much now. If you can't handle an out of control pastor, how are you going to handle the nut in Iran?

Blessings,
Holly

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home