You're kidding right? What regular churchgoer would not notice a DVD of their pastor being sold in the lobby? He spent 20 years in that church, are you telling me he had no idea what Wright (his spiritual adviser) was saying? If so, how can we expect to confidently send this guy to a 1 hour meeting with foreign leaders and expect him to know what just happened?

Is Obama incapable of leaving the church on his own? Why did it take a firestorm of bad press during a campaign for Obama to become "outraged" over Wright's remarks and finally leave the church?

The bottom line is this. McCain listened to the commanders on the ground and determined that all was not lost and we could turn things around with additional troops. McCain was 100% correct in saying openly that we would stay there as long as it takes. It was demoralizing to the insurgency to know we were in it for the long haul, and as a result they collapsed. That is exactly why we are in a position to remove troops at our own pace with the desired outcome achieved.

Obama on the other hand simply pandered to the anti war crowd, without being adequately informed of the situation, and wanted to just pull out regardless of the consequences. He was wrong, (and knows it now) but fortunately he wasn't in the position to make the call.

And again, it's not good enough to have to be proven wrong and then pretend you weren't. How about getting the facts first, and then take an informed position, instead of making policy based on opinion polls and have to retreat with egg on your face? That seems to be SOP for Obama and his advisers.

__________________
Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Charles Krauthammer

You've Been Bamboozled

I'm not saying he didn't see a copy of it, but that doesn't mean he purchased, watched, and agreed with it.

Regardless of what of Wright Obama did see (and I'd like to see Wright on one of his saner sermons, even Falwell's church is usually boring, even if he does say inflamatory hateful things sometimes) it seems clear that Obama took the good part of it and went on to do something beautiful and meaningful with his life. I repeat that it's cute how republicans are still trying to make Wright the central issue of the campaign.



I submit to you again that Obama denounced and rejected Wright's comments long before the media blitz. For God's sake, Bush and McCain have both stood beside religious leaders who said crazy things, and they've never been asked to denounce or defend them this way. Falwell even basically said what Wright did, that 9/11 was chickens come home to roost. He believed it was for different reasons, but it's no less crazy to suggest 9/11 was the result of gays than it is to suggest 9/11 is the result of racism. THey're both nuts.



But McCain also has said he woudln't have gone there in the first place. NOw he pretends that it's a great thing that we went. Doesn't that make you question his judgement in exactly the same light?


And McCain has changed 40% of his views to pander to his base. So?



But that's my whole point, the facts have changed before the positions did. You seem to be calling for him to have a virtual gift of prophecy.

In short, you were wrong.
McCain hasn't softened, that's the point. He has always insisted that Iran is a threat and he is 100% correct in that assessment. Obama on the other hand needs to stick his finger in the wind, and then find out later he fucked up. When dealing with nukes, we can't afford to be wrong which is something the liberals and the anti war freaks haven't figured out yet.
You're missing the boat entirely. Obama said the surge "would only make matters worse." When it became obvious that he was wrong, his advisers get on TV and say "Of course sending more troops would improve the situation, everybody knew that". Apparently Obama didn't get the memo.

This thread is about credibility isn't it? I think you better have another look at that video and tell me how it differs from Rove's inconsistency in the other thread.


26 seconds - 53 seconds

Wake up....

__________________
Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Charles Krauthammer

You've Been Bamboozled

the majority of people in this country are not about to vote for a black supremecist, quasi muslim, lying nigger. forget about it.

He didn't leave the church until it became a liability to his campaign. Why not? On the other hand, he demanded Imus be fired for one remark, while disregarding the inflammatory comments than his own pastor was boasting about on a DVD.

Credibility. Remember?

It's not about Wright. It's about a double standard by a constitutional lawyer. One for his pastor, and one for a radio host. It's about credibility. Remember?

I submit to you that Obama would still be a member of that church if he weren't running for POTUS. He was forced to leave, he didn't leave by choice.

WTF are you talking about? McCain supported the war, supported the surge, and supports withdrawing the troops when Iraq is stable and ready to take over. He hasn't wavered one bit on Iraq, and was openly critical of how the war was being waged. He was right, Bojangles wasn't.

Prove it.

That's my whole point. You liberals have spent the last 5 years shredding Bush on Iraq, and now you want to give Obama an excuse and a free pass to make the same kind of mistakes? Pulling out of Iraq under his original timetable would have arguably been a greater disaster than invading in the first place.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing isn't it?

Besides, I thought the left had already declared Obama a prophet?

__________________
Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Charles Krauthammer

You've Been Bamboozled

Your argument hinges upon the idea that the Imus situation and the Wright situation are exactly the same, or even similar, when the only similarity is that something inflamatory was said by each. Obama was young when he joined the church, and he stayed there for a long time, during most of which, there was never anything so inflamatory said, and when it was said, it was during a troubling time in which many people said stupid, rediculous things that had no merit all over the map.

I feel you have to concede two things here:

1. Imus and Wright did not say similar things, they did not have the same relationship to Obama, and they did not have the same relationship to their respective organizations. You can't dispute those three facts, and as such, cannot make the case that Obama's response absolutely has to be the same for him to have any credibility.

2. Your accusation that Obama had full knowledge of the remarks his pastor made are still unfounded. We never caught him with a DVD. We've never confirme his presence in church that day. We've never confirmed that he was even told about the remarks until they erupted in the media. What's more, the second he ackowledged their existance, he condemend them. How is that an innapropriate response?


It's even possible you're right, I would make that concession, but you must understand how difficult the ground Obama treads is.

When he did finally leave his church, the "liberal" media wouldn't shut up about how he'd thrown Wright under the bus, and the noise machine echoed the sentiment by saying that he must not have had real faith if he would leave his church so easilly. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

I thought trying to condemn the remarks without condeming his faith outright was a nice gesture, a hand that Wright himself dementadly slapped away. That Obama left after he was rebuked for trying to meet everyone halfway only shows that he has the compassion and patience to try to do the right thing, but the spine to do what is neccesary when the right thing doesn't pan out.

Actually it's a funny thing. You say that McCain makes his assessment based on the wise words of the Generals on the ground, yet Patreus has more recently spoken out against McCain's assertion that the war would only succeed with the surge. Who is he even agreeing with here?

Also, as a side note, I know we're arguing here, but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop refering to Barack Obama by a different insulting nickname in every paragraph. I've been kind to McCain and it doesn't help your points any to keep being cutesy with sobriquets.



McCain used to be a big supporter of amnesty and free-er immigration, now he speaks like he wants to lock up the borders. McCain used to lock horns with Bush about cuts to veteran's benefits, but now supports him. McCain used to be a staunch opponent to enhanced interrogation but now is behind it. McCain used to stand on the precedent of Roe V. Wade and was not an advocate of a constitutional abortion ban, yet now claims to support Bush in that regard. McCain used to oppose Bush's regressive tax-cuts, but now wants to make them permanent. He wouldn't fight to extend his own campaign finance legislation. He voiced opposition to politicians speaking at Bob Jones university, then went and did it. He used to be anti-ethonal, now he's pro-ethonal.

And that's just to name a few.


I won't liberals are still pretty pissed about Iraq. Even if it does become are stable beacon of hope, there's a moral argument to be had about whether or not it was right.

As for his original time table, he does get a pass because his recent change proves that he woudln't do it if it would obviously be a bad idea. In office, we can only expect each president to do the best with the information he has, and there's no reason to anticipate that Obama would totally ignore his generals or blindly commit to courses of action that were obviously wrong. You still seem to be trying to pigeonhole my arguments as though I'm saying Obama never changes his mind about anything. I'm saying he does, and that it's a good thing, not a liability.


It is. I'll be a lot of people are wishing they had it for most of Bush's agenda. Clinton left office with a high approval rating after being Impeached. I'll be stunned if Bush gets out with even 40% of the people behind him.


You know, I'm enough of a humorist at heart to appreciate and laugh all the jokes about Obama being the shining son of God. Our party has been so lacking in real leadership lately, that's honestly what it feels like sometimes. I hope you're capable of seeing the humor in your party's fallacies as well.

Obama is no leader. He may win, but he is not a leader. To say The Rev Wright is a non issue, because he dumped him a few months back, defies logic. Anyone with leadership skills, ala character, would have dumped him 20 years ago. Along with Rezko, Pfleger, Ayers, and the rest of the corrupt world he runs with. That is like murdering someone, getting away with it for 20 years, and then apologizing for it and expecting everyone to forget you ever did it. But hey, glad to see the media is doing their job vetting Palin, they have dug up a pregnant teen daughter, expired fishing license, husband DUI when he was 21, and troopergate where her ex brother in law threatened to put a bullet in her fathers head. She would be better off associating (and lying about how close they are) with terrorist, American haters, and people who steal from the government. The latter are just minor inconveinences, that the media does not need to waste their time with. I just hope Obama doesn't have a pregnant, undrage relative somewhere, then he would be in serious trouble.

"I think it's cute how Republicans keep trying to drag Wright back into the political fray when he's been discarded and ignored by everyone for months now."

"Oh, WHY won't that go away?"

lol... Americans have a long memory..Discarded and Ignored? Months?..No, its been filed away with the rest of the many reasons Why NOT to vote for Obama.

The reality of his 20 year stint programing listening to a dirtbag preacher won't go away in a few months.. Its already racked up to the memory of White voters, and more than a few Blacks.

__________________
"You are Republican, you would not understand what it is to support the platform of the Democratic party" = Cats Meow..
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

Neo-Nazi Fools.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ican_neo-Nazis

If it ain't broke, Don't Fix It!

Please tell me what change that Barry will make that will change Washington and this country?

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

The difference is:

1) REPUBLICANS ARE DEPENDENT FOLLOWERS: They are all wrapped around the axle on details of religion. Each little nunance is some big deal to them. They probably do change religion every time someone says a word that offends them. They actually think they must perform every task their minister assigns (even if it is to let the minister have sex with their wife and children Ref: David Korish).

2) LIBERALS ARE INDEPENDENT PERSONALITIES: They listen to the "high level" intent of a sermon, then take the parts they want and discard the rest.


It should not be surprising that the Republicans here are totally wrapped around the axel due to a few words that mean little to half of the population.

Plus, those words are much milder than when Falwell, Roberson and Hagee said 911 and Katrina were acts of God to punish people in those cities or punish America over all. Such beliefs are evidence of insanity.